An Executive Action Learning Program (SEAL) for Professional Development and Higher Degrees

Transcription

1 Ortrun Zuber-Skerritt An Executive Action Learning Program (SEAL) for Professional Development and Higher Degrees 1. Introduction Management education in universities, including graduate schools of management, has long been criticized for being too theoretical and irrelevant to the needs of industry, especially at the MBA, DBA and PhD levels (see for example the special issue of the Harvard Business Review, November-December 1992; Karpin Report 1995). In recent years, attempts to resolve this dilemma by forging closer links between higher education institutions and industry have identified a key source of the problem: failure to distinguish between two different types of learners who have different learning needs and capacities. One type are managers in or preparing for executive positions and the other are those preparing for academic positions in higher education. This distinction forces recognition of the need for two different education programs, each with their own aims, teaching and assessment methods, learning outcomes, and contributions to knowledge by graduates. Aspiring academics in departments or (graduate) schools of management need to acquire and contribute mainly to propositional or theoretical knowledge of 'grand theory', while practising managers/executives need to develop and explicate mainly 'grounded theory', that is theory grounded in data, based on practical experience and yielded to improve practice. Therefore, there must be a difference in the kind of thesis produced by the candidates in (1) Research Masters and PhD programs for future academics, and (2) MBA, DBA and other professional doctoral programs for executives and senior managers. The former thesis needs to demonstrate a contribution to grand theory, while the latter thesis must make a contribution to both grounded theory and improved practice. This difference needs to be clearly understood by the candidates, teaching academics and thesis examiners. The first kind of program - academic and theoretical - has been widely established and accepted in universities, but the second type - professional and practical - is still struggling to be recognized as being of equal value and merit. This paper aims to

2 264 ORTRUN ZUBER-SKERRITT contribute to a better understanding of the issues related to the necessity, relevance, appropriateness, validity and quality of a professional higher degrees program for senior managers and executives. The main message of this paper is based on my research, my reflective practice and established theories in the literature, such as theories on adult learning, experiential learning, action learning, the learning organization, grounded theory and personal construct theory. I argue in this paper that: Many senior managers and executives in leadership positions have unique knowledge and insights grounded in their experience accumulated over the years and worth making public (Glaser/Strauss 1967). This personal knowledge is often tacit and needs to be made conscious and explicit (Polanyi 1958). Explicating knowledge from practical experience (Kolb 1984) can be aided strategically in an action learning program that facilitates reflective practice (Schön 1983) and 'questioning insight' (Revans 1982; 1991) in small action learning groups or 'sets' of like-minded colleagues (called 'associates' rather than 'students') who have the same vision, aims and objectives to learn, theorize, make a significant contribution to their learning organization, and produce their life work as a monograph or thesis for a professional Masters or Doctoral degree (Zuber-Skerritt/Perry 2002). Institutions of postgraduate education (universities and business schools) need to extend their teaching and supervision from theses by research for academic Masters and PhD degrees to include alternative routes to higher degrees for practising senior managers through action learning, action research and other methods of reflective practice, appreciative inquiry and social construction (Perry/Zuber-Skerritt 1994). This paper presents an example of such a program called Senior Executive Action Learning (SEAL) Program leading to a professional Masters or Doctoral degree that I designed with my associates in the International Management Centres Association (IMCA) for professional development and accreditation. The unique features of the SEAL Program relate to the combination of methods used to facilitate the associates' reflection on their practice, theory/model building, and writing an explication of their previously published work. The paper is of special interest to experienced executives and management practitioners seeking systematic opportunities to develop and make explicit their tacit professional knowledge of innovative organizational management and leadership, to develop their ideas in practical dialogue with fellow executives in small groups, to write a thesis by explication of their 'public work' (i.e. previously written work made public, such as management documents, reports, and other publications) and to receive a Masters or Doctoral award in recognition of their work.

