Term Paper on Action Learning

Submitted to: Prof. Kandalgaonkar Action Research

Context

The words action research, reverse the actual sequence (Brown, 1972). In practice, research is

conducted first and then action is taken as a direct result of what the research data are

interpreted to indicate. As French and Bell (1978) have pointed out, action research came from

two independent sources, one a person of action, John Collier, who was commissioner of

Indian Affairs from 1933 to 1945, the other a person of research, Kurt Lewin. Collier worked to

bring about change in ethnic relations and was a strong advocate of conducting research to

determine the “central areas of needed action”. He coined the label action research.

Lewin, a scholar, theoretician and researcher, pulled it all together when he stated that there is

“no action without research and no research without action” (Lewin, 1946). The action research

project that is perhaps most relevant to OD was conducted by John R.P. French and his client,

Lester Coch. Their famous study of workers’ resistance to change in a pajama factory not only

illustrated action research at its best but provided the theoretical basis for what we now call

participative management (Coch and French, 1948).

Evolution of Action Research

Origins in late 1940s

Kurt Lewin is generally considered the ‘father’ of action research. A German social and

experimental psychologist, and one of the founders of the Gestalt school, he was concerned

with social problems, and focused on participative group processes for addressing conflict,

crises, and change, generally within organizations. Initially, he was associated with the Center

for Group Dynamics at MIT in Boston, but soon went on to establish his own National Training

Laboratories.

Lewin first coined the term ‘action research’ in his 1946 paper “Action Research and Minority

Problems”, characterizing Action Research as “a comparative research on the conditions and

effects of various forms of social action and research leading to social action”, using a process

of “a spiral of steps, each of which is composed of a circle of planning, action, and fact-finding

about the result of the action”.

Eric Trist, another major contributor to the field from that immediate post-war era, was a social

psychiatrist whose group at the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London engaged in

Submitted by: Surabhi Mairal IMDR/PGDHR2 Roll No. 11

1


applied social research, initially for the civil repatriation of German prisoners of war. He and his

colleagues tended to focus more on large-scale, multi-organizational problems.

Both Lewin and Trist applied their research to systemic change in and between organizations.

They emphasized direct professional - client collaboration and affirmed the role of group

relations as basis for problem-solving. Both were avid proponents of the principle that

decisions are best implemented by those who help make them.

Current Types of Action Research

By the mid-1970s, the field had evolved, revealing 4 main ‘streams’ that had emerged:

traditional, contextural (action learning), radical, and educational action research.

Traditional Action Research stemmed from Lewin’s work within organizations and

encompasses the concepts and practices of Field Theory, Group Dynamics, T-Groups, and the

Clinical Model. The growing importance of labour-management relations led to the application

of action research in the areas of Organization Development, Quality of Working Life (QWL),

Socio-technical systems (e.g., Information Systems), and Organizational Democracy. This

traditional approach tends toward the conservative, generally maintaining the status quo with

regards to organizational power structures.

Contextural Action Research, also sometimes referred to as Action Learning, is an approach

derived from Trist’s work on relations between organizations. It is contextural, insofar as it

entails reconstituting the structural relations among actors in a social environment; domain-

based, in that it tries to involve all affected parties and stakeholders; holographic, as each

participant understands the working of the whole; and it stresses that participants act as project

designers and co-researchers. The concept of organizational ecology and the use of search

conferences come out of contextural action research, which is more of a liberal philosophy, with

social transformation occurring by consensus and normative incrementalism.

The Radical stream, which has its roots in Marxian ‘dialectical materialism’ and the praxis

orientations of Antonio Gramsci, has a strong focus on emancipation and the overcoming of

power imbalances. Participatory Action Research, often found in liberationist movements and

international development circles, and Feminist Action Research both strive for social

transformation via an advocacy process to strengthen peripheral groups in society.


2


A fourth stream, that of Educational Action Research, has its foundations in the writings of

John Dewey, the great American educational philosopher of the 1920s and 30s, who believed

that professional educators should become involved in community problem-solving. Its

practitioners, not surprisingly, operate mainly out of educational institutions, and focus on

development of curriculum, professional development, and applying learning in a social

context. It is often the case that university-based action researchers work with primary and

secondary school teachers and students on community projects.

