Human Resource Development Review
8(4) 431 –462
© 2009 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1534484309345656
http://hrd.sagepub.com
Action Learning Research:
A Systematic Review and
Conceptual Framework
Yonjoo Cho
1
and Toby Marshall Egan
2
Abstract
Despite considerable interest in action learning, no systematic investigation of
action learning literature has been reported. Two purposes of this study are (a) to
systematically access and examine recent empirical studies on action learning and
related themes using Garrard’s Matrix Method for reviewing literature (the review
of the literature covered an 8-year period from 2000 to 2007; 50 studies have been
selected based on the search criteria) and (b) based on Revans’s proposition regarding
the need for a conceptual and practical balance between action and learning, to
categorize empirical studies into action-oriented, learning-oriented, and balanced
action learning. Studies selected from the systematic literature review process are
highlighted, and Revans’s balance issue and the quality of select studies are discussed.
A conceptual framework for the future studies of action learning, key concluding
themes, and the limitations of the study are also articulated.
Keywords
action learning, systematic literature review, human resource development
No learning without action and no action without learning.
—Reginald Revans (1998, p. 83)
In response to our dynamic world of work, current organizational contexts often
demand continuous employee learning and development. In many situations, a funda-
mental assumption is that organizational survival is dependent on learning keeping pace
with or advancing beyond the rate of change exhibited in the external environment
(Boshyk, 2002). Although literature and discussion regarding the learning organization
are abundant, many organizations appear to know little about how to learn.
1
Indiana University, Bloomington
2
Texas A&M University, College Station
Corresponding Author: Dr. Yonjoo Cho, Assistant Professor, Department of Instructional Systems
Technology, Indiana University, 201 N. Rose Avenue, Bloomington, IN 47405-1006
Email: [email protected]
432 Human Resource Development Review 8(4)
Background
Action learning is among the most widely used interventions for leadership and orga-
nization development (Boshyk, 2002; Marquardt, Leonard, Feedman, & Hill, 2009;
O’Neil & Marsick, 2007; Raelin, 2008; Tushman, O’Reilly, Fenollosa, Kleinbaum, &
McGrath, 2007). The popularity of action learning has been driven by related, tangible
outcomes and relevance to real organizational issues (Bolt, 2005; Day, 2000; Korpi-
aho, Päiviö, & Räsänen, 2007; Raelin, 2007).
The Value of Action Learning for HRD
Action learning and HRD have been linked for some time (Dilworth & Willis, 2003;
Fenwick, 2005; Marquardt, 2004; Vince, 2003, 2004). Dilworth and Willis (2003)
defined action learning as “a process of reflecting on one’s work and beliefs in the sup-
portive/confrontational environment of one’s peers for the purpose of gaining new
insights and resolving real business and community problems in real time.” (p. 11)
As a result of his dedicated work toward the expansion and refinement of action
learning scholarship and practice, Revans has long been viewed as the most important
contributor to action learning scholarship and practice (Dilworth & Willis, 2003).
Although action learning is often considered as an organization change strategy, in
reality, it appears to be most often implemented in a manner directed toward individ-
ual learning and development (De Loo, 2001, 2002, 2006; Pedler, Burgoyne, & Brook,
2005; Vince, 2003, 2004). Several authors, including Revans (1971, 1998), empha-
sized one of the greatest challenges to participants in action learning—striking a
balance between action and learning (Kim, 2007; Kuhn & Marsick, 2005; Pedler,
2002; Raelin & Raelin, 2006; Tushman et al., 2007).
An examination of balanced action learning approaches can be achieved through
evaluation of action learning processes, participant experiences, and the manner in
which action learning is framed in the literature. Individuals and organizations are
aided by action learning that leads to more effective communication, work climate,
cooperation, shared vision and development at the organization level. When used
appropriately in organizational contexts, balanced action learning can be a powerful
approach for HRD and management development (Dilworth & Willis, 2003; Mar-
quardt et al., 2009; Reynolds & Vince, 2004; Vince, 2003, 2004; Willmott, 1994).
Action Learning Scholarship
As action learning practices are frequently used, research interest in action learning
has been around. The 1987 special issue of the Journal of Management Development
focused on action learning and sparked broad interest, research, and publication. A
number of special editions on action learning were published in Education + Training
in 1996, Journal of Workplace Learning in 1996 and 2000, two issues of Performance
Improvement Quarterly in 1998, Advances in Human Resource Development in 1999,
Cho and Egan 433
and The Learning Organization in 2002, until Action Learning: Research and Prac-
tice, the lead journal in the field, was published in 2004. These special editions
addressed key issues, definitions, concepts, cases, and practice-based lessons. Current
practice-based approaches to action learning focus only on face validity for action
learning theory (Johnson & Spicer, 2006); therefore, wider consideration regarding
current approaches and their impact is required.
Although authors have provided overviews of action learning literature, no system-
atic investigation of action learning practices has been conducted. Three previous
reviews of action learning literature highlighted action learning studies published before
2000 (Mumford, 1985, 1994; Smith & O’Neil, 2003a, 2003b), as shown in Table 1.
Smith and O’Neil (2003a, 2003b) used the categories previously established in
Mumford’s (1985, 1994) reviews including action learning fundamentals, practice,
and focus. Smith and O’Neil (2003a, 2003b) expressed the dual purpose of the study,
indicating sources of information and further avenues for research. Weaknesses of
previous reviews are as follows: (a) they involved action learning books and/or arti-
cles published before 2000; (b) source selection criteria were not specified and
literature selection was “subjective,” unsystematic, and “represents only our [the
Table 1. Comparison of Previous Reviews
Mumford (1985)
Mumford (1994)
Smith & O’Neil
(2003a, 2003b)
Selection
Criteria
• Period: 1971-1985
• Books and articles
• Period: 1986-1994
• Books and articles
• Period: 1994-2000
• 109 journal articles
Categories • Definitions
• Types
• Programs
• Setting up a program
• Roles for advisers
• Evaluation
• Definitions
• Management education
• Types
• Processes
• Participant learners
• Revised Mumford’s
categories
• AL fundamentals:
definitions and
descriptions
• AL practice: case
reviews and
research-related
pieces
• AL focus: application
areas
Implications • The first review of
action learning
literature
• Covered a field
opened up by Revans’s
book (1971)
• The growing impact of
action learning outside
Belgium and the
United Kingdom
• A major critique of not
enough attention to
learning process
• Included comments
on articles
• The “subjective”
choice of articles
• The dual purpose
of indicating sources
of information and
further avenue for
research
434 Human Resource Development Review 8(4)
authors’] views” (Smith & O’Neil, 2003b, p. 154); and (c) no theoretical or conceptual
framework was used. A systematic selection and review of scholarly action learning
studies was undertaken in this study. The review process included articles published in
peer-reviewed journals after 2000.
Problem Statement and Purpose
The current state of action learning literature is unclear. A better understanding of
action learning literature and its intersections with research and practice will provide
better knowledge and insight of key themes of current studies and recommendations
for practitioners and participants. Assessment of the literature will provide insight on
how action learning is being framed in scholarly works, in human subjects research,
and in practice.
The primary purpose of this study was to examine and analyze recent action learn-
ing literature using Garrard’s (2007) Matrix Method, which is both a structure and a
process for systematically reviewing literature. The secondary purpose was to explore
the relative balance between two critical and integrative elements of action learning—
action and learning. The result is a clearer picture and analysis of current scholarship
on action learning.
A prime difficulty in researching action learning is the lack of an agreed definition
(Pedler, 2005b). However, various frameworks to analyze action learning projects
mostly present ways of combining two consistent themes that stand out: work-based
real issues and team learning (Day, 2000; Edmonson, 2002; Poell, Yorks, & Marsick,
2008; Raelin, 1999, 2008; Reynolds & Vince, 2004; Rooke, Altounyan, Young, &
Young, 2007; Senge, 1990; Vince, 2004). Action learning is based on the pedagogical
notion that people learn most effectively when working on real-time problems occur-
ring in their own work setting (Day, 2000; Raelin, 1999; Reynolds & Vince, 2004).
Senge (1990) suggested that teams are the fundamental learning unit in an organiza-
tion: Teams play a crucial role in organizational learning (Edmonson, 2002).
Participants in action learning environments learn as they work by taking time to
reflect with peers (learning teams), who offer insights into each other’s workplace
problems (Raelin, 2008). People learn best when they reflect together with like-
minded colleagues on real problems occurring in their own organizations (Raelin &
Raelin, 2006; Vince, 2004). Revans (1982) witnesses:
A manager faced with trouble . . . assemble a few [comrades in adversity] for all
to learn with and from each other how better to define what everyone is trying
to do, what are the separate obstructions to getting it done, and what particular
courses of action may be helpful in doing it. (p. 720)
Revans emphasized the need for conceptual and practical balance between action and
learning. Action learning is most effective when directly related to work applications
or to action (Revans, 1971, 1998). The real value of action learning that differentiates
Cho and Egan 435
it from other action strategies is a pragmatic focus on learning for the sake of problem
solving (Brooks & Watkins, 1994; Marsick & O’Neil, 1999; Raelin, 1999). An
unbalanced approach to action learning is not productive, as action without learning
is unlikely to return fruitful results and learning without action does not facilitate
change.