3 AN EXECUTIVE ACTION LEARNING PROGRAM (SEAL) 265 By way of definition, action learning means learning from and with each other by discussing what is not going well in one's work with people who are in a similar 'mess' and whom Revans (1982) calls 'comrades in adversity'. Explication means explaining and interpreting one's written work and developing new concepts, principles, theories or models. The structure of this paper is as follows. It starts with some background information and outlines the SEAL Program, including its goals, benefits, structure, activities, requirements, quality assurance, accreditation and limitations. It then discusses the issue of knowledge development through reflection on management practice and the methods used to facilitate the associates' knowledge development. Next, the paper deals with the associates' ultimate task of writing an explication of their personal theory, based on their previously published work, reflection on this work, and conceptualizing the results. Their aim is to make a significant contribution to their 'learning organization' and to 'grounded theory' in their particular field. Finally, the paper develops a model of knowledge explication. This model is of interest to both innovative management educators in the new paradigm of knowledge development and experienced practitioners/executives who seek to use an action learning group/program and reflective practice to produce a book, monograph or thesis, as the culmination of their career. 2. Background Problems have arisen when individual academics or a whole department in a university have resisted change: from the traditional, academic, mainly theoretical approach to management education in the last century, to a more customer-oriented, learner-centred, practical problem-based approach needed in this century. Although academic resistance to change can at times still be fierce and stifling, an increasing number of positive and innovative private business schools, such as the International Management Centres Association (IMCA) and the Business School Netherlands (BSN), now operate in many countries. These institutions use action learning, action research and process management approaches to executive development and management education. A number of progressive, innovative academics in university institutes have followed, using action learning and action research, such as: The Revans Institute for Action Learning and Research, University of Salford (UK) SCIAR - the Southern Cross University Institute of Action Research (Australia) SOLAR - the Social and Organizational Learning as Action Research team, University of the West of England, Bristol (UK) SOL - Society for Organizational Learning, based at Cornell University (USA)

4 266 ORTRUN ZUBER-SKERRITT Department of Management and Leadership Learning, University of Lancaster (UK) ARP - Action Research Program, Institute for Social Research, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne (Australia) ICMOE - International Centre for Management and Organizational Effectiveness, University of South Australia, Adelaide School of Management, University of Bath (UK) However, there is still powerful resistance from university academics to a practical work-based, life-long learning approach to higher degree programs in management. What could be the reasons? A typical example might throw light on this question. When invited by the Dean of a Graduate School of Management (GSM) in an Australian university in 1995, I presented the rationale and design of an innovative MBA (Executive) program by action learning. All relevant committees in the GSM, as well as the University's Education Committee and Academic Board formally approved my program submission. However, when the Dean (who had supported the idea of an action learning MBA) became ill and retired, he was replaced by a traditional academic (economist and positivist) who did everything in his power to oppose the implementation of the program. When I left, too, to accept a chair in another university, the program died a natural death, but my related published paper (Zuber-Skerritt 1995a) has stimulated others to implement action learning in MBA programs, as Chris Riley's (2005) PhD thesis shows. This experience has motivated me to present in this paper another example of an action learning program, this time at the Doctoral level (also available at the Master's level). The program is called 'Senior Executive Action Learning' or SEAL Program as outlined below. 3. The SEAL Program The Senior Executive Action Learning Program is a forum for leadership, vision and networking, a forum for those at the top of their game who want to continue to learn and make a significant contribution to their field. Participants learn from the forum's collective expertise and bring to fruition innovations through their business or organization and at the end gain a professional doctoral degree from the IMCA, the world's foremost action learning association. The first set (or group) of 14 associates started the SEAL Program in the UK in 2003, to be followed by further sets in Europe, Australia and South Africa Goals The SEAL Program is designed for a select group of executives working in a variety of industries, private and public sector organizations, small and medium size businesses. The group's goal is to share knowledge in its members' fields of en-

5 AN EXECUTIVE ACTION LEARNING PROGRAM (SEAL) 267 deavour and to have a major positive impact on knowledge development in their organizations and industries or communities. At the end of the program, individual group members will have gained: Recognition for their previous work achievements and as self-managed leaders Improved profitability, effectiveness and learning capacity of their organization Knowledge explication for an accelerated, professional higher degree: DPhil (Doctor of Philosophy, but not PhD), or DMgt (Doctor of Management), or DLitt (Doctor of Letters). Self-managed or self-organizing leadership is a new kind of leadership that complements and supports strategic and operational leadership, but not from an outside perspective (to study, manipulate and control the organization as if it were a machine). Instead, the leader sees the organization from within and with characteristics of a living system, where people are actively involved in discussions, negotiations and agreements, sharing information and working coherently, energetically, and effectively (Knowles 2001). This kind of leadership goes beyond the leadership concept developed by Dubrin/ Dalgish (2003) on the basis of the voluminous research literature about leadership (with examples of effective leadership in action and skill development guidelines). For their framework they used the simple formula: L=f (l, gm, s) - that is, the leadership process is a function of the leader, group members (as followers), and other situational variables. This is based on the theory that leadership effectiveness depends on four sets of variables: Leader characteristics and traits, leader behavior and style, group member characteristics, and the internal and external environment. While self-managed leadership might benefit from knowledge of the research literature, an important additional requirement for a self-organizing leader is the ability to use processes and methods of guiding and transforming organizations into learning organizations, as defined by Senge (1990). The goals of the SEAL Program (and the aims of this paper) are to present a model of these processes and methods Benefits The SEAL Program provides associates with an opportunity to work explicitly on enhancing their own personal development and their management and selforganizing leadership skills as defined by Knowles (2001) above. Specific benefits to participants in the Program include: Gaining personal recognition as a leader in their field Gaining institutional recognition of their organization as a learning organization Membership of IMCA, a worldwide professional association, and access to over 1600 full-text, on-line management journals (e.g. Harvard Business Review; The Learning Organization; Journal of Workplace Learning; Journal of Knowledge Management; etc.)