Wendell French (1969), Frohman, Sashkin, and Kavanagh (1976), and Schien (1980) made the

action research model directly applicable and relevant to the OD process.

The use of the method proliferated in the 1970s and is being used with some variation by

engineers, managers, sociologists, economists, policy-makers, psychologists, and organization

behaviorists.

Action learning is an educational process whereby the participant studies their own actions

and experience in order to improve performance. This is done in conjunction with others, in

small groups called action learning sets. It is proposed as particularly suitable for adults, as it

enables each person to reflect on and review the action they have taken and the learning

points arising. This should then guide future action and improve performance.

The method stands in contrast with the traditional teaching methods that focus on the

presentation of knowledge and skills. Action learning focuses on research into action taken and

knowledge emerges as a result that should lead to the improvement of skills and performance.

It has strong links to various philosophies relating to existentialism, the psychology of self-

understanding and self-development, and the sociology of group based learning.

Action research attempts to meet the dual goals of making action more effective and building a

body of scientific knowledge around that action. Kurt Lewin, proposed action research as a new

methodology for behavioral science. Lewin believed that research on action programs, was

imperative if progress were to be made in solving social problem. According to Lewin, action

research would address several issues simultaneously; the pressing need for greater

knowledge about the causes and dynamics of social ills; the need to understand the laws of

social change; the need for greater collaboration and joint inquiry between scientists and

practitioners; the need for “richer” data about real-world problems; the need to discover

workable, practical solutions to problems; and the need to discover general laws explaining

complex social phenomena.


3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-help

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self-understanding&action=edit&redlink=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self-understanding&action=edit&redlink=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational


Action Research is a strategy for generating and acquiring knowledge that managers can use

to define an organization’s desired future state and to plan a change program that allows the

organization to reach that state. The techniques and practices of action research, developed by

experts, help managers to unfreeze an organization, move it to its new, desired position, and

refreeze it so that the benefits of the change are retained.

Shepard highlights the relations among goals (objectives), planning and action in his model,

which is an important feature of action research. Both he and French emphasize that action

research is research inextricably related to action; it is research with a purpose, that is, to guide

present and future action. In Shepard’s model, the role of the consultant/change agent takes on

a special form.

Each of these action research hypotheses has a goal, and each has an action or procedure, for

achieving the goal. Additional work would be done to clarify and specify the goal and the

actions, and then the hypotheses would be systematically tested (implemented) one at a time

and, through data collection, evaluated for their effects.

Another distinguishing feature of action research is collaboration between individuals inside the

system-clients and individuals outside the system-change agents or researchers. Almost all

authors stress the collaborative nature of action research, with some seeing it as the primary

reason for the model’s efficacy. A widely used belief states that people support what they have

helped to create. Such a belief, highly congruent with the collaborative aspect of action

research, impels practitioners and researchers to cooperate extensively with the client system

members.

Shani and Bushe observe: “It is the development of high-quality relations between action

researchers and organizational members that creates access to important information that

otherwise might not be available to outsiders.”

Objective

It was the belief of Lewin and his contemporaries that in order to understand and change social

conditions, those involved in creating those conditions must be involved in the process. Thus,

one of the main themes of action research is enactment of social change. For this reason,

action research is at the core of the OD practice. As an approach to organization consulting, it

prescribes a positive and collaborative working relationship between consultant and client and

therefore provides the basic foundation for the organization change process. Using the action


4


research process enables the consultant to better understand the system in which he/she is

involved

Synthesis

Wendell L French and Cecil Bell define organization development (OD) at one point as

"organization improvement through action research". If one idea can be said to summarize

OD's underlying philosophy, it would be action research as it was conceptualized by Kurt Lewin

and later elaborated and expanded on by other behavioral scientists. Concerned with social

change and, more particularly, with effective, permanent social change, Lewin believed that the

motivation to change was strongly related to action: If people are active in decisions affecting

them, they are more likely to adopt new ways. "Rational social management", he said,

"proceeds in a spiral of steps, each of which is composed of a circle of planning, action, and

fact-finding about the result of action".