Action learning balances working on a problem and learning through that process
(O’Neil & Marsick, 2007). In this study, action is defined as a learning output as well
as an input to the process (Rooke et al., 2007). The action in action learning is there as
the “pathway” (Raelin, 2008, p. 85) or “basis” (Pedler, 2005a, p. 4) to learning; the
task should be the vehicle for learning (Raelin, 1999). Solving a given problem or
addressing an issue is critical only if there is learning from the experience (Raelin,
2008; Rooke et al., 2007). The learning in action learning is acquired at the level of
individuals, teams, and the organization (Marquardt, 2004). Related literature sug-
gests that action learning programs should be carefully implemented to ensure balance
between action and learning (Kim, 2007; Kuhn & Marsick, 2005; Pedler, 2002; Raelin
& Raelin, 2006; Tushman et al., 2007). Revans’s perspective on the balance of action
and learning is used in the article sorting process and is detailed below.
Central Questions and Method
This study uses a systematic literature review process to determine the current state
of scholarly literature on action learning and to explore the relative balance between
action and learning within the literature identified. Four main research questions are
as follows:
1. What scholarly articles on action learning were published from 2000 to 2007?
2. What are key themes from extant action learning literature?
3. To what extent are action and/or learning emphasized or balanced in the
action learning literature identified?
4. To what extent is the overall quality of action learning studies evaluated in
terms of key methodological traits?
Search Process
The search included use of the electronic databases, Business Source Complete and
Google Scholar, with special attention to popular use of action learning in organiza-
tional settings and to the six leading academic journals in this area—Action Learning:
Research and Practice, Management Learning, The Learning Organization, Journal
of Workplace Learning, Journal of European Industrial Training, and Advances in
Developing Human Resources. The term action learning was used as part of the
advanced electronic search process. In so doing, a total of 353 articles were identified
and gathered.
436 Human Resource Development Review 8(4)
Selection Criteria
Qualitative program descriptions dominate action learning publications (Day, 2000);
therefore, this study focused on empirical studies of action learning to determine prog-
ress in research quality. For inclusion in this review, articles had to be (a) published in
peer-reviewed journals, (b) published between January 2000 and December 2007, and
(c) empirical studies that either involved human subjects or reported research findings.
Among the total of 353 articles identified using the keyword search, studies contain-
ing editorials, non–research-based cases and reflective reports (using an “I”
perspective), and conceptual articles were excluded. Only 50 (14%) of the identified
studies met these selection criteria.
Abstraction and Synthesis: The Matrix Method
A systematic literature review of studies on action learning was undertaken, using
Garrard’s (2007) Matrix Method. The Matrix Method is both a structure and a process
for systematically reviewing literature. Consistent with Garrard’s approach, the review
matrix table, a place to record notes about each article using columns and rows, pro-
vides a standard structure for creating order (see appendix). Each of the 50 empirical
studies was evaluated in ascending chronological order using a structured abstracting
form with nine columns: lead author’s name, publication year, study type, study pur-
pose, conceptual framework, subjects, study design, analytic methods, and study
findings. The synthesis in the Matrix Method is a critical analysis and review process
of the literature on a specific topic. A summative overview of reviewed articles, key
findings, and an article synthesis is provided below.
To determine the degree to which select articles balance action and learning, Revans’s
proposition of balanced action learning (Figure 1) was used to develop a sorting proto-
col. This protocol involved a review of each article to determine whether it was
predominantly action or learning oriented or was relatively balanced in examining action
and learning. Each empirical study was carefully analyzed, double-checked, and sorted
into one of three categories: action oriented [A], learning oriented [L], or balanced
[A/L]. The following evaluation criteria (Table 2) were referenced for classification.
Action-oriented studies [A] were selected when the study featured action as a cen-
tral focus, were rooted in the real business concerns or encouraged managers and
leaders to collaborate on real workplace issues. Learning-oriented studies [L] were
chosen when the core of action learning programs centered on learning rather than
addressing an issue or solving a problem, or applied chiefly for personal learning and
development and not so much for organizational issues. Balanced action learning
studies [A/L] were marked when authors appeared to strike a balance between action
and learning. In these balanced studies, often reflective practices and organizational
learning are discussed, focusing both on learning and the task at hand. In rare cases,
when the foundational aspects associated with this analysis were not clearly identifi-
able, we marked [NA].
Cho and Egan 437
There are numerous methods of ensuring rigor linked with reliability and validity
checks in qualitative work (Morse, 1994). To ensure rigor in this study, we double-
checked criteria of adequacy and appropriateness of data (select articles), created detailed
documentation for the audit trail (selection process), and used coauthors as multiple raters
(interrater reliability). In addition, the quality of each study was examined for key meth-
odological traits (Brown, 1989; Buhi & Goodson, 2007; Dillman, 2007), including the
use of conceptual framework, identification of study participants, study design, analytic
methods, and the precise description of these traits in the reporting of the study.
Findings
The process of abstraction and synthesis led to the identification of the quality of each
empirical study. The review matrix table shows the outcome (appendix). The action
and learning balance was identified and marked either [A], [L], or [A/L] on each
study, indicating that the study was action oriented, learning oriented, or balanced. In
addition, [NA] was marked on two survey studies that had no relation to balancing
action and learning [24, 34]. The numbers inside of the brackets [ ] are associated with
individual articles that were reviewed and correspond to the numbered list of articles
in the appendix.
Overview
The 50 empirical studies, systematically reduced from an original group of 353 identi-
fied articles, were published in 24 different peer-reviewed journals and represent
Figure 1. The hypothesized logical continuum of Revans’s balanced action learning
438 Human Resource Development Review 8(4)
varied interest areas and contexts. Table 3 indicates an increasing number of empirical
studies on action learning, particularly from 2004, the first publication year of the
journal Action Learning: Research and Practice. Nineteen studies (38%) came from
this journal, followed by Journal of European Industrial Training and The Learning
Organization, both of which had three articles.
Various research areas were covered—including management, education, leader-
ship, engineering, marketing, health policy and hospitality management as well as
HRD and organization development (OD). Corporate action learning programs (20)
included interorganizational settings (7) and small–medium enterprises (SMEs) (6),
whereas education programs included 17 studies, with 8 studies on the public sector.
Study locations included the United Kingdom (25), the United States (7), Ireland (4),
the Netherlands (3), Australia (3), and other European countries (2). Additional coun-
tries from which studies were reported included New Zealand, China, Singapore, and
Korea. These articles suggest that action learning was more often practiced and
Table 2. The Evaluation Criteria for Comparison
Criteria Action Oriented Learning Oriented Balanced
Objective Organizational problem
solving
Personal development
and learning
Organizational
problem solving and
individual learning
Problem Real business issues Emergent individual
issues
Real business issues
Problem
selection
• Top–down or middle–
up–down
• Many stakeholders
involved
• Bottom–up
• Learner oriented
• Top–down or
middle–up–down
• Many stakeholders
involved
Sponsor Actively involved in the
overall process
Only involved in
problem selection
and evaluation
Actively involved in
the overall process
Implementation Follow-up activities
provided
Reference for
decisions and future
participants
Follow-up activities
provided
Learning coach • Weak recognition
• The role of small–
medium enterprises
• Weak recognition
• HR’s check on
reflection journals
• Full recognition
• External and
internal coach
Reflection • Weak recognition
• Often not done
• Weak recognition
• Only reflection
journals are required
• Full recognition
• A must activity led
by learning coach
Evaluation • Result oriented
• Done by sponsors
• Low on learning
• Learning oriented
• Done by HR
• Low on business
results
• Balanced action and
learning
• Done by sponsors
and HR
Source: Cho & Bong, 2008, Slides 6 to 7.
Cho and Egan 439
researched in the United Kingdom and in Europe, particularly in public sectors, than
in the United States. Revans’s predominating influence on action learning practices in
the United Kingdom and Europe can be inferred from this number.
Methodological Quality
Only seventeen studies [4, 8, 10, 13, 16, 23, 24, 29, 31, 33, 35, 40, 42, 43, 44, 48, 49]
involved common features for quality research including: use of a conceptual frame-
work, detailed reporting on study participant demographics and contexts, study design,
analytic methods, and the precise description of study procedures (Brown, 1989; Buhi &
Goodson, 2007; Dillman, 2007). These 17 studies occupy 34% of the total 50 empirical
studies and thus, indicate a need for more rigorous research on action learning.
Study design. A majority of the selected action learning literature used case studies
(37). This frequent use of case study methodology in action learning studies has con-
tinued from previous literature reviews. Others were labeled as qualitative (or
exploratory) studies, evaluation studies, and action research. Case studies used meth-
ods including participant observation, interviews, and surveys of participants and
organizational members. In contrast, quantitative (or survey) studies [11, 13, 25, 29,
38, 42, 45, 49] used descriptive statistics, frequency analysis, and correlations and, in
rare cases, multiple regression [34, 37, 49].