6 268 ORTRUN ZUBER-SKERRITT Help with Action Learning Publishing Access to global electronic discussion lists on Action Research (ARLIST) and Action Learning (ACTLIST) and to a course on Action Research and Evaluation Online (AREOL) Internationalization: Opportunities to work with associates from other countries who have similar interests, providing potential to enhance understanding and develop wider international perspectives on significant issues. Participants can maintain contact and discussion via a meeting place on the Internet The Program Structure The Program is structured over a minimum period of two years. Individuals may decide the length of the program best suited to their own arrangements. The Program has the following elements: Introductory information Start-up processes providing a structure and future direction, vision and team building, examples and evidence of successful action learning programs, a common understanding of the principles of effective learning, knowledge creation, leadership, action research, and organizational transformation Access to specialist resources through IMCA's web-based Master's and Doctoral courseware Opportunity to participate in public workshops sharing and comparing strategy with those facing similar business challenges Sub-group meetings with and without mentor (self-organized) Individual or team projects, each resulting in a book, monograph or written paper Public presentation of project results Personal mentoring and supervision of written work by qualified faculty staff Publication of written work Awards and celebration. IMCA graduation ceremonies are held in a different location each year, e.g. Amsterdam in 2000, Colorado in 2001, Edinburgh in 2002, Helsinki in 2003, and Cape Town in These activities are designed and facilitated to assist associates in: Using action learning principles to gain insights into their own and each other's experiences and achievements, recognizing all processes and outcomes, whether successful or otherwise, as valuable learning opportunities Discussing their most significant workplace challenges, tasks, problems, issues or concerns. Participants draw from these discussions to determine the content of their projects, the topics they will select, and the help they need to complete their thesis Developing their capacity for constructive reflection

7 AN EXECUTIVE ACTION LEARNING PROGRAM (SEAL) 269 Learning how to write for a particular readership, using precise, concise and clear language to present a cogent thesis by explication Producing publishable work under strong guidance and mentoring from recognized, highly qualified specialists in action learning and action research Requirements Entry requirements for the SEAL Program are: Master's level award or its demonstrated equivalent Three referees' reports At least eight years' managerial experience Commitment to a roughly 24-month action learning program that requires associates to participate actively in workshops, learning group discussions and regular communication with their mentor (supervisor) and fellow set members by e- mail, telephone, or face-to-face (where possible). To this effect, associates must sign a 'Personal Agreement' form (see Prior to commencing the Program, each associate must submit a written account of about 3,000 words on the role and purpose of their organization, explaining their current job description and its significance. This account (entitled OOM - Own Organization Monograph) is for sharing with fellow associates in their set. With guidance and support, over the period of candidacy, associates are required to submit: 1. Their selected previously published works and management documents (accredited for up to one third of the degree). These may include management reports, planning documents (marketing and business plans), training and development resources, refereed publications, such as articles and conference papers, that demonstrate and explore common themes; together with a proposal for their explication 2. An explication in at least 10,000 words of the key issues involved in their work at (a) above (assessment is based on quality rather than length of explication) 3. A published monograph of at least 4,000 words on the basis of their explication at (b) above. Alternatively, they may choose to publish a book in lieu of an explication. They also have to offer a public workshop in their chosen field and attend a Viva Voce (oral explanation/presentation and debate). All these requirements are published by the Global Action Research Centre (GARC), a dedicated Web-based resource for doctoral associates. IMCA/GARC uses the Internet for all its global activities and puts associates, graduates and faculty in direct contact with one another to share challenges and receive advice and comment.

