Leadership Experiences: An Action Learning Approach

Page 69 - Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 45, 2018
ABSTRACT
University leadership courses or corporate leadership development programs traditionally offer classroom-based instruction
pertaining to the theories, attributes, and behaviors of leaders. Although these activities may spark increased awareness and
understanding of leadership, this learning is not easily transferable to the workplace. Indeed, transference of learning is a
significant issue not only in traditional leadership education and training, but in any learning program that take learners away from
the context in which they will be applying their new skills. To address these deficiencies in transference, we propose an action
learning approach that invites individuals to undertake practical exercises in their personal or professional lives as a means of
building leadership skills “in context.” In this paper, we share our experience in applying an action learning approach in an
undergraduate leadership course.
INTRODUCTION
Because effective leadership is central to organizational success, the development of leadership capacity is an ongoing
concern for organizations (Chakrabarti, 2009). Traditionally, leadership development, whether through organizationally -based
workshops or university classes, has occurred within a classroom setting (Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm & McKee, 2014; Quatro,
Waldman, & Galvin, 2007). In this manner, leadership has been treated like another subject such as mathematics or English that
requires formal lessons so that individuals may master its fundamentals. Indeed, according to an American Society of Training and
Development survey, leadership development occurs in a classroom setting for 85% of the companies surveyed (Day et al., 2014).
However, there is growing concern that these high cost programs are poorly transferable.
Alternatives to classroom-based learning are needed to ensure that learning about leadership readily translates into improved
leadership. But, what is the best way for individuals to learn how to lead? Through classroom instruction, case studies, self -
assessments, exercises, or real-life experiences? In this paper, we propose that the best way for individuals to learn to lead is through
experiential exercises undertaken in the context in which new learnings or skills will be applied (i.e., an action learning approach).
We argue that leadership is something that is learned primarily by doing it.
Absorbing theories and ideas on the topic of leadership, a common approach to leadership development (Morrison Rha, &
Helfman, 2003), allows individuals to become knowledgeable about leadership primarily as an abstract concept. Analyzing case
studies helps to bring these concepts to life. Completing self -assessment questionnaires and 360o assessments helps individuals
understand their potential strengths and weaknesses as leaders. Participating in exercises in a classroom setting helps individuals
develop insights into the leadership process and their own tendencies. In all cases, however, individuals are left to determine how
best to apply what they have learned in the exercises to the ‘real world.’ We contend that it is only by actually testing or applying
concepts and experimenting with leadership in ‘real life’ that students develop a profound sense of their own leadership capabilities
and, consequently, are able to transform their day-to-day leadership practices. Our approach is grounded on the belief that leadership
development “is a continuous process that can take place anywhere (Fulmer, 1997). Leadership development in practice today means
helping people learn from their work rather than taking them away from their work to learn (Moxley & O’Connor Wilson,
1998)” (Day, 2000, p. 586).
In this paper, we discuss how organizations, including universities, have traditionally approached the task of developing
leaders through classroom-based instruction. We then address the downsides and costs of this approach and consider an alternative
means of developing leaders outside the classroom setting. In particular, we propose action learning as a practical means of
developing leadership skills in a ‘natural,’ ‘embedded’ environment, one in which the leadership skills will be exercised. We
conclude this paper by describing how we have applied this action learning approach in an undergraduate leadership course.
Developing Leadership Through Leadership Experiences:
An Action Learning Approach
Céleste M. Grimard
Université du Québec à Montréal
[e-mail]
Sabrina Pellerin
Université du Québec à Montréal
[e-mail]

Page 70 - Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 45, 2018
TRADITIONAL LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
EFFECTIVENESS IN DEVELOPING LEADERS
Traditional leadership development programs remove students and professionals from their natural environment and
reassemble them in classrooms. Typically, after a theoretical grounding, these individuals are asked to evaluate case studies that
describe situations faced by leaders. They discuss the case study, evaluate possible solutions and prepare a presentation to their
colleagues on how to solve the identified problems (Fulmer, 1997). This case -based approach to leadership development relies on
students’ ability to determine how to apply what they have learned in the case analysis process to the ‘real world,’ “make
applications when and if similar situations presented themselves” (Fulmer, 1997, p. 60), and bring back the “latest leadership
thinking” (Rowland, 2016, para. 2), personal lessons and some ‘practical’ tools to their workplaces. Although these types of activities
are intended to prepare students for workplace situations and challenges, transfer of learning rarely takes place, in part, because many
case studies are not easily transferable to learners’ work situations.