5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Lewin


Figure 1: Systems Model of Action-Research Process

Lewin's description of the process of change involves three steps:

Unfreezing: Faced with a dilemma or disconfirmation, the individual or group becomes aware

of a need to change.

Changing: The situation is diagnosed and new models of behavior are explored and tested.

Refreezing: Application of new behavior is evaluated, and if reinforcing, adopted.

The figure summarizes the steps and processes involved in planned change through action

research. Action research is depicted as a cyclical process of change. The cycle begins with a

series of planning actions initiated by the client and the change agent working together. The

principal elements of this stage include a preliminary diagnosis, data gathering, feedback of

results, and joint action planning. In the language of systems theory, this is the input phase, in

which the client system becomes aware of problems as yet unidentified, realizes it may need

outside help to effect changes, and shares with the consultant the process of problem

diagnosis.

The second stage of action research is the action, or transformation, phase. This stage

includes actions relating to learning processes (perhaps in the form of role analysis) and to

planning and executing behavioral changes in the client organization. As shown in Figure 1,

feedback at this stage would move via Feedback Loop A and would have the effect of altering

previous planning to bring the learning activities of the client system into better alignment with

change objectives. Included in this stage is action-planning activity carried out jointly by the


6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Systems_Model_of_Action-Research_Process.jpg


consultant and members of the client system. Following the workshop or learning sessions,

these action steps are carried out on the job as part of the transformation stage.

The third stage of action research is the output, or results, phase. This stage includes actual

changes in behavior (if any) resulting from corrective action steps taken following the second

stage. Data are again gathered from the client system so that progress can be determined and

necessary adjustments in learning activities can be made. Minor adjustments of this nature can

be made in learning activities via Feedback Loop B (see Figure 1). Major adjustments and

reevaluations would return the OD project to the first, or planning, stage for basic changes in

the program. The action-research model shown in Figure 1 closely follows Lewin's repetitive

cycle of planning, action, and measuring results. It also illustrates other aspects of Lewin's

general model of change. As indicated in the diagram, the planning stage is a period of

unfreezing, or problem awareness. The action stage is a period of changing that is, trying out

new forms of behavior in an effort to understand and cope with the system's problems. (There

is inevitable overlap between the stages, since the boundaries are not clear-cut and cannot be

in a continuous process). The results stage is a period of refreezing, in which new behaviors

are tried out on the job and, if successful and reinforcing, become a part of the system's

repertoire of problem-solving behavior.

Action research is problem centered, client centered, and action oriented. It involves the client

system in a diagnostic, active-learning, problem-finding, and problem-solving process. Data are

not simply returned in the form of a written report but instead are fed back in open joint

sessions, and the client and the change agent collaborate in identifying and ranking specific

problems, in devising methods for finding their real causes, and in developing plans for coping

with them realistically and practically. Scientific method in the form of data gathering, forming

hypotheses, testing hypotheses, and measuring results, although not pursued as rigorously as

in the laboratory, is nevertheless an integral part of the process. Action research also sets in

motion a long-range, cyclical, self-correcting mechanism for maintaining and enhancing the

effectiveness of the client's system by leaving the system with practical and useful tools for

self-analysis and self-renewal.

Action Research is a way of approaching problems or questions. Four beliefs underlie Action

Research:

1. Solutions to problems are more effective and enduring when they emerge from

systematic search rather than from the dictates of authority or solely from a

practitioner’s intuition.


7


2. Research done by practitioners themselves on the problems contributes more to the

solution of these problems than research done by others.

3. Research consists in analyzing problems, searching for solutions, and testing and

evaluating the solutions. It consists of skills which can be learned and developed by

practitioners. Research is not the prerogative of experts.

4. Development of people’s capabilities, for example through training, is basic to

improvement in practice.