Use of theory. A majority of studies used Revans’s action learning principles as a
central framework. Other conceptual frameworks used as the foundation for these
studies included organizational learning, Kolb’s experiential learning, organizational
knowledge creation, adult learning, a cognitive systems approach, and knowledge
management.
Balanced Action and Learning: Representative Studies
Figure 1 represents the hypothesized continuum of Revans’s balanced action learning
in action learning literature. Nineteen studies (38%) were found in the balanced action
learning category and half of the studies (25) in the learning category, only four in the
action category [1, 12, 38, 41], and two in the unclassified [24, 34]. The manner in
which study findings were reported (below) and the study’s methodological quality
were the key factors differentiating action learning studies categorized as unbalanced
or balanced.
Unbalanced studies. Half of action learning studies were classified as learning ori-
ented (25). This finding is consistent with that of previous studies indicating that
Table 3. The Number of Identified Studies of Action Learning
Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total
Number 1 5 4 3 11 6 14 6 50
440 Human Resource Development Review 8(4)
action learning practices are more often perceived to be successful when aimed toward
personal growth and learning but not necessarily conducted toward organizational
learning and development (De Loo, 2001, 2002, 2006; Donnenberg & De Loo, 2004;
Pedler et al., 2005; Vince, 2004; Willmott, 1994). De Loo (2001, 2002, 2006) argued
that available action learning literature showed a less clear-cut process for transferring
personal action learning–related development into organizational growth. Without
knowledge about organization-level development and change, HRD practitioners
implementing action learning efforts may not consider ways that action learning
efforts can be applied to their specific job and organizational contexts.
Two examples in this study [29, 17] were chosen as representatives of the unbal-
anced action learning category. Pedler et al. (2005) [29] conducted a survey of action
learning in the United Kingdom through interviews with 24 experts and a survey of
172 practitioners. In spite of limited sampling with few replies from large companies,
they found that action learning has become more focused on personal development
and less centered on organizational issues or organization-wide development. The
shift to individuals participating in action learning having the choice of problems or
issues on which to focus concurrently signals a move away from negotiated agree-
ments with the action learning facilitators or sponsors. This individualized approach
resulted in employees focusing on their own job-related issues in a manner relatively
isolated from the wider organizational context.
Another example of an unbalanced use of action learning was case studies of an
elevator company and a hospital laboratory in the Netherlands (Donnenberg & De
Loo, 2004) [17]. By focusing only on action learning programs with willing members
and organizations, the authors reasoned that organizational dynamics were ignored
and no connection between what has been learned by participants and other members
was secured. Another conclusion in the study was that action learning failed to provide
multiple learning experiences necessary to develop complex knowledge (Conger &
Toegel, 2003).
Balanced studies. Nineteen studies (38%) among 50 empirical studies were catego-
rized as emphasizing balanced action learning. Three representative studies [49, 28, 10]
were chosen as example studies emphasizing balanced action learning. Tushman et al.
(2007) [49], using interview data from 64 executives in 31 organizations participating
in executive programs at two U.S. business schools, found that action learning pro-
grams significantly enhanced both individual and organizational outcomes. In contrast
to traditional lecture-oriented executive programs, action learning designs treated
teaching as a process rooted in conversations between engaged faculty and participants
on issues crucial to participants. The authors suggested that action learning is a fertile
context where business schools, particularly for executive education, can bridge the
gap between managerial relevance and research rigor (Tushman & O’Reilly, 2007).
A case study of the Chubb Global Executive Program in the United States [28] used
an action learning model that catalyzed strategic innovation in mature organizations
(Kuhn & Marsick, 2005). Central to this model was cognitive capabilities that engen-
dered strategic, conceptual, and generative thinking. Action learning was used to
Cho and Egan 441
develop both individual and collective capabilities for strategic innovation as a key
driver of profitable growth, implying the dual mission—people development and
business impact. Another case study of a local government in the United Kingdom
[10] showed that action learning enabled the development of neighborhood facilitators
who then established a relationship with their organizational leaders (Pedler, 2002).
Using Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995) “a middle ground framework” (p. 523), a pro-
cess for transmuting individual knowledge into organizational knowledge, action
learning played the role of a middle ground framework for learning spaces allowing
dialogue outside normal operating procedures. The action learning set thus offered an
opportunity, not only for the development of specific local knowledge but also for
forming relationships across the middle ground, a source of learning and direction in
the organization.
Key success factors of the 19 balanced action learning studies included an effective
use of project or learning teams for organizational learning with the help of deliberate
reflective practices and management support. In addition, participants were provided
sufficient time for reflection with an action learning coach’s or a facilitator’s
guidance.
Discussion
The systematic review of action learning literature in this study revolves around
two important issues—the balance issue and the quality of identified studies.
The Balance Issue
Revans emphasized the importance of carefully considering each of two elements:
Action learning is about integrating work and learning (Maltbia & Marsick, 2008).
Action learning is regarded as an optimal method for connecting learning and work
(de Haan & de Ridder, 2006). Through a balanced process of action and learning,
people often develop skills associated with how to better learn from their experiences
(O’Neil & Marsick, 2007). As a result, profound personal development may be real-
ized from reflection on action (Pedler et al., 2005). The overriding value of Revans’s
balanced action learning is a pragmatic focus on learning for more effective instru-
mental action (Marsick & O’Neil, 1999).
Action learning programs, however, have a tendency to foster action at the expense
of learning (Raelin, 2008). Action in action learning is not the goal but the means by
which learning is achieved (Rooke et al., 2007). In contrast, this study found that
greater emphasis has been put on learning-oriented action learning instead of balanc-
ing learning with action. The imbalance of action and learning in action learning can
only be overcome by reflective practices, because reflection is essential to learning to
convert tacit experience into explicit knowledge (Raelin, 2001). Reflection is funda-
mental to learning and it provides a basis for future action (Raelin, 2001, 2008). Action
learning is “the process of stepping back from experience” (Coghlan & Brannick,
442 Human Resource Development Review 8(4)
2005, p. 35) to process what the experience means, with a view to planning further
action.
Conger and Toegel (2003) suggested that reflective learning opportunities should
be staged with regular frequency. Daily reflective practices that help develop learning
capabilities may often include the use of organizational learning tools. Examples of
reflective practices are:
1. Dialogue, problem exploration, and systems thinking (Smith, 2001);
2. Individual and group process feedback (Conger & Toegel, 2003);
3. Public reflection (Raelin, 2001, 2008);
4. Break space (Dilworth, 2006);
5. End-of-course interview (Waddill, 2006); and
6. Action learning conversations (Maltbia & Marsick, 2008).
For instance, a learning coach can use break space (Dilworth, 2006) for 10 min at the
start of each set meeting where all set members close their eyes, remain silent, and
reflect. Public reflection, through the feedback of learning teams, involves four
explicit reflective practices: learning teams, journaling, developmental planning, and
relationships (Raelin, 2008). Action learning conversations is a protocol for conducting
structured conversations that can be used in leadership development (Maltbia &
Marsick, 2008). This protocol can be used to slow down action and enable managers
to see how reflection could improve their thinking and solutions to challenges.
The Quality of Identified Studies
The empirical studies in the appendix have several limitations that subsequently create
opportunities for future action learning research. A majority of articles using case
study approaches (37) either failed to report a well-developed, systematic structure of
inquiry underlying the study or did not clearly elaborate on the use of related methods
and analysis. When qualitative methods were used, it was common that a specific
methodological framework was not identified, verification procedures were not artic-
ulated, and study contexts were often not clearly detailed—these are important
elements regarding the structure and trustworthiness of qualitative research (Denzin &
Lincoln, 2005; Patton, 2001).
In the few quantitative studies [11, 13, 25, 29, 38, 42, 45, 49], a common data-
gathering method (e.g. survey) was frequently used, which increased the potential for
overstated interactions between study constructs. In addition, several studies did not
adequately elaborate on sampling techniques, and used small, nonrandom sampling
frames. Other studies involved the deployment of cross-sectional designs that explored
action learning activities within a narrow or fixed time frame—these issues also
diminish the utility of the findings (Dillman, 2007).
Analysis of this systematic review of action learning literature suggests a clear need
for longitudinal designs and quantitative approaches to data collection and analysis.
Cho and Egan 443
Multivariate analysis, structural equation modeling, time series, and path analyses could
reflect both the complex dynamics underlying action learning and provide better oppor-
tunities for exploration of the multilevel factors. As action learning is widely accepted as
an HRD intervention or learning approach, integrating the multilevel approach to HRD
is emphasized (Garavan, McGuire, & O’Donnell, 2004). Such multilevel considerations
include leadership for action learning and facilitation, team member characteristics,
organizational and learning environmental conditions, the nature of the action learning
emphasized, connections between action and learning in both design and outcomes, and
more specific description for action learning outcomes.