8 270 ORTRUN ZUBER-SKERRITT 3.5. Quality Assurance in the SEAL Program Here I explain how quality in the SEAL Program is assured through: High quality, experienced staff Limiting admission to the Program to associates who have a high level of work experience, knowledge and skills Assessment and examination procedures, including peer-reviewed publications of international standing. Qualified staff All faculty staff in IMCA who teach in the SEAL Program are highly qualified. For example, the inaugural International Director of Studies has over 25 years experience in academic staff development; postgraduate research training and supervision; course design, development and evaluation; and quality assurance as a member of higher education R&D units and of various Program and Education Committees at several universities. She has obtained three doctoral degrees (2 PhDs, 1 DLitt) in different fields and has published widely. She has trained more than 500 academics and senior administrators in action learning and action research and an equal number in postgraduate supervision. She is, therefore, familiar with and able to enhance the professional competence of mentors for the participants in this SEAL Program and to provide overall quality assurance. The present UK Program Director and Set Advisor spent the first part of her career in senior line management in the public sector, in the Prison and Social Services. She has worked with the IMCA since its foundation in 1983 and developed her understanding of Action Learning working with its founder, Reg Revans. Her major area of expertise is the design and architecture of action learning programs designed to achieve maximum return on investment and increased personal and professional effectiveness. Her clients include Shell, Du Pont, Westpac Banking Corporation, Bank of Australia, Bekaert, BUPA, Fina, and Swan Hunter Ship Builders. She was IMCA's first Senior Tutor, responsible for the development of IMCA faculty worldwide and she is now Professor of Managerial Communications in IMCA. She has a Certificate in Education from the University of Birmingham, an MBA from Cranfield and a DPhil from IMCA. The participants themselves are experts and leaders in professional and organizational development, learning with and from each other in the Program. Assessment and examination The Explication and Viva Voce are assessed by supervisors and external examiners who are experienced in supervision and examination of professional doctoral theses, as well as in action learning, action research and knowledge explication. Quality is assured through publication, a requirement not enforced by universities. IMCA's

9 AN EXECUTIVE ACTION LEARNING PROGRAM (SEAL) 271 emphasis is on quality, not quantity of words. Quality standards are comparable with those of a higher degree program in a traditional university (Zuber-Skerritt/ Howell 1993), but the aims and criteria are different. As mentioned earlier, a university PhD is required to be more academic/theoretical, while a professional doctorate is required to be more scholarly/practical in outcome and approach. Table 1 presents an overview of the SEAL Program. 1/3 Recognition of Prior Learning/Public Work 2/3 Personal Explication of Public Work Viva Voce Publications Meetings Public Workshop Explication Defense of Explication Management reports Annual reports Strategic business plans Keynote addresses Conference papers Training and development couses/manuals Board proposals Client/stakeholder reports/ evaluations Co-authorship or supervised work etc. 4 days of workshops (including Start-up) Individual mentoring Sub-set discussions (selforganized) International meetings with other sets (optional) Support network for concept development, writing and publishing To be conducted on associate s own topic and assessed by mentor, peers, audience and self Trial and presentation of ideas Of publishable standard >10,000 words examined by mentor and second (external) examiner Published Monograph >4,000 words Quality assured Oral examination and debate with at least two examiners Evidence of own work Table 1: Overview of the Senior Executive Action Learning Program Accrediation The International Management Centres Association (IMCA) is dedicated to career development through action learning and has run programs for more than 30,000

10 272 ORTRUN ZUBER-SKERRITT managers in five languages in over 40 countries in the past two decades. The organization provides programs from Certificate to Doctoral level, through both face-to-face and Internet communication. IMCA in England is an accredited institution of the British Accreditation Council (BAC) for Independent Further and Higher Education, which gives IMCA the endorsement of the British Council. IMCA's newly established University of Action Learning (UAL) with its headquarters in Boulder, Colorado, USA, is listed and approved by the State of Colorado Commission on Higher Education. It is also independently accredited by the Washington-based Distance Education Training Council (DETC). DETC is recognized by the US Department of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) as a national accrediting agency in the USA. Limitations The above accreditations are generally not recognized by traditional universities. This should not matter, but it does. Most associates and/or their sponsoring organizations generally prefer accreditation to a traditional university, rather than to the institutions identified above. Yet, our associates would not enrol in a management education degree in a traditional university. They are interested in learning and developing only the professional knowledge and skills that are generic and transferable to totally different situations and problems, and in publishing a book or monograph as a result of this learning and knowledge creation. In sum, they want to have the learning cake and to eat it, too. Therefore, IMCA has adjusted to learner needs and entered into agreements with several universities in the UK and Australia so that these universities will validate or accredit IMCA's degree programs. In my view, however, these agreements have been problematic because there are still many academics who are ignorant of, or feel threatened by, the paradigm of experiential learning and knowledge creation/ explication in postgraduate management education. Problems have arisen because of this. For example, there have been cases involving inappropriate examiners who used the criteria for an academic PhD thesis to assess a professional doctoral thesis. On the other hand, in an evaluation study (Zuber-Skerritt/Howell 1993), the external examiners from universities, who had taught in IMCA programs part-time and understood the criteria for assessment, testified in their examiners' reports and interviews that in their view the theses by Masters and Doctoral candidates in IMCA over five years were of the same quality as university theses, or better. In this paper I can present only a written, static description of the SEAL Program. In actual life, the SEAL experience is dynamic, energizing and life changing. Recognizing the richness of this experience is necessary to fully understand the SEAL Program's unique advantages, to be able to become a self-organizing leader in a