Action Research is the application of the scientific method to problem solving and involves the

same steps:

1. dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs

2. identification of a problem area

3. identification of a specific problem to be solved through action

4. formulation of several hypotheses, and their preliminary testing

5. choice of a hypothesis

6. design of action to test and implement the hypothesis

7. evaluation of the effect of the action

8. generalizations


8

SELF MOTIVATION

RESEARCH SKILLS

ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE

MOTIVATION FOR ACTION RESEARCH

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION


FEEDBACK MODEL OF ACTION RESEARCH

The action research model focuses on planned change as a cyclical process in which initial

research about the organization provides information to guide subsequent action. Then the

results of the action are assessed to provide further information to guide further action, and so

on. This iterative cycle of research and action involves considerable collaboration among

organization members and OD practitioners. It places heavy emphasis on data gathering and

diagnosis prior to action planning and implementation, as well as careful evaluation of results

after action is taken.

Action research is traditionally aimed both at helping specific organizations to implement

planned change and at developing more general knowledge that can be applied to other

settings. Although action research was originally developed to have this dual focus on change

and knowledge, it has been adapted to OD efforts in which the major emphasis is on planned

change.


EVALUATION

ACTION PLAN

9

PROBLEM DIAGNOSIS

ACTION HYPOTHESIS FORMULATION


The action research model is a normative model for learning, or a model for planned change.

Its main features are these. In front of intelligent human action there should be an objective, be

it ever so fuzzy or distorted. And in advance of human action there should be planning,

although knowledge of paths to the objective is always inadequate. Action itself should be

taken a step at a time, and after each step it is well to do some fact-finding. The fact-finding

may disclose whether the objective is realistic, whether it is nearer or more distant than before,

whether it needs alteration. Through fact-finding, the present situation can be assessed, and

this information, together with information about the objective, can be used in planning the

second step. Movement toward an objective consists of such cycles of planning-acting-fact-

finding-planning.

THE ACTION RESEARCH MODEL FOR ORGANISATIONAL DEVELOPMENT


10


SHEPARD’S ACTION RESEARCH MODEL

Shepard highlights the relations among goals (objectives), planning, and action in his diagram.

And both he and French emphasize that action research is research inextricably linked to

action; furthermore, it is research with a purpose, that is, to guide present and future action.

In an action research approach, the role of the consultant/change agent takes on a special

form, as shown by Shepard. The role is to help the manager plan his actions and design his

fact-finding procedures in such a way that he cam learn from them, to serve such ends as

becoming a more skilful manager, setting more realistic objectives, discovering better ways of

organising. In this sense, the staffs concerned with follow-up are research consultants. Their

task is to help managers formulate management problems as experiment.

By viewing action research as an approach to problem solving, the following features emerge:

the normative nature of this model, the importance and centrality of goals and objectives, and

the different role requirements of the consultant/change agent vis-à-vis the client. Three

additional features deserve discussion: first, the elements of action research model that link it


11

Action Step 1

PlanningFact

Finding Planning

Action Step 2

Objective


to the scientific method of inquiry, second, the collaborative relation among scientists,

practitioners and laypersons that often is a component of action research, and third. The

increased richness of the knowledge that can be derived from action research programmes.

An OD program is basically an action research program in an organisation designed to improve

the functioning of that organisation. Effective improvement programs rely on systematically

obtained empirical facts for planning action, taking action, and evaluating action. Action

research supplies an approach and a process for generating and utilising information about the

system itself that will provide a base for the action program.

Although the concept of action research is close to that of OD, there are some

differences between the two.

ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT ACTION RESEARCH

1. Emphasizes use of applied behavioral

science

2. Emphasizes work from the top

3. Emphasizes work throughout the

whole organization

4. Emphasizes building organizational

health

5. More concern for process

6. Maintains duality between outside

consultant and organization

1. No such emphasis; work can be done

in any area

2. Emphasizes work at the level at

which problem is felt

3. Emphasizes solving specific problem

at the concerned level

4. Emphasizes building research

competence

5. More concern for praxis

6. Works towards partnership

AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE ON ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

Initial Concerns


12


The Indian Chemical Company Limited (ICCL) was facing a serious problem of conflict

between the materials department and the user departments. The senior managers were

particularly concerned about the following issues: increased downtime of equipments,

uncontrolled increase in inventory levels, long lead time in procuring items, large number of

pending intends, and intense mutual hostilities between the materials department and the user

departments reflected in the two groups trading charges against one another in different

forums.