Although several theories underlying action learning studies (e.g. Revans’s action
learning principles) were identified, there is a clear need to further investigate action
learning from the perspective of relevant HRD-related theories and theory building
(Dubin, 1978). For instance, commonly examined HRD theories associated with the
role and related outcomes of learning and learning transfer (Yamnill & McLean, 2001)
and performance (Holton, 2002) remain virtually unexplored in identified action
learning literature. As for qualitative case studies, there is a considerable need for
advanced approaches to both selection and implementation of qualitative methodolo-
gies. Specific phenomenological approaches (Moustakes, 1994) would provide depth
of experiences on the part of action learning participants and stakeholders. Use of
ethnographic approaches could provide meaning elaboration regarding action learning
processes and participant experiences. The reasons action learning has often not been
applied in a balanced manner could go a long way toward the development of conver-
sations within HRD regarding how balance can be established. Such approaches that
lead to expansion of scholar and practitioner understanding regarding the salient out-
comes of balanced action learning will benefit the field.
Finally, based on the literature, it appears that few studies used human subjects–
based critical research to examine the underlying power, politics, and emotional
dimensions often present in action learning (Fenwick, 2005; Marsick & O’Neil, 1999;
Mezirow, 1981; Pedler, 2005a; Reynolds & Vince, 2004; Vince, 2003, 2004; Willmott,
1994). Much can be done in combination with suggested expansions of qualitative and
quantitative research above to examine the underlying dynamics of action learning
from a critical perspective. Such a critical perspective can enhance our understanding
of action learning and HRD in the contexts explored, particularly if such studies would
involve the link between action learning and organizational learning (Vince, 2004).
A Conceptual Framework for Action Learning Research
Although the number of action learning articles is growing, there is a need for a more
specific, organized research and theory-building approach. To facilitate discussion
regarding the state of the current literature and possibilities for future action, HRD
scholars have used modeling approaches and proposed conceptual frameworks in sup-
port of future research on their respective areas of investigation (Joo, 2005; Wanberg,
Welsh, & Hezlett, 2003). Similarly, we outline key dimensions of action learning and
444 Human Resource Development Review 8(4)
recommend that they be framed within several research approaches toward the
advancement of action learning research. Three overarching aspects needing to be
addressed in the development of action learning research and theory building are (a)
the lack of a common framework and precise postulation toward HRD theory build-
ing, (b) the absence of tested theory-building approaches, and (c) a need for common
understanding regarding core concepts of HRD theory and theory building (Lynham,
2000; Torraco, 2004).
Based on the review of literature herein, action learning–related theories have been
identified and used; however, additional conceptual and theoretical development is
needed. In addition to key elements associated with action learning toward a better-
defined approach to action learning research, there is also a need to examine the
intersections between action learning and HRD. This is particularly a need as it per-
tains to the clarification of interactions between organization or systems levels
(Garavan et al., 2004) and the potential impact of action learning for organization-
wide learning and performance outcomes. Consistent with its process orientation and
framing, action learning has been largely outlined as a group activity; however, despite
a general emphasis on systems approaches to such HRD interventions (Jacobs, 1989),
the potential for such activity to have a reciprocal influence on organizational practice
has not been fully examined.
As a potential catalyst toward advancing specific discussions for future action learn-
ing research, part of a systematic process for development of theory-based research was
used (Poole, Van de Ven, Dooley, & Holmes, 2000). The framework (Figure 2) frames
action learning conceptually by examining related antecedents, the action learning pro-
cess, and proximal and distal outcomes. Figure 2 represents not only the key dimensions
of action learning as outlined in the review but implies a framework for elaboration,
testing, and critical analysis of key features of action learning. The proposed conceptual
model frames action learning as an intervention and process that includes four critical
elements: the initiation of action learning, action learning intervention deployment,
action learning implementation, and action learning evaluation.
Essential elements in understanding antecedents in the initiation of action learning
include the context for the action learning project and the characteristics of the work
environment. Another important part of the context for action learning is the make-up
of action learning teams and stakeholders that could be examined from numerous
perspectives. In addition, key features of the intervention are important considerations
for future action learning research. For instance, specificity regarding approaches to
action learning is needed in future research as is the identification of specific action
learning tools or learning frameworks. As identified in a few studies, team and leader-
ship dynamics and responses to action learning participants are important aspects of
action learning throughout the process and there is much more that needs to be
examined.
In regard to action learning implementation that has to do with proximal outcomes,
issues such as timelines of the use of action learning, the extent to which action learn-
ing is aligned with organizational objectives, the balance and quality of learning and
Cho and Egan 445
actions taken (this is related to the “balance issue” as outlined earlier), and project
team learning are important consideration for action learning research. Equally impor-
tant is the assessment of action learning distal outcomes. As we identified, the
organizational impact of action learning is overlooked in much of the literature. Action
learning cannot be a truly relevant tool for organizations, if research does not include
clearer examination of action learning intervention success, learning and performance
outcomes, and ultimately the impact on the organization. Research examining the
“how” of action learning is beneficial, but even the most rigorous studies of action
learning process need to more clearly elaborate on action learning outcomes.
The utilization of a conceptual framework for future development of research and
theory building could be undertaken in a variety of ways, including qualitative elabo-
ration of specific action learning processes and experiences, quantitative assessment
using the conceptual framework toward the further investigation of key constructs,
mixed-method case study analysis that provides elaboration on specific action learn-
ing interventions, and study based on critical perspectives that explore the power of
action learning interventions.
Propositions associated with Figure 2 should be developed and will contribute to
both forms of theory building as framed in theory-building literature—theory-then-
research and research-then-theory approaches (Dubin, 1978). Consistent with the
earlier discussion regarding current underdeveloped methodological quality, the
deployment of research associated with the dimensions of action learning must use
strong research designs and rigorous analytic approaches. Both the focus and execu-
tion of future action learning research must be considered as key elements in the
advancement of action learning and HRD.
Figure 2. Dimensions of action learning: A conceptual framework
446 Human Resource Development Review 8(4)
Conclusion
Six key concluding themes were summarized as a result of the execution of this study.
1. Action learning variants: Many definitions and variants of action learning
have been used during the last 8-year period in the identified action learning
research. Representative examples including business-driven action learn-
ing, interorganizational action learning, critical action learning, auto action
learning, self-managed action learning, project action learning, develop-
mental action learning, work-based learning, and Web-based action
learning.
2. Unbalanced action learning: Based on this systematic review, only 19 stud-
ies were classified as balanced action learning, whereas half were considered
learning-oriented action learning (25). This study confirmed the previous
study finding; that is, action learning has been used more often for personal
development than organizational growth. A reason why there are so many
learning-oriented action learning programs is probably that half the studies
were conducted in the United Kingdom and in Europe, where there are
strong bases of action learning use for personal development, particularly in
the education and public sectors (De Loo, 2001, 2002, 2006; Donnenberg &
De Loo, 2004; Pedler et al., 2005; Vince, 2004; Willmott, 1994).
3. Underdeveloped methodological quality: Only one third of the studies (17) met
the key methodological traits of quality research including use of a conceptual
framework, reports of participants, study design, analytic methods, and the pre-
cise description of these traits in the study (Brown, 1989; Buhi & Goodson,
2007; Dillman, 2007). The overall improvement of current research, therefore,
is necessary for theoretical development of action learning and HRD.
4. Frequent use of qualitative studies: Case study approaches are the most
frequently deployed method in action learning studies. This is consistent
with findings of previous studies (Day, 2000; Smith & O’Neil, 2003a,
2003b). An interesting finding was that 10 action research designs and
methods were identified. These studies were conducted either in the United
Kingdom or in European countries. As an action researcher takes part in
action learning programs as a facilitator or a learning coach, clear boundar-
ies between action learning and action research become blurred.
5. Increased use of technology: Nineteen identified studies used virtual learn-
ing as a supplementary tool to live learning sets in action learning practices.
There has been little research on how action learning can most effectively
be supported by new technologies such as interactive tools and information
databases for learning (Gray, 2001). If using virtual learning tool is a new
trend for busy and geographically dispersed managers to be equipped for
action learning, future studies should take this expressed use of technology
into account more seriously.
Cho and Egan 447
6. Classification criteria: Study findings indicated that no clear-cut classifica-
tion criteria were established into action-oriented, learning-oriented, or
balanced action learning research. We referred to the established evaluation
criteria used in the case study of South Korean practices (Cho & Bong,
2008) whereby researchers participated as facilitators in action learning
programs, thus enabling them to develop the criteria derived. In contrast,
our current literature review was based on action learning literature (sec-
ondary data) such that it was difficult to show a perfect match between the
developed evaluation criteria with our use in classifying each action learn-
ing study into three categories.
Study Limitations
A major study limitation concerns the very evaluation criteria referenced for classifi-
cation of action learning literature. There is no perfect match between the established
evaluation criteria and actual use for classification in this study. A related issue is the
rationale of using classification criteria. A key question asked of us has been, Why do
we have to categorize action learning literature into three groups? Although we believe
this framing of the literature to be very helpful from both scholarly and practical per-
spectives, we by no means believe it is the only or very best way to assess action
learning literature. Action learning is recognized among the most useful executive and
management development design formats; however, an assessment tool for evaluating
balanced action learning would greatly assist future exploration and expansion. As
Revans suggested, there are clear practical (and therefore research-related) reasons for
considering the balance issue and we encourage further refinement of this type of clas-
sification as it clearly matters for organizational outcomes and HRD overall.