11 AN EXECUTIVE ACTION LEARNING PROGRAM (SEAL) 273 learning organization, and to develop the skills, motivation and energy for knowledge creation, development, and explication in written form. 4. Knowledge Development Through Reflection on Management Practice Why is an emphasis on reflection necessary? We all use reflection in our everyday lives, but unless we consciously apply and facilitate this reflection, we lose out on much of its potentially effective results. Over the past three decades, the traditional division between theory (created by theorists) and practice (by practitioners who apply the theory) has been revolutionized by the concept of 'grounded theory' (Glaser/Strauss 1967; Strauss/Corbin 1990), i.e. theory grounded in qualitative data. Such theory can be created by practitioners on the basis of their concrete experience by reflecting critically on this experience and formulating general concepts that need to be tested in new situations and lead to a new cycle of concrete experience, reflection, conceptualization and testing (Kolb 1984). Meanwhile, it has been widely accepted that there is not only one type of knowledge - scientific or prepositional or theoretical knowledge produced by scientists, researchers and theorists in laboratories and universities. There is also practical knowledge produced by practitioners, and experiential or existential knowledge produced by action researchers as 'reflective practitioners' (Schön 1983). It has also been accepted that professional practice can be explored, developed and better understood through reflection on this professional practice. But there is little known about how to facilitate reflection in an effective and systematic way so that it results in better understanding of one's practice, how to develop it further, how to articulate the positive and negative factors affecting the quality of work, and how to identify and conceptualize the underlying principles. This paper suggests a number of opportunities and methods for senior executives to use in order to reflect on and distil the essence of their contribution to their professional field and workplace. In recent years, many works have been published on postgraduate thesis writing and research methods, including action research. However, the literature on professional doctoral thesis by explication is almost non-existent. The present paper takes up the challenge to contribute to knowledge in this new field of higher education by discussing: The concept of reflection Selected methods for facilitating reflection, conceptualization and theory/model building and Writing an explication of previously published work First we consider the concept of reflection.

12 274 ORTRUN ZUBER-SKERRITT 4.1. The Concept of Reflection The word 'reflection' - of Latin origin reflectere: to bend or turn back, to bring back - is defined by the New Macquarie Dictionary (1981, 1453) as: " (1) the act of reflecting; (2) the state of being reflected; (3) an image; representation; counterpart; (4) a fixing of the thoughts on something; careful consideration; (5) a thought occurring in consideration or meditation ". Applied to the SEAL Program, associates need to turn back their thoughts to bring back memories of past work experience. They need to be actively involved in (1) the act of reflecting and (4) fixing their thoughts on their thesis during the whole program so that their explication becomes (2) a reflection and (3) representation of their previous achievements in relation to their public work which are the very basis and raw data of their thesis by explication. The associates' final results and contribution to knowledge concern (5) a thought that can be expressed in one sentence that is their 'thesis'. We distinguish between individual and collective reflection. Reflection can be aided by asking and responding to questions, and certain systematic methods and processes can be used effectively to make tacit knowledge explicit, for example, in individual interviews and group meetings. Being a member of an action learning 'set' or action research group allows our associates in the IMCA as 'reflective practitioners' to focus their reflection in a more systematic way, to set aside time for professional development and to be open to further development of their ideas in theory and practice. The set/group provides a 'reflective space'. Reflective space involves associates creating the opportunity, the time and place for reflecting on management practice with others and with themselves. In our experience, reflective space does not happen by chance, it needs to be designed, facilitated and monitored by professional development agents, if such a space or spaces are to lead to successful and sustainable development of reflective thinking, analysis and synthesis. The idea of an action learning set is to provide participants with the opportunity to work in pairs as well as in small groups. For the purpose of an explication, an action learning set is guided by a 'set advisor' who facilitates the processes of learning, research and writing. The first step is for each individual set member to identify the area and theme(s) they would like to explore in their professional practice and the new knowledge and insights they would like to gain. We may term these the 'learning target' or 'expected learning outcome', which can be achieved by using various methods to facilitate the process.