This traditional model of leadership development, referred to as the “chalk -and-talk model” (Rowland, 2016, para 9), is well
established but somewhat obsolete (Fulmer, 1997). On one hand, leadership courses are useful for accumulating knowledge and
concepts that are likely to be used in the future (Fulmer, 1997). Also, when leadership development programs are offered in a context
other than the workplace (i.e., universities, workshop environment), participants can see things differently, gain new perspectives of
their work and advance their analytical competencies (Fulmer, 1997) while distancing themselves from day -to-day work pressures
(Gurdjian, Halbeisen, & Lane, 2014). On the other hand, the classroom context is not the best way to develop the ‘holistic leaders’
that are needed in the business world (Quatro, Waldman, & Galvin, 2007). Leadership development must go beyond the classroom.
Needed skillsets are best developed in an organizational context (Quatro et al., 2007). Consequently, the emphasis of leadership
development should be experience, with classroom-based training used as a supplement (McCall, 2004) or complement (Quatro et
al., 2007) to leadership development, rather than as its essence.
Traditional leadership development employs a “one directional, one dimensional, one size fits all” approach (Myatt, 2012,
no page number) that encourages passivity rather than ownership. It is offered to groups of individuals who have different
backgrounds and competencies, all requiring different levels of development and evolving at various rates (Day et al., 2014). As
such, “it is highly unlikely that anyone would be able to develop fully as a leader merely through participation in a series of
programs, workshops, or seminars” (Day et al., 2014, p. 80). Others suggest that such programs can form misguided leaders (Quatro
et al., 2007) who lack essential leadership skills (such as interpersonal or strategic skills) (Volz -Peacock, Carson & Marquardt, 2016)
and who are not well prepared to face today’s challenges. As Quatro et al. (2007, p. 435) posit, given that these rational programs
focus on the development of analytical capabilities, they are a “possible driver of the preponderance of analytically -focused leaders”
who have a limited understanding of leadership beyond analytical challenges. In sum, traditional classroom -based leadership
development programs are not considered to be effective means of developing leaders (Volz -Peacock et al., 2016; Day, 2000).
RETURN ON INVESTMENT
Leadership development is an important cost center for organizations, given the investment required in both money and
time (Cromwell & Kolb, 2004). According to Gurdjian, Halbeisen, and Lane (2014), every year, American organizations invest
almost $14 billion in leadership development programs. Chakrabarti (2009), leader of the People Analytics and Employee
Engagement research practices at Bersin by Deloitte, indicates that their recent survey of corporate America found that organizations
invested nearly $500,000 in 2009 on leadership development, which ranged from $170,000 to nearly $1.3 million depending on
organizational size. Aside from corporate-based leadership development programs, such programs are available in universities,
colleges and business schools, but they tend to be costly (Volz-Peacock & al., 2016). For example, the cost of developing a leader in
a customized program in a top business school can be as much as $150,000 (Gurdjian et al., 2014).
Organizations may not be receiving an adequate return on their investment in leadership development. Effective programs
show evidence of positive transfer of learning, which takes place when “learning in one context improves performance in some other
context” (Perkins, & Salomon, 1992, p. 3) or when “trainees effectively apply the knowledge, skills, and attitudes gained in a
training context to the job” (Newstrom, 1986 cited in Cromwell & Kolb, 2004, p. 450). For example, there is positive transfer of
learning in leadership development programs when participants apply new skills and competencies gained in the program in their
leadership practices in the workplace. These new competencies should be demonstrated and widespread in the work context for a
substantial period of time in order to affirm that positive transfer has occurred (Baldwin & Ford, 1988). However, traditional
classroom-based leadership development programs account for less than 10 % of managers’ development (Robinson &Wick, 1992).
A recent survey of corporate America found weaknesses in leadership skills at every level of most organizations in the study
(Chakrabarti, 2009). Moreover, participants tend to remember about 10 % of what is said in lectures (Gurdjian et al., 2014),
suggesting that traditional programs lack transferability (Day, 2000).
Regrettably, neither positive transfer nor performance improvement seem to materialize regularly after training programs
(Cromwell & Kolb, 2004). Lessons learned in a classroom context are not integrated firmly into participants’ knowledge and skill
base: “Soon after the course ends, people slip back into their previous behavioral patterns, and little lasting change or developmental
progress is achieved” (Day, 2000, p. 601). Accordingly, in their research, Hirst, Mann, Bain, Pirola-Merlo, & Richver (2004, p. 311)
found that there was “a lag between learning leadership skills and translating these skills into leadership behavior.” These researchers
posited that this delay was likely caused by the difficulty involved in translating learned skills and behaviors into practice. These

Page 71 - Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 45, 2018
transferability issues may also be due to other factors: (a) the classroom context is limited compared to the real challenges and issues
participants will encounter in real life; (b) lessons learned as part of formal training are not usable/applicable in participants’ daily
lives; (c) classroom-based development expects students “to extrapolate from generic theories the specific ideas that address
workplace problems” (Brotheridge & Long, 2007, p. 839); or the organizational culture may not support the new techniques and
practices learned as part of the training process. There are many possible explanations, but what is certain is that traditional training
does not entirely fulfill its promises.
LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT THROUGH ACTION LEARNING
LEARNING OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOM
As Fulmer (1997) suggests, the paradigm of leadership development is evolving. Whereas leadership development was
previously carried out on university campuses or in corporate meeting rooms, the new approach is to develop leadership through
action regardless of the location chosen to do so (Fulmer, 1997). ‘Real’ leadership development occurs in daily experiences –
whether in one’s professional or personal life (Day et al., 2014; McCall, 2004; 2010; Robinson & Wick, 1992). Real environments
provide a rich context in which to explore and develop fundamental leadership capabilities (Mumford, Marks, Connelly, Zaccaro, &
Reiter-Palmon, 2000).
Learning outside the classroom setting means doing experiments in real, non -simulated situations. While classroom-based
leadership development tends to be concentrated over a certain period of time (Amagoh, 2009) and in specific locations, experience -
based leadership development is endless (Myatt, 2012) and can take place everywhere (Day, 2000). Unlike the classroom context
that is limited, learning outside the classroom is vast and permits individuals to position themselves as active experimenters instead
of as listeners or students (Fulmer, 1997).
As a result, individuals take responsibility for and participate actively in their development. For example, being involved in
a problem-solving process can help individuals acquire new skills. Since these skills are acquired through practice and in the context
in which they will be used, they are more likely to be translated into actual leadership behaviors (Hirst et al., 2004). However, there
is a caveat: an individual must want to learn from his or her experiences since learning from one's experiences is not necessarily
something that individuals naturally do (McCall, 2004). Moreover, time is required to change behavioral patterns and develop new
skills (Mumford et al., 2000). Translating and integrating knowledge into new leadership behaviors is not instantaneous (Hirst et al.,
2004). Given the foregoing, it appears that action learning may be a possible solution to the ineffectiveness of traditional leadership
development programs (Amagoh, 2009; Volz-Peacock et al., 2016).
ACTION LEARNING
Action learning is based on the assumption that “there can be no action without learning, and no learning without
action” (Revans, 2011, p. 11) in the same manner that learning from actions cannot happen without reflection (Brockbank & McGill,
2004). It involves “learning by doing” (Revans, 2016: p. 5), and it means “learning from tackling significant problems in the real
world through cycles of new action and reflection in the good company of those who can help to explore emergent issues with fresh
questions” (Simpson & Bourner, 2007, p. 184). There are four fundamental components of action learning: (a) real problems (not
simulated or invented ones, nor realistic case studies), (b) exploration occurring in the real world (not in a classroom/conference
room setting), (c) a learning process that is nested within action (i.e., learning does not occur before actions are taken), and (d) peers
acting as coaches or mentors in the learning process (in contrast to limited interactions in traditional learning settings).
The foregoing suggests that classroom-based programs and action learning may be “two opposite ends of the learning
spectrum” (Morrison, Rha, & Helfman, 2003, p. 16). Whereas the former permits individuals to acquire knowledge about leadership,
the latter permits them to develop skills in the context in which they are used. Action learning consists of learning from one’s
experiences rather than in the classroom (Smith, 2001). The traditional sequence for acquiring leadership skills (theory first, then
application and practice) is turned upside down and enriched with action learning. Real life experiences become the teacher, lessons
learned become theories, and experiences replace studying. While traditional leadership development employs a deductive approach
(applying theories to challenges), action learning favors an inductive approach (learning from experiences to develop lessons)
combined with a deductive approach for acquiring knowledge (applying theories to the workplace to make them tacit; Ralin, 1997).
From this perspective, action learning provides a “mix of practice-field experience using real issues, combined with a drawing-down
of theory where appropriate” (Smith, 2001, p. 36).
Concretely, individuals involved in action learning address a problem by asking themselves deep questions that lead them to
choose the actions to be asked, to observe, to think and to draw lessons from their experience (Simpson & Bourner, 2007) in order to
apply them later (Smith, 2001). The problem is usually taken from the participant’s workplace (Scott, 2017) and discussed with other
individuals to gain different perspectives (Ralin, 1997). The action learning process is undertaken in the real work setting, but still
provides an environment that is safe and favorable to learning (Smith, 2001).
In order to be effective, organizations need to apply action learning appropriately. Based on Conger and Toegel (2002) and
Marquardt (2006), the following conditions for success should be respected: (a) Action learning needs to be implemented more than
one time, even on a continual basis to develop, confirm and integrate new knowledge; (b) Problems analysed in the action learning
process must be explicitly connected to the subject matter being learned (for example, leadership); (c) Reflections should be