Another limitation of this study relates to article selection criteria, which centered
on empirical studies. Excluded articles in this study (e.g., non–research-based cases
and conceptual articles) might have provided pointed arguments about action learning.
Relevant issues include why action learning programs fail to achieve organizational
growth (Smith, 1988), politics of action learning (Vince & Martin, 1993; Willmott,
1994), and transfer of learning in action learning (Yorks, O’Neil, Marsick, Lamm,
Kolodny, & Nilson, 1998).
Although action learning seems to be a powerful organizational learning tool, few
empirical studies have been conducted during an 8-year period. Future research into the
processes and outcomes of action learning using a conceptual framework is likely to
help in its diffusion and adoption. Further rigorous research using both quantitative and
qualitative methods is clearly needed. Better research designs will likely identify and
assess learning processes and outcomes of action learning and provide clearer under-
standing regarding the potential benefits of action learning for organizational learning
and performance. Although there is much work needed to better understand a variety of
issues associated with action learning, we believe this systematic exploration of research
and our analysis makes a meaningful contribution to HRD-related literature.
448
Appendix: The Review Matrix for Action Learning Literature from 2000 to 2007
No.
Lead
Author
Year of
Publication
Study Type
Purpose
Conceptual
Framework
Participants
Study Design
Analytic
Methods
Findings (Action [A] versus
Learning [L])
1 Ingram 2000 Case study To reflect on lessons
learned from the
pilot management
program (virtual and
residential)
Critical success
factors, action
learning
15 training staff
members in Marriott
Hotels in the United
Kingdom
Participant
observa-
tion and
interviews
Summative
evalua-
tion
The summative evaluation of the AL
program includes hard and soft
areas: company interface, course
administration, communication,
and resources. [A]
2 Bannan-
Ritland
2001 Case study To discuss an AL ap-
proach to an instruc-
tional technology
master’s program in
the United States
AL and instruc-
tional design
A master’s program of
instructional tech-
nology at George
Mason University
Participant
observa-
tion
NA The principles of an AL approach (a
real problem and a group to solve
the problem) provide a framework
for reexamining methods of teach-
ing ID. [A/L]
3 Coughlan 2001 Action
research
To show a case of the
NALP approach to
continuous improve-
ment in Irish firms
NALP: interorgani-
zational AL
A case firm (manufac-
turer of electrical
systems)
Action
research
NA NALP represented an interorganiza-
tional AL response to the need for
organizations and individuals to
acquire a capacity for operational
improvement. [A/L]
4 Davey 2001 Action
research
To generate opportuni-
ties for U.K. con-
struction SMEs to
better partnerships
with clients
Building
partnerships
60 participants from
construction SMEs
and clients
Action
research:
question-
naires and
interviews
Qualitative
data
analysis
AL is an excellent method for devel-
oping new ways of interacting and
taking action as well as developing
business contacts. [A/L]
5 Gray 2001 Case study To explore how a
virtual learning
environment can be
integrated into the
AL cycle
Work-based learn-
ing and AL
A themed MBA pro-
gram with a major
U.K. firm
Participant
observa-
tion
NA Action learning with Web-based
virtual learning can offer a dynamic
combination of supporting learning
in the workplace. [L]
6 Robinson 2001 Case study To test AL as a peda-
gogical approach in a
diploma of religious
education in the
United Kingdom
Revans’s AL
principles
5 students for inter-
views and 12 for a
survey
Interviews and
a question-
naire
Ethnographic
data
analysis
AL allows space to deal with chal-
lenges to existing belief systems.
“The core of action learning lies in
the learning rather than in solving
the problem.” [L]
(continued)
449
7 Coughlan 2002 Action
research
To describe three cases
of NALP for opera-
tional improvement
in Irish firms
NALP: Inter-
organizational
AL
Three case firms in
Ireland
Action
research
Case study
analysis
NALP represented an interorganiza-
tional AL response to the need for
organizations and individuals to
acquire a capacity for operational
improvement. [A/L]
8 Davey 2002 Case study To investigate AL in
promoting innova-
tion in a construc-
tion company in the
United Kingdom
Revans’s
L = P + Q
Six managers in a
medium-sized con-
struction firm
Observation,
interviews
Content
analysis
Feedback from middle managers sug-
gests that AL can create an innova-
tive management team (chosen
by the chairman), as well as better
leadership. [A/L]
9 Hudspith 2002 Case study To illustrate how
AL was used for
management devel-
opment in a U.K.
restaurant’s corpo-
rate university
Learning in
organizations
50 general managers
at the corporate
university
Participant
observa-
tion
Reflection The AL of the corporate business
school can, if carefully managed,
provide focused people develop-
ment potential. [L]
10 Pedler 2002 Case study To address how local
knowledge can im-
prove organizational
performance and
learning
Organizational
knowledge
creation
Neighborhood
facilitators in Walsall,
United Kingdom
Biographical
account
and open-
ended
survey
Validity
check of
findings
with par-
ticipants
The AL set offers an opportunity for
the development of local knowl-
edge, but also by forming relation-
ships across the middle ground, a
source of learning. [A/L]
11 Booth 2003 Evaluation
study
To describe an AL set
for project staff on
five KM projects in
Trent Region, United
Kingdom
AL 16 project staff from
the five sites and
evaluation team
Questionnaire Frequency
analysis
AL provides a group-based approach
to continuing professional develop-
ment for project staff; it is proper
for cross-organizational learning
on a regional basis. [L]
12 Harker 2003 Case study To illustrate a case
study of AL in e-
marketing in a U.K.
university
AL for marketing
education
Six group projects in a
business school
Curriculum
design
Assessment
of individ-
ual and
group
work
The AL approach to e-marketing
resulted in students’ acquisition of
work-related skills, but there was
no explicit place for reflection in
assessment. [A]
No.
Lead
Author
Year of
Publication
Study Type
Purpose
Conceptual
Framework
Participants
Study Design
Analytic
Methods
Findings (Action [A] versus
Learning [L])
Appendix: (continued)
(continued)
450
13 Miller 2003 Case study To describe an AL ap-
proach to workplace
learning in a private
hospital in Australia
AL framework 35 managers involved in
the change process
Kirkpatrick’s
Level 3
evaluation
by a survey
of all staff
Quantitative
and quali-
tative
analysis
The AL approach to a workplace
learning strategy is to assist man-
agers enhance their capacity to
learn and respond to organization-
al issues more effectively. [A/L]
14 Anderson 2004 Case study To discuss the role of
criticality in AL in a
master’s program at
a U.K. university
AL as critical
pedagogy and
reflection
A master’s program of
People and OD
NA Program
evalua-
tion
Illustrates how a heightened
consciousness of language use in
a master’s program by managers
can be used to develop critical
reflection. [L]
15 Coughlan 2004 Action
research
To explore how AL
was used in two
EU-funded programs,
NALP and CO-
IMPROVE
AL and inter-
organizational
networking
Two management
development
programs: NALP &
CO-IMPROVE
Action
research
as project
manager
and re-
searcher
Reflection NALP in Ireland, AL for interorgani-
zational settings, was extended in
CO-IMPROVE in the EU. Applying
AL in interorganizational settings
requires an adaptation of AL. [A/L]
16 Davey 2004 Case study To evaluate the capacity
of AL to promote
innovation in the
U.K. construction
industry
Action learning Eight construction pro-
fessionals of SMEs
Participant
observa-
tions and
interviews
Content
analysis
AL is unsuited to engendering
creative learning across the con-
struction industry, but should be
restricted to individual firms. [L]
17 Donnen-
berg
2004 Case study An attempt to move
OD back into the
center of AL by
considering theory
and practice
AL for OD: A cog-
nitive systems
approach
Two Dutch cases: eleva-
tor company and
hospital laboratory
Participant
observa-
tion as the
set advisor
Case
analysis
AL seems to be applied for individual
development and not so much for
OD because a connection must
be secured between what has
been learned by participants and
others. [L]
18 Hoban 2004 Case study To explore the process
of AL for science
teachers in Australia
AL principles:
reflection, com-
munity, action
Three science teachers
in a high school
Interviews
with three
teachers
and 30
students
Emergent
theme
analysis
AL is increasingly used in educational
contexts to support the process
of teacher learning. The students’
feedback was a catalyst for teach-
ers’ reflection. [L]
No.