13 AN EXECUTIVE ACTION LEARNING PROGRAM (SEAL) Methods of Facilitating Reflection and Theory Building Once the expected learning outcomes have been clearly identified, reflection on professional practice and theory building may be facilitated by the following methods and techniques: Individual coaching Collegial interviews Reflection journals Action learning 'set' meetings Model building Individual coaching A crucial step towards an explication is defining the topic and focal question(s) and the significance of the work, that is, why it is worth explicating, how it is new, original and unique and for whom it yields benefit (target audience). Since it is ultimately the associates themselves who must determine the focus and scope of their individual work and original contribution to knowledge in their field, they need help in the beginning to make their personal, tacit knowledge explicit, first orally and then in writing their proposal. This is best achieved through the method of coaching and asking probing questions. The best coaches are people with a sound professional knowledge of: Research and thesis writing in general; and explication writing in particular The difference between a PhD and a Professional Doctorate (DPhil or DMgt by explication) How to help the associates to select their best and most suitable published or public work as the basis and raw data for their explication Action learning and action research Qualitative research methods in the social sciences Postgraduate supervision. People, who can successfully fulfil the role of individual coaching, may be in positions like Director of Studies, supervisor, set advisor and/or external consultant. It is important to point out here that the coach must be familiar with the concepts, processes and methods of coaching. To elicit the associates' tacit, implicit knowledge of what they want to reflect on, work out and write up, the coach needs to adopt a Socratic approach. The Greek philosopher, Socrates (circa BC), taught his disciples by asking probing questions. A coach, too, needs to ask questions instead of giving advice, so that the answers are always generated and formulated by the associates themselves. Knowledge is literally pulled out of their minds - making mostly unconscious knowledge into conscious knowledge. However, the associates' own ideas, reflections, intentions and motivations should be the result of the coaching sessions, not those of the coach. In this way, associates will gain a better understanding and more energy and enthusiasm for their explication and

14 276 ORTRUN ZUBER-SKERRITT thus, a higher chance of completing the explication successfully and swiftly. This 'questioning insight' (Revans 1991) can then be further developed in collegial interviews, reflection journals, workshops and action learning set meetings. Collegial interviews Collegial interviews conducted in pairs provide a strong framework for individual reflection and learning. In each pair associates take turns in playing the part of interviewer and interviewee. Questions relating to the interviewee's learning target may be asked in semi-structured interviews, designed by the interviewer, then negotiated and agreed upon, and possibly tape-recorded for later recall and reflection. These semi-structured interviews are conversational in style and encourage an approach to learning through reflection on practice and, immediately after the interview, through writing and describing their world in their own terms. On average each pair might meet about six times per year. After each meeting, the interviewer writes a brief 'pen portrait' of and for his/her partner who will receive a mirror image of him/herself from a different perspective. All set members then present their brief pen portraits to the whole action learning set to improve understanding, communication and networking among themselves. Reflection journals Reflection journals or diaries or logbooks are also very strong heuristic tools, for reflection as well as for formulating the essence of this reflection in written form. Without a journal, reflection is often transitory and vanishes in the sub-conscious mind where it becomes part of our tacit knowledge. A systematic diary writing process facilitates the construction or creation of new knowledge and enables associates to make their tacit knowledge more explicit. In IMCA, associates learn how to keep a systematic journal. That is how to record a significant event or events in their journal; how to reflect on these events and on their learning and write down both their reflections and the actions they plan to take as a result of their reflection and learning. They can then tick off the actions when they have completed them, or when action is no longer necessary. It is recommended that associates review their journal entries weekly. The important records need to be kept and the rest trashed, but trashed items should be set aside in a folder in case they need to be recovered later. A similar culling process should also be conducted monthly. In this way, the data in the reflection journal is continuously reduced and therefore more manageable. Other benefits of keeping a reflection diary in such a systematic manner are the associates' learning from experience (Kolb 1984), becoming more effective and reflective practitioners (Schön 1983), developing learning principles and personal theories (Kelly

15 AN EXECUTIVE ACTION LEARNING PROGRAM (SEAL) ; 1963), and taking appropriate action. The diagram in Figure 1 is a model of a systematic diary reflection process. Significant Events (recorded) Action (planned & ticked off) Reflection (on events & learning) Weekly Review Trash Monthly Review Trash Outcomes Learning from experience (Kolb 1984) Taking appropriate action Developing learning principles Being a more effective and reflective practitioner (Schön 1983) Figure 1: The process of keeping a reflection journal Goodnough (2003, 43) has used the reflection journal with science teachers in Canada to maintain a log of events and to record personal thoughts, ideas and observations of events: The journal writing encouraged us to make our thinking explicit, thus providing a forum for 'reflection-on-action', a conscious and deliberate form of thinking, feeling and talking that occurs after events have occurred or before events may occur (Schön 1983). Thoughts and ideas recorded in the journals were shared at action research meetings, another forum for critical reflection and discourse. My journal was a place for me to reflect on the evolution of the action research process, as well as on how I could best support the research participants. Although reflection journals and other reflection tools are for individual reflection, they contain notes of set meetings and can be used in subsequent meetings. Action learning set meetings The frequency of set meetings can be negotiated with the associates. Generally, they are held at least six times per year and are of half-day to two-day duration. They provide space for both individual and collective reflection. It is important to

