The role and value of the facilitator within action learning has long been an area of interest with different schools proffering varying perspectives on the dominance and function of the facilitator. Effective evaluation in the field of leadership development is generally elusive and yet it remains an important quest to demonstrate value in a contested realm where a participants definition of efficacy might be the commissioners cost reduction target. Reflection is at the heart of the action learning process and its close cousin evaluation is never far behind. Just as in the wider world of leadership and management development there is a need to justify value and impact, so too within action learning.
These elements, evaluation and the facilitator role within action learning, are the fascination of the contributors of the three accounts of practice that follow. They are themes, which are explored by the authors as they surface in relation to their practice. Thus it is not that the contributors seek to answer particular meta questions of impact, value or effectiveness, as accounts of practice they each consider these facets from their individual and personal position within their respective action learning experience. As such, the confluence surfaces questions for us as readers and we are invited to question our own particular relationship to the issues at hand.
In Leadership Development through Virtual Action Learning: An Evaluation, Radcliff is keen to go beyond conventional validation to explore what was being learned by the learning set in relation to a six day leadership development program. He invites an external evaluation process that interestingly utilizes a conventional method. In doing so the paper is written by the external evaluators and interspersed by Radcliffs reactions to the data, which actually gives more prominence to Radcliffs voice. The process of Aspinwall & Pedlars evaluation surfaces a familiar challenge in this domain. That being the possibility (or lack thereof) of aggregation and generalization; ‘ When people, even in this very small sample, speak in their own voices, these responses are not amendable to aggregation’. That said, Radcliff does find further evidence of the validity of the process and infers from the responses a deepening of learning and application of it. Particularly interesting within this account of practice are the discoveries about the role of the facilitator. Not only does Radcliff elucidate his own reflections, these are illuminated and even challenged by Aspinwall and Pedlars findings within the participant evaluation. This leads the authors to distinct conclusions about the role of the facilitator and early speculations about the utility of ‘structured’ and ‘weak’ styles of facilitation.
Greta Hofman considers the role of the action learning facilitator in a Local Authority context, in her account of practice; A New Facilitator In Action and On Action. Action learning is adopted as a proactive method to support an internal change program and participation is a mandatory requirement of the organization. Recognizing the potential negative impact on the learning process of the participants, Hofman uses her position as facilitator to mitigate these risks through an Introduction Process that leads to a relatively structured and proactive style of facilitation in which she takes responsibility for ensuring a level of consistency in the facilitation of three simultaneous sets with different facilitators. The account of practice itself reveals a level of self- reflection and makes explicit the choices and decisions taken as well as her personal learning as a relatively new facilitator. Just as she occupies a dynamic role as facilitator, Hofman's approach to evaluation is equally proactive. In response to a request for feedback from the organization sponsor, she and her co-facilitators devise a detailed qualitative and quantitative evaluation questionnaire. Her analysis of the responses coupled with her own reflections as a ‘trainee action learning facilitator’ lead her to largely positive conclusions and a series of recommendations that define her future practice as facilitator but might equally be used by readers.
In Making Facilitation Work: the Challenges on an International DBA Action Learning Set, O’Farrell like Hofman is also a ‘new facilitator’. He utilizes the account of practice as a means to explore and consider his expectations and assumptions of his experience within the role as part of a DBA cohort. His experiences offer a neat contrast to those of Hofman, as he approaches the role of facilitator clearly influenced by the reflective nature of the DBA and with clear expectations on DBA students as self-directed learners. O’Farrells exploration of set facilitation differs from the previous accounts of practice since he is also a member of the set and has been nominated set facilitator. In this context he, like his fellow set members is able to question the issue of relevance (both content and process) and at first hand experiences the difficulty that differing set member goals have on the process. While he does ultimately recognize the potential applicability of action learning within the DBA program, he surfaces and confronts a number of challenges and complexities. His conclusions are set out with the benefit of hindsight, which comprehensively identify multi-layered challenges of geography, purpose, role conflict, technology and other barriers to full participant engagement. As such this account of practice offers the reader significant insight and potentially helpful considerations for their own practice.
The three accounts of practice are distinct in their treatment of the subjects of facilitation and evaluation and yet when read together the themes and respective responses to them offer complementary learning. The contrasts as well as the connections offer the reader a unique opportunity to reflect on these themes from different perspectives and in so doing invite us as readers to enter this dialogue by considering our own reflective responses.