Lead
Author
Year of
Publication
Study Type
Purpose
Conceptual
Framework
Participants
Study Design
Analytic
Methods
Findings (Action [A] versus
Learning [L])
Appendix: (continued)
(continued)
451
19 Law 2004 Case study To determine if project
AL framework
promoted learning
in project teams in
China
Project AL
framework
Pilot project teams
of an electronic
manufacturer
Case study
approach
Evaluation
of learn-
ing
A new approach to learning for
project-based teams integrates
learning and project in one toward
organizational learning ideals. [A/L]
20 Learmonth 2004 Case study To illustrate Auto AL
for building capacity
for a regional public
health policy in
United Kingdom
Auto AL A manager in a health
agency in United
Kingdom
Record
keeping
on the AL
problem
brief
Com-
parative
analysis
of the
brief
headings
The person-centered nature of Auto
AL is a relevant tool for reflective
practice and systematic tracking,
at an early stage of considering
programs. [L]
21 McLoughlin 2004 Case study To describe the mar-
keting development
program using AL in
a business school in
Ireland
Revans’s balanced
action learning
Marketing development
program
Curriculum
design
Reflection This program offers an individualized
and team-based approach that is
adapted to facilitate the learning
demands of the marketing advi-
sors. [L]
22 O’Hara 2004 Case study To describe how self-
managed AL was
applied on manage-
ment development
programs for a
Health Board in
Ireland
Self-managed AL 380 managers (60 sets)
in a Health Board
Participant
observa-
tions and
interviews
Reflection SMAL enabled managers to facilitate
their AL sets and develop the
skills of facilitative management
for managing change, with strong
management support. [L]
23 Rigg 2004 Case study To reflect on critical
AL in a postgraduate
management devel-
opment program in
a business school in
United Kingdom
Critical action
learning
Four cases: three
course participants
and a set facilitator
Ethnogra-
phy and
dialogue
Text analysis Core facets of critical AL, such as
emotion, power, and diversity, can
be the source of critical learning
while also carrying the potential to
be disempowering. [L]
No.
Lead
Author
Year of
Publication
Study Type
Purpose
Conceptual
Framework
Participants
Study Design
Analytic
Methods
Findings (Action [A] versus
Learning [L])
Appendix: (continued)
(continued)
452
24 Willis 2004 Cases
analysis
To evaluate 10 cases of
AL using the Revans
theory
Revans’s gold stan-
dard of action
learning
10 case histories of AL
in the United States
Marker
method of
estimating
Textual
analysis
The inspection of 10 cases of AL does
not deliver strong evidence that
Revans’s theory-intact is being
practiced in U.S. organizations.
[NA]
25 Bouden 2005 Case study To illustrate AL in
the 360° feedback
program to develop
leadership compe-
tencies
Peer group learn-
ing
49 managers in a
pharmaceutical com-
pany in the United
Kingdom and the
United States
Participant
observa-
tion and
question-
naire
Frequency
analysis
Although AL is a very effective
tool for individual development,
managements don’t see manager
development as a key driver of
organizational success. [L]
26 Faull 2005 Case study To illustrate AL for a
change process in a
rehabilitation team
of a hospital in New
Zealand
AL A hospital’s interdisci-
plinary clinical team
Participant
observa-
tion and
interviews
Reflection AL facilitated innovative change of the
team culture. Success factors: time
for reflection, external facilitator,
and management involvement.
[A/L]
27 Graham 2005 Case study To discuss how con-
sultant nurses were
supported by AL in
the local National
Health Scheme facil-
ity, United Kingdom
Collaborative
model of devel-
opment
15 consultant nurses
in the local National
Health Scheme
Trusts
Evaluation of
the learning
set by focus
groups
Transcript
analysis
An evaluation for AL reveals its
success in helping participants to
achieve competence and aware-
ness in personal and professional
abilities. [L]
28 Kuhn 2005 Case study To illustrate AL for
strategic innovation
in the Chubb Global
Executive Program
in the United States
Cognitive dimen-
sions of strate-
gic innovation
Four project teams
of senior vice
presidents at the
insurance firm
Participant
observa-
tion and
interviews
Reflection AL can be used as a learning-based
business initiative to develop
individual and collective capabilities
for strategic innovation; it requires
adequate time. [A/L]
29 Pedler et al. 2005 Exploratory
study
To summarize the 2004
study findings of
AL in the United
Kingdom during the
past decade
Revans’s classical
principles
24 academics and 172
practitioners
Snowballing
Interviews
and a
survey
Quantitative
analysis
AL has become more focused on
personal development, less cen-
tered on organizational problems,
and not widely used in bus schools.
Its growth in United Kingdom
remains inconclusive. [L]
(continued)
No.
Lead
Author
Year of
Publication
Study Type
Purpose
Conceptual
Framework
Participants
Study Design
Analytic
Methods
Findings (Action [A] versus
Learning [L])
Appendix: (continued)
453
30 Penney 2005 Case study To reflect on AL for
preservice teachers
in Australia
AL and action
research for
critical reflec-
tion
A final-year undergrad-
uate unit in teacher
education
Participant
observa-
tion
Reflective
analysis
Although establishing a focus on
individual learning in AL, there has
been no expectation that projects
encompass an agenda for organiza-
tional change. [L]
31 Clarke 2006 Qualitative
evalu-
ation
study
To argue that AL
provides a means of
developing SMEs in
the United Kingdom
SME and AL 19 learning sets in 100
SMEs in the United
Kingdom
Records of
sets and
interviews
Inductive
analysis
The opportunity to reflect and ques-
tion real issues yet maintaining
distance from the context of the
business is highly beneficial to the
SMEs. [A/L]
32 Coghlan 2006 Action
research
To provide an ALAR
framework for col-
laborative improve-
ment in EMEs
in the EU.
ALAR and Col-
laborative
improvement
Three EMEs in Italy, The
Dutch, and Denmark
ALAR ap-
proach
Repeat
initial
assess-
ment and
reflection
CO-IMPROVE, an EU-funded ALAR
program, aims to address collabor-
ative improvement in the extended
manufacturing enterprise. [A/L]
33 Corley 2006 Case study To illustrate how AL
enabled action but
also supported set
members in avoiding
conflict
Critical AL MA in change manage-
ment for a city
council in the United
Kingdom
Close-up
research
and action
research
approach
Evaluation
data
analysis
Within the city council, AL sets
provided a safe place to practice
the questioning of taken-for-
granted assumptions supported by
“comrades in adversity.” [L]
34 de Haan 2006 Quantitative To examine the learn-
ing effects of AL for
participants
Kolb’s experiential
leaning
126 managers from 36
organizations in the
Netherlands
Email survey,
interviews,
and obser-
vations
Quantitative
(frequen-
cies and
correla-
tions)
AL groups learn more during than
after sessions (a relapse in learn-
ing after completion) and learn
by exploring issues in depth and
receiving feedback. [NA]
(continued)
No.
Lead
Author
Year of
Publication
Study Type
Purpose
Conceptual
Framework
Participants
Study Design
Analytic
Methods
Findings (Action [A] versus
Learning [L])
Appendix: (continued)
454
35 De Loo 2006 Case study To highlight the
relevance of man-
agement control
in AL that aims to
foster OL
AL and manage-
ment control
An SME of elevators in
The Netherlands
Literature
review,
archival
analysis,
and inter-
views
Verified
interview
reports
analysis
How the transfer from individual to
OL is to occur? AL can be used as
a management control for OL; top
management support is a crucial
success factor in the process. [A/L]
36 Johnson 2006 Case study To describe an MBA
program driven by
AL in a U.K. manage-
ment school
AL as experienced
approach to
learning
MBA in engineering
management
Program de-
scription
Course
evalua-
tion
The MBA program centered on an
AL approach in which participants
as a group work on workplace
problems and gain an accredited
MBA degree. [L]
37 Mead 2006 Evaluation
study
A systematic evaluation
was undertaken
to explore the
perceived usefulness
of AL
AL principles (set,
set advisor, set
members)
28 students in MA for
midwives in the
United Kingdom
Questionnaire Quantitative
(frequen-
cies,
Mann
Whitney)
The AL principles were identified as a
useful approach in the prepara-
tion program for supervisors of
midwives. [L]
38 Mueller 2006 Survey
study
To review reports of
students in five AP
countries who par-
ticipated a global AL
The PETE model More than 300 stu-
dents from five AP
countries
Web-based
surveys
Quantitative
analysis
The PETE model, a global AL to teach
entrepreneurship, was evaluated as
a practically relevant and outcome-
based program. [A]
39 Oliver 2006 Case study To examine the role
of AL in helping
strategy makers
become reflective
practitioners
The small set
process of AL
A chief executive of a
U.K. fitness service
provider
Action
research
Reflection A detailed examination of how a
service management strategy was
developed in practice and enabled
by a process of iterative action,
change, reflection, and learning.
[A/L]
40 Raelin 2006 Case study To introduce devel-
opmental AL in the
Boston Consortium
for Higher Education
Developmental AL
approach
Administrators from
the Boston Con-
sortium
Interviews
and online
question-
naire
Reflec-
tion on
learning
journal
The developmental AL approach is
proposed as a change vehicle into
an organization without facing
resistance and enhances collabora-
tive processes in organizations.
[A/L]
(continued)
No.