16 278 ORTRUN ZUBER-SKERRITT note that there are two essential factors affecting the success or failure of set meetings with busy people: early planning and commitment. It is the program director/facilitator's task to negotiate and schedule the meetings and have them recorded in the associates' diaries at the very beginning of the action learning program and to ensure that these meetings are regarded as professional obligations rather than 'add-ons' or private indulgencies. It is also important that all associates have the opportunity to identify and share their learning target and expected learning outcomes with the group and to make a commitment to themselves and other set members to attend all meetings. In most cases, it is worthwhile having team building exercises at the beginning of the program to establish mutual trust and an atmosphere in which everyone can be at ease with their colleagues, free to 'think aloud', willing to share problems and 'what is not going well' in their work as 'comrades in adversity' (Revans 1982) and to comfortably accept periods of silence. The agenda for group meetings can be very broad. Associates may decide on the purpose, theme(s) and learning targets for each meeting, i.e. at the end of one meeting they decide on the agenda for the next meeting. However, enough space should be left for raising current issues within each associate's practice for professional dialogue within the set and for sharing useful resources, such as books and articles that are of interest to all associates. Writing and presenting the final draft of the 'Explication' is a topic that needs to be discussed at least once and, if not before, then in the final meeting. Model building Mental models - both theoretical and process models - can also be very useful for reflection on practice. Most action research theses aim to improve practice and to develop theories or models for professional and/or organizational development and change. In an earlier book chapter (Zuber-Skerritt 1995b), I presented 30 models for: Learning and knowledge creation Action learning Action research Organizational change and development and Thesis research and writing These were models that my associates and I found useful in our research, teaching, supervision and consultancy. Since this book is out of print, I repeat some of my ideas here about developing models that I define as simplified, but useful representations of complex concepts or systems in two- or three-dimensional diagrams. The process of model building is important, especially for research students and associates who can adapt existing models and create their own mental models on the basis of their research. All associates at doctoral level - whether PhD or Profes-

17 AN EXECUTIVE ACTION LEARNING PROGRAM (SEAL) 279 sional Doctorates - are required to make an original contribution to knowledge in the field. Abstract concepts and generalizations are often easier to represent in the form of a graphic design (e.g. flow-charts, diagrams). Model building is a selective process of establishing concept patterns and relationships and of gradually arriving at a simple representation of concept maps. This process of model building involves the following activities: Identifying core categories, issues or problems (and sub-categories) Patterning the relationships between (sub-)categories Drawing various shapes (e.g. circles, spirals, square or round boxes) Indicating linkages and influences by drawing lines and arrows between concepts and labelling the relationships Experimenting, soliciting feedback from others, and revising the model until the best way of representing the data, results or conclusions is achieved The representation should be as clear to others as it is to the researcher who constructed it. Our associates - and reflective practitioners in general - are well advised to create their own representations of both their existing ideas and the concepts, theories and philosophies they seek to develop. Useful references to model building, including concept mapping or mind mapping, grounded theory building and qualitative data interpretation, can be found in Chenitz/Swanson (1986), Novak/Gowin (1984), Riley (1990), Rafferty/Fletcher (1993) and on the Internet: We now turn to writing and publishing the explication of published work. 5. Explication of Published Work Reflecting here on my experience of writing and publishing an explication of my published work (Zuber-Skerritt 1993), I realize that I could have learned and achieved much more, had I had the opportunity of being a member of an action learning set with all the advantages of 'reflective space', interaction with other reflective practitioners, and with the systematic facilitation of reflection. Instead, I was on my own, analyzing and 'thinking' more than reflecting. What helped me most was the 'Snake Technique' I used when reflecting on my professional career path, using each turn/bend of the snake as a milestone in my career, both positive and negative events. It was from failures much more than from successes in my professional life that I learned and grew most. I now understand that I was awarded my DLitt degree on the basis of the strength of my publications, rather than on my explication. In those pioneering days, few examiners themselves knew how to write and examine an explication. Times have changed. Now guidelines for associates are published on the Global Action Research Centre (GARC) Website (

18 280 ORTRUN ZUBER-SKERRITT However, I have further advice for associates, namely to: Attend all scheduled meetings, because here they learn more than they realize, not only for their explication, but also for their professional life Use a biographical database for references (e.g. 'Endnote' available for both IBM and Macintosh) - you save a lot of time! Write a detailed proposal and seek feedback before starting to write the explication Keep a reflection diary and keep writing regularly from the very start to avoid writers' block Find 'critical friends' with whom to conduct collegial interviews or discuss any issues or concerns Keep focused and complete the first draft of the explication quickly without attending to the niceties of the language; get feedback; then revise and complete the final draft. 6. Conclusions To conclude, the SEAL Program can be summarized in a diagrammatical model of knowledge explication. I have developed this model in relation to the Program's three main concepts and goals that can be achieved through action learning and reflection on practice: 'self-managed leadership' and 'knowledge explication' in and for the 'learning organization', as shown in the upper half of Figure 2. Concepts Activities Self-managed Leadership The Learning Organization SEAL Program Knowledge Re-creation & Explication Concepts Activities Selection of Own Documents (Public Work) Public Workshop Presentation Thesis by Explication Viva-Voce DPhil or DMgt Award Figure 2: A conceptual model of the SEAL Program