The top management invited an outside group of consultants to study the materials function. In

their preliminary meetings, the consultants found out that the materials department was

procuring two types of materials. One category was termed the recoupable type; these were

standard items required by several plants and procured on a regular basis by the materials

department when the inventory in the stores reached the re-order level. The second category,

which was called the non-recoupable type, included items specially required by individual

plants for procurement had to be raised by user departments.

The consultants found two outbound manifestations of the problem: (1) the user departments

complained about inordinate delays in procuring the non-recoupable items and the inability of

stores to supply desired quantities of recoupable items on time; and (2) the materials

department complained that the indents raised were often incomplete, the requirements were

not planned sufficiently in advance, there was piling up of inventories of non-recoupable items,

and there was an ‘unreasonable’ increase in the number of indents of non-recoupable items in

the recent months.

Design for preliminary data collection

A task force comprising two executives from stores, two purchase executives and four

executives from user departments was formed to identify the information needs, undertake data

collection, and do some analysis for presentation to a larger group. The task force worked in

collaboration with the consultants.

The group felt that some hard data was needed to understand the magnitude of the problem.

They divided the items purchased by the materials department into various categories:

imported and domestic items, low value and high value, high volume and low volume, and so

on. A sampling plan was devised to obtain data on a small sample of items from each of the

categories identified. Details of number of pending orders, time taken in the buying process,

duration for which the order was pending, and inventory position for each of the samples were


13


sought to be collected. For the softer data regarding the perception of members of each of the

two departments, it was recommended that the consultants should interview a number of

executives at different levels. The task force shared the proposed methodology with members

of the top management to obtain their thoughts and ideas. The task of data collection was

shared among members of the task force, and the preliminary data collection was completed in

three weeks.

Initial diagnosis

The task force members and the consultants had a two-day meeting to review the data. The

meeting concluded that:

The ageing of plants resulting in equipment breakdown, setting up of new plants, and

lack of coordination between user departments had contributed to an increase in the

number of indents.

A total of over 3000 indents were currently pending with the materials department

which amounted to about 6 to 8 months backlog; it took from 17 to 41 weeks for the

user department to receive the materials from the date of indent; and, there was over a

two and a half years requirement of pipe fittings in inventory. Such performance was

unacceptable.

There was no change in the manner of working or the size of the materials department

in the previous five years despite increase in the quantum of work as well as change in

the user requirements.

In many cases the user departments indented more than they required in order to build

in the delays of the materials department. Some user departments created their own

ministores. Others started acquiring some materials on their own. Sometimes indents

were raised much before the requirements arose.

Sometimes materials for which indents had been raised were not drawn by the user

departments because they had either acquired the material on their own or did not

need the material for another couple of months. The result was a pile up of inventories.

Managers interested in getting things done tended to use their interpersonal

relationships to procure materials on time.


14


There was a high degree of mutual hostility and lack of coordination between even the

stores and purchase personnel. For example, on many occasions the purchase section

was unaware of receipt of materials in stores until the vendors informed them of the

dispatch.

Presentations and action planning

The task force made a presentation to the top management team to decide on the next course

of action. The meeting concluded that it would be useful to involve three more senior

managers, one each from information systems, HRD and finance. Executives from these

functions were sought to be involved as the preliminary data suggested that some interventions

in the form of computerization, restructuring and decentralization may be required. The

expanded task force was asked to evolve viable alternatives, examine the consequences, and

propose concrete steps on what should be done, and who should do it. They were given two

months to come up with their recommendations.