Lead
Author
Year of
Publication
Study Type
Purpose
Conceptual
Framework
Participants
Study Design
Analytic
Methods
Findings (Action [A] versus
Learning [L])
Appendix: (continued)
455
41 Rolland 2006 Qualitative To understand the role
of KM in the AL
process
Business-driven AL
and KM
22 multinational corpo-
rations in France
Interviews,
observa-
tion,
document
analysis
Qualitative
data
analysis
Executive education is much oriented
on action, and KM has a crucial
role in the business-driven AL
process. [A]
42 Stewart 2006 Case study To investigate the
effectiveness of
virtual AL to engage
SMEs in the United
Kingdom
Learning in SMEs,
AL, e-learning,
networked ML
29 SMEs Interviews and
question-
naire
Qualitative
and quan-
titative
analysis
It is possible to engage SMEs by using
an engagement strategy addressing
their business problems, using the
blended design, face-to-face and
virtual AL. [L]
43 Waddill 2006 Exploratory
case
study
To examine the impact
of AL on the ef-
fectiveness of an
e-learning course for
managers
AL and Web-based
instruction
12 graduates of an edu-
cational organization
in the United States
5-week action
e-learning
course
design
Text analysis AL can be conducted effectively on-
line at an individual level; however,
online learning communities did
not form (unit of analysis: industrial
manager in sets). [L]
44 Yeo 2006 Exploratory
study
To explore if reflective
AL has an influence
on organizational
effectiveness
Reflective AL
framework
50 professors of a
higher education in
Singapore
Interviews and
ethno-
graphic
observa-
tion
Content
analysis
Reflective AL is closely aligned to
Kolb’s experiential learning cycle
and promotes team dynamics,
leading to organizational learning.
[A/L]
45 O’Hara 2007 Evaluation
study
To explore the effects
of a 5-year AL man-
agement develop-
ment program in a
public sector in the
United Kingdom
NA 100 AL program
graduates (middle
managers)
Question-
naire and
interviews
Quantitative
and quali-
tative
analysis
Learning and change happened at a
local level; the immediate effects
of AL were individual, local, and
specific rather than organization-
wide. [L]
(continued)
No.
Lead
Author
Year of
Publication
Study Type
Purpose
Conceptual
Framework
Participants
Study Design
Analytic
Methods
Findings (Action [A] versus
Learning [L])
Appendix: (continued)
456
46 Olsson 2007 Action
research
To transfer knowledge
from the service to
the paper packaging
industry through AL
Customer-
oriented
product
development
The service and paper
packaging industry
(Sweden)
Action
research
design
Qualitative,
inter-
pretive
analysis
The transformation of perspective
toward customer orientation is
dependent on individuals’ learn-
ing through the workshop AL
methods. [L]
47 Pauleen 2007 Case study To demonstrate how
AL and grounded
theory were used to
generate and articu-
late knowledge
The role of
discovery and
articulation
in KM
Two AL sets of busi-
ness people in
virtual teams in New
Zealand
Grounded
theory
design
The
constant
com-
parative
method
AL provided an environment in which
busy professionals working with
new technologies could receive
knowledge and a safe place to
improve their virtual team leader-
ship skills. [L]
48 Rooke 2007 Exploratory
study
To explore the nature
and the role of
action in AL, inside
the set and outside
the set
Action inside and
outside the set
Three AL sets in public
policy in the United
Kingdom
Literature
review,
interviews,
and ques-
tionnaire
Qualitative
analysis,
evalua-
tion
Action can occur either inside or
outside the set; although it is an
input to the learning process, it
can also be regarded as an output
of that process. [A/L]
49 Tushman
et al.
2007 Evaluation
study
To explore the effects
of AL designs on
individual and orga-
nizational outcomes
Rigor and rel-
evance in busi-
ness schools
64 participants from 31
organizations in U.S.
executive programs
Interviews Emergent
theme
and quan-
titative
analysis
AL programs for executive education
significantly enhance both indi-
vidual and organizational outcomes
and also enhance teaching and
research efforts. [A/L]
50 Walsh 2007 Action
research
To explore the use of
AL with occupation-
al therapy students
AL 15 first-year students
in two sets in a U.K.
university
Action
research
design
Inductive
analysis
The use of new ways of learning
and peer support offered by AL
seemed to facilitate reported
changes in students. [L]
Note: AL = action learning; SME = small–medium enterprise; NALP = national action learning program; OD = organization development; ALAR = action learning and research; OL = organizational
learning; KM = knowledge management; EMEs = Extended manufacturing enterprises.
No.
Lead
Author
Year of
Publication
Study Type
Purpose
Conceptual
Framework
Participants
Study Design
Analytic
Methods
Findings (Action [A] versus
Learning [L])
Appendix: (continued)
Cho and Egan 457
References
Anderson, L., & Thorpe, R. (2004). New perspectives on action learning. Journal of European
Industrial Training, 28, 657-668.
Bannan-Ritland, B. (2001). Teaching instructional design: An action learning approach. Perfor-
mance Improvement Quarterly, 14(2), 37-52.
Bolt, J. E. (2005). The future of executive development. San Francisco: Executive Development
Associates.
Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Falzon, L. (2003). Working together: Supporting projects through
action learning. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 20, 225-231.
Boshyk, Y. (Ed.). (2002). Action learning worldwide. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bouden, G. P., & De Laat, R. (2005). Peer group learning in Roche Pharma Development.
Action Learning: Research and Practice, 2, 197-204.
Brooks, A., & Watkins, K. E. (1994). A new era for action technologies. New Directions for
Adult and Continuing Education, 63, 5-16.
Brown, M. (1989). What are the qualities of good research? In F. Hultgren & D. Coomer
(Eds.), Alternative modes of inquiry in home economics research (pp. 257-297). Peoria, IL:
Glencoe.
Buhi, E. R., & Goodson, P. (2007). Predictors of adolescent sexual behavior and intention: A
theory-guided systematic review. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 4-21.
Cho, Y., & Bong, H. (2008, June). Identifying balanced action learning: Cases of South Korean
practices. Presented at the 2008 Global Forum of Executive Development and Business
Driven Action Learning, Seoul, Korea.
Clarke, J., Thorpe, R., Anderson, L., & Gold, J. (2006). It’s all action, it’s all learning: Action
learning in SMEs. Journal of European Industrial Training, 30, 441-455.
Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2005). Doing action research in your own organization (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Coghlan, D., & Coughlan, P. (2006). Designing and implementing collaborative improvement
in the extended manufacturing enterprise. The Learning Organization, 13, 152-165.
Conger, J., & Toegel, G. (2003). Action learning and multi-rater feedback as leadership devel-
opment interventions. Journal of Change Management, 3, 332-348.
Corley, A., & Thorne, A. (2006). Action learning. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 3,
31-44.
Coughlan, P., & Coghlan, D. (2004). Action learning. Action Learning: Research and Practice,
1, 43-61.
Coughlan, P., Coghlan, D., Dromgoole, T., Duff, D., Caffrey, R., Lynch, K., et al. (2002). Effect-
ing operational improvement through inter-organizational action learning. Integrated Manu-
facturing Systems, 13, 131-140.
Coughlan, P., Harbison, A., Dromgoole, T., & Duff, D. (2001). Continuous improvement
through collaborative action learning. International Journal of Technology Management,
22, 285-302.
Davey, C. L., Lowe, D. J., & Duff, A. R. (2001). Generating opportunities for SMEs to develop
partnerships and improve performance. Building Research & Information, 29, 1-11.
458 Human Resource Development Review 8(4)
Davey, C. L., Powell, J. A., Cooper, I., & Powell, J. E. (2004). Innovation, construction
SMEs and action learning. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 11,
230-237.
Davey, C. L., Powell, J. A., Powell, J. E., & Cooper, I. (2002). Action learning in a medium-
sized construction company. Building Research & Information, 30, 5-15.
Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 581-613.
de Haan, E., & de Ridder, I. (2006). Action learning in practice. Consulting Psychology Jour-
nal: Practice and Research, 58, 216-231.
De Loo, I. (2001). New thoughts on action learning. Journal of European Industrial Training,
25, 229-234.
De Loo, I. (2002). The troublesome relationship between action learning and organizational
growth. Journal of Workplace Learning, 14, 245-255.
De Loo, I. (2006). Action and organizational learning in an elevator company. The Learning
Organization, 13, 204-214.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New
York: John Wiley.
Dilworth, R. L. (2006). Creating opportunities for reflection in action learning. In S. Reddy &
A. Barker (Eds.), Genuine action learning (Chap. 5). Hyderabad, India: ICFAI.
Dilworth, R. L., & Willis, V. J. (2003). Action learning: Images and pathways. Malabar, FL:
Krieger.
Donnenberg, O., & De Loo, I. (2004). Facilitating organizational development through action
learning. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 1, 167-184.
Dubin, R. (1978). Theory building. New York: Free Press.
Edmonson, A. C. (2002). The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations. Organi-
zation Science, 13, 128-146.
Faull, K., Hartley, L., & Kalliath, T. (2005). Action learning. Organizational Development Jour-
nal, 23(3), 39-52.
Fenwick, R. (2005). Conceptions of critical HRD: Dilemmas for theory and practice. Human
Resource Development International, 8, 225-238.
Garavan, T. N., McGuire, D., & O’Donnell, D. (2004). Exploring human resource development:
A levels of analysis approach. Human Resource Development Review, 3, 417-441.