19 AN EXECUTIVE ACTION LEARNING PROGRAM (SEAL) 281 First, the SEAL Program promotes self-managed leadership required in the 21st century for a fast changing, global world. While self-managed or self-organizing leadership (Knowles 2001) might benefit from knowledge of the research literature, such as the theories, examples and guidelines presented by Dubrin/Dalgish (2003), an important additional requirement is the ability to use processes and methods of guiding and transforming organizations and their leaders, so that they are able to self-organize or self-manage when faced with sudden and totally new challenges or problems that have never been researched. Action learning, as practised in the SEAL Program, is one effective methodology, as Dotlich/Noel (1998) and others have demonstrated convincingly. Second, the SEAL Program fosters knowledge (re-)creation and explication by facilitating the associates' reflection on their practice and previous public work. Processes through which associates make their implicit knowledge explicit result in their development of 'questioning insight' and life-long learning. Methods include individual coaching, collegial interviews, reflection journals, action learning set meetings, and model building. Third, the above two concepts are essential for developing and maintaining a 'Learning Organization' in the sense of Senge's (1990) five disciplines: Systems Thinking Personal Mastery Mental Models Building Shared Vision Team Learning Systems thinking integrates the remaining four components and underpins the idea of the Learning Organization. In this paper I have shown how the SEAL Program focuses on all five disciplines of the learning organization. Associates acquire personal mastery of both the knowledge and skills they need to develop and sustain a learning organization, not only as self-managed leaders themselves, but also as facilitators of processes that develop other leaders' learning capability to become action learners, reflective practitioners, knowledge creators (not just 'knowledge workers') and self-organized managers and leaders. Upon successful completion of the SEAL Program, associates are able to perform the tasks of top management in a learning organization: inducing and promoting the action learning processes and methods of relevant parts and key personnel in the organization who will then filter this learning throughout all levels and departments. They are masters of building mental models, a shared vision and team learning. In sum, Figure 2 shows how the main concepts of self-managed leadership, knowledge (re-)creation and explication in the new learning organization are realized in the SEAL Program through the main activities outlined in this paper, summarized

20 282 ORTRUN ZUBER-SKERRITT in Table 1, and culminating in a thesis by knowledge explication for a doctoral award. It will be the purpose of another paper we will prepare in about a year's time to evaluate the Programme and to discuss to what extent the associates will actually have become better and more effective executives and their companies better learning organizations as a result of their participation in the SEAL Programme. I finish with a comment of a former CEO (chief executive officer) and associate in the SEAL Programme, Bob Mackenzie, who critiqued the first draft of this paper: "Thank you for the opportunity to read and comment on your paper. It's been a great help in crystallising some of my own reflections about the programme, about its potential, about its challenges for me, and about its - and my - future. I think that your paper will be of great help to those who are contemplating joining a future cohort of the SEAL programme, as well as to thoughtful and innovative members of the academy. It's certainly a great contribution to extending the boundaries of thinking within management and organisational discourse" ( 22/5/4). References Chenitz, W. C./Swanson, J. M. (1986): From Practice to Grounded Theory: Qualitative Data in Nursing. Menlo Park, California. Dotlich, D. L./Noel, J. L. (1998): Action Learning: How the World's Top Companies Are Recreating Their Leaders and Themselves. San Francisco. Dubrin, A. J./Dalgish, C. (2003): Leadership: An Australasian Focus. Brisbane. Glaser, B./Strauss, B. (1967): The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York. Goodnough, K. (2003): Facilitating action research in the context of science education: Reflections of a university researcher. In: Educational Action Research 11 (1), Karpin, D. (1995): Enterprising Nation: Renewing Australia's Managers to Meet the Challenges of the Asia-Pacific Century. Report of the Industry Task Force on Leadership and Management Skills. Canberra. Kelly, G. A. (1955): The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York. Kelly, G. A. (1963): A Theory of Personality. New York. Knowles, R. (2001): Self-organizing leadership: A way of seeing what is happening in organizations and a pathway to coherence. In: Emergence 3 (4), Kolb, D. A. (1984): Experiencial Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs. Novak, J. D./Gowin, D. B. (1984): Learning to Learn. Cambridge. Perry, C./Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1994): Doctorates by action research for senior practising managers. In: Management Learning 1 (1), Polanyi, M. (1958): Personal Knowledge. London.