Recommendations and action taking

The expanded task force, after considerable deliberations, drew up a plan of action and

presented it to the top management. A summary of their recommendations is as follows:

The data suggested that systems failure, rather than incompetence of the personnel,

was contributing to a substantial part of the problem. The solution would therefore be

targeted at setting the system right. It would help to create a position of an integrating

person who will be responsible for all the requirements of a particular plant/user

department, and interface with the procurement executives in the materials

department. This will help improve the responsiveness to user needs.

Since a large proportion of the non-recoupable items comprised low-value materials, it

would be advantageous to decentralize the responsibility for purchase to the user

departments themselves. Making them responsible for their requirements will help

reduce complaints about inordinate delays and leave the materials department free to

devote attention to the procurement of recoupable and high-value items.

It was envisaged that the computerization of the work systems could considerably

reduce the work burden of the materials personnel and make the departmental

functioning more efficient.


15


Appointment of department-level task forces was recommended to continuously

monitor the changes being implemented. Their responsibility was to spot any adverse

consequences and bring it to the immediate notice of an advisory committee of general

managers.

The top management accepted the above proposals and asked the concerned departments to

work out detailed plans of action for implementation. Representation of the concerned

department was designed to ensure smooth implementation. Changes were initiated about 7

months after the consultant group was invited into the plant.

Evaluating the results and planning follow-up steps

A review of the actions was undertaken 6 months after its implementation. The following

outcomes were apparent:

The number of pending indents had come down to less than 250

Inventory level had shown a marked decrease

The system of procurement of non-recoupable items by the user departments was

functioning smoothly

Complaints by user departments had decreased considerably

Formation of multiple task forces had helped increase feelings of involvement among

the lower-level employees

While the results above indicate an almost fairytale ending to the problem of ICCL, the

computerization of the materials function had produced less than desirable results. The users

had not adapted well to the system and there was considerable resistance to the change. For

the computerization to yield full benefits, urgent actions were needed. The task force decided

that it was time to take a fresh look into the nature of the problem and plan the follow-up

activities.


16


Conclusion

Traditional approaches to researching and understanding organizational problems place a

higher premium on scientific rigour than on using the results to actually solve the problems

faced by organizations. Even if participation is practised, it is not central to the phases of

diagnosing, action planning, action taking, evaluating and specifying learning. In most cases of

change efforts, a few select managers guide the focus of the efforts, and influence the

interpretation of results. Subsequently, the reasons for actions taken are rarely, if ever,

explained to the employees and even the data shared is sparse. All these factors contribute to

increased alienation and frustration of employees, resulting in an adverse impact on

performance and even failed change efforts. To this end, traditional methods of managing

change seem at cross purposes to its successful implementation.

The paradigm of action research is an approach which goes beyond superficial participation

and attempts to tap the competencies of the employees with the dual purpose of contributing to

successful change efforts as well as fulfill employee needs for greater involvement. Action

research demands collaboration and involvement of the employees and also the sharing of

knowledge and resources by the action researcher (Pasmore and Friedlander 1982). Susman

and Evered (1978) view action research as creating trust, openness, and a willingness to

explore into and reach joint solutions to recalcitrant, but inevitable organizational problems. The

approach seeks to empower the concerned organizational members so that they may become

self-reflective practitioners rather than mere spectators in the process of organizational change.


17


References

Organization Development: Behavioural Science Intervention for Organization

Improvement, 6th Edition, by French, Wendell L. ; Bell, Cecil H., published by Pearson

Education, Inc., 1999

Organization Development: A Process of Learning and Changing, 2nd Edition, by W.

Warner Burke, published by Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1994

Organization Development Interventions & Strategies, Edited by S. Ramnarayan, T.V.

Rao and Kuldeep Singh, published by Response Books, 1998

Designing and Managing Human resource Systems, 2nd Edition, by Udai Pareek and

T.V. Rao, published by Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 1993

Organization Development and Change, 7th Edition, by Thomas G. Cummings and

Christopher G. Worley, published by South-Western College Publishing, 2004


18

Term Paper on Action Learning

Documents

Transcript of Term Paper on Action Learning