Garrard, J. (2007). Health sciences literature review made easy: The matrix method. Sudbury,
MA: Jones & Bartlett.
Graham, I. W., & Wallace, S. (2005). Supporting the role of the nurse consultant. Nurse Educa-
tion Today, 25, 87-94.
Gray, D. (2001). Work-based learning, action learning and the virtual paradigm. Journal of
Further and Higher Education, 25, 315-324.
Harker, M. J., & Brennan, R. (2003). E-marketing action. The Marketing Review, 3, 419-431.
Hoban, G. F. (2004). Enhancing action learning with student feedback. Action Learning:
Research and Practice, 1, 203-218.
Holton, E. F., III. (2002). Theoretical assumptions underlying the performance paradigm of
human resource development. Human Resource Development International, 5, 199-215.
Cho and Egan 459
Hudspith, D., & Ingram, H. (2002). Delivering management development through action learn-
ing. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 14, 368-374.
Ingram, H., Biermann, K., Cannon, J., Neil, J., & Waddle, C. (2000). Internalizing action learn-
ing. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 12, 107-113.
Jacobs, R. (1989). Systems theory applied to human resource development. In R. Swanson &
D. Gradous (Eds.), Systems theory applied to human resource development (pp. 27-60).
Alexandria, VA: ASTD.
Johnson, C., & Spicer, D. P. (2006). A case study of action learning in an MBA program. Educa-
tion & Training, 48, 39-54.
Joo, B. (2005). Executive coaching: A conceptual framework from an integrative review of
practice and research. Human Resource Development Review, 4, 462-488.
Kim, J. (2007). Action learning factors perceived by action learning participants in companies
in South Korea. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minnesota.
Korpiaho, K., Päiviö, H., & Räsänen, K. (2007). Anglo-American forms of management educa-
tion. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 23, 36-65.
Kuhn, J. S., & Marsick, V. J. (2005). Action learning for strategic innovation in mature organi-
zations. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 2, 27-48.
Law, K. M. Y., & Chuah, K. B. (2004). Project-based action learning as learning approach in
learning organization. Team Performance Management, 10, 178-186.
Learmonth, A. (2004). Action learning as a tool for developing networks and building evidence-
based practice in public health. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 2, 97-104.
Lynham, S. A. (2000). Theory building in the human resource development profession. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 2, 159-178.
Maltbia, T. E., & Marsick, V. (2008, February). Using structured conversations to develop
reflective practice skills. Paper presented at the 2008 AHRD International Research Confer-
ence in the Americas, Panama City, Florida.
Marquardt, M. J. (2004). Optimizing the power of action learning. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.
Marquardt, M. J., Leonard, H. S., Feedman, A. M., & Hill, C. C. (2009). Action learning for
developing leaders and organizations: Principles, strategies, and cases. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Marsick, V., & O’Neil, J. (1999). The many faces of action learning. Management Learning,
30, 159-176.
McLoughlin, D. (2004). There can be no learning without action and no action without learning.
European Journal of Marketing, 38, 433-445.
Mead, M., Yearley, C., Lawrence, C., & Rogers, C. (2006). Action learning. Action Learning:
Research and Practice, 3, 175-186.
Mezirow, J. (1981). A critical theory of adult learning and education. Adult Education Quar-
terly, 32, 3-24.
Miller, P. (2003). Workplace learning by action learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15,
14-23.
Morse, J. M. (1994). Designing funded qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 220-235). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Moustakes, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
460 Human Resource Development Review 8(4)
Mueller, J., Liang, T. W., Hu, H., & Thornton, J. (2006). Where should the action be-inside the
classroom or outside the classroom: A comparison of the action learning outcomes in Singa-
pore, China, Korea, New Zealand and Australia. Action Learning: Research and Practice,
3, 161-173.
Mumford, A. (1985). A review of action learning. Management Bibliographies & Reviews,
11(2), 3-18.
Mumford, A. (1994). A review of action learning literature. Management Bibliographies &
Reviews, 20(6), 2-16
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
O’Hara, S., Bourner, T., & Webber, T. (2004). The practice of self-managed action learning.
Action Learning: Research and Practice, 1, 29-42.
O’Hara, S., Murphy, L., & Reeve, S. (2007). Action learning as leverage for strategic transfor-
mation. Strategic Change, 16, 177-190.
Oliver, J. (2006). Developing a service management strategy facilitated by action learning:
An empirical study from the UK health & fitness industry. Action Learning: Research and
Practice, 3, 213-220.
Olsson, A. (2007). Transformation to a customer-oriented perspective through action learning in
product and service development. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 4, 45-59.
O’Neil, J., & Marsick, V. J. (2007). Understanding action learning. New York: AMACOM.
Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Pauleen, D. J., Corbitt, B., & Yoong, P. (2007). Discovering and articulating what is not yet
known. The Learning Organization, 14, 222-240.
Pedler, M. (2002). Accessing local knowledge. Human Resource Development International,
5, 523-540.
Pedler, M. (2005a). Critical action learning. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 4, 1-6.
Pedler, M. (2005b). A general theory of human action. Action Learning: Research and Practice,
2, 127-132.
Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., & Brook, C. (2005). What has action learning learned to become?
Action Learning: Research and Practice, 2, 49-68.
Penney, D., & Leggett, B. (2005). Connecting initial teacher education and continuing profes-
sional learning through action research and action learning. Action Learning: Research and
Practice, 2, 153-169.
Poell, R. F., Yorks, L., & Marsick, V. J. (2008, August). Organizing project-based learning in
work contexts: A cross-cultural cross analysis of data. Paper presented at the 2008 Academy
of Management Conference, Anaheim, CA.
Poole, M. S., Van de Ven, A. H., Dooley, K., & Holmes, M. E. (2000). Organizational change
and innovation process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Raelin, R. (1999). Preface. Management Learning, 30, 115-125.
Raelin, J. A. (2001). Public reflection as the basis of learning. Management Learning, 32, 11-30.
Raelin, J. A. (2007). Toward an epistemology of practice. Academy of Management Learning
& Education, 6, 495-519.
Cho and Egan 461
Raelin, J. A. (2008). Work-based learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Raelin, J. A., & Raelin, J. D. (2006). Developmental action learning. Action Learning: Research
and Practice, 3, 45-67.
Revans, R. W. (1971). Developing effective managers. New York: Praeger.
Revans, R. W. (1982). The origins and growth of action learning. London: Chartwell-Bratt.
Revans, R. W. (1998). ABC of action learning. London: Lemos & Crane.
Reynolds, M., & Vince, R. (2004). Critical management education and action-based learning.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3, 442-456.
Rigg, C., & Trehan, K. (2004). Reflections on working with critical action learning. Action
Learning: Research and Practice, 1, 149-165.
Robinson, M. (2001). It works, but is it action learning? Education & Training, 43, 64-71.
Rolland, N. (2006). Knowledge management in the business driven action learning process.
Journal of Management Development, 25, 896-907.
Rooke, J., Altounyan, C., Young, A., & Young, S. (2007). Doers of the word? An inquiry into
the nature of action in action learning. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 4, 119-135.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday.
Smith, P. (1988). Second thoughts on action learning. Journal of European Industrial Training,
12, 28-31.
Smith, P. A. C. (2001). Action learning and reflective practice in project environments that are
related to leadership development. Management Learning, 32, 31-48.
Smith, P. A. C., & O’Neil, J. (2003a). A review of action learning literature: Part 1. Journal of
Workplace learning, 15, 63-69.
Smith, P. A. C., & O’Neil, J. (2003b). A review of action learning literature 1994-2000: Part 2.
Journal of Workplace learning, 15, 154-166.
Stewart, J.-A., & Alexander, G. (2006). Virtual action learning. Action Learning: Research and
Practice, 3, 141-159.
Torraco, R. J. (2004). Challenges and choices for theoretical research in human resource devel-
opment. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15, 171-188.
Tushman, M., & O’Reilly, C. (2007). Research and relevance: Implications of Pasteur’s Quad-
rant for doctoral programs and faculty development. Academy of Management Journal, 50,
769-774.
Tushman, M. L., O’Reilly, C. A., Fenollosa, A., Kleinbaum, A. M., & McGrath, D. (2007). Rel-
evance and rigor: Executive education as a lever in shaping practice and research. Academy
of Management Learning & Education, 6, 345-362.
Vince, R. (2003). The future practice of HRD. Human Resource Development International, 6,
559-563.
Vince, R. (2004). Action learning and organizational learning: Power, politics and emotion in
organization. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 1, 63-78.
Vince, R., & Martin, I. (1993). Inside action learning. Management Education and Develop-
ment, 24, 205-215.
Waddill, D. D. (2006). Action e-learning. Human Resource Development International, 9, 157-171.
Walsh, S., & Fegan, C. (2007). Action learning. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 4,
137-152.
462 Human Resource Development Review 8(4)
Wanberg, C. R., Welsh, E. T., & Hezlett, S. A. (2003). Mentoring research: A review and
dynamic process model. In J. J. Martocchio & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel
and human resources management (Vol. 22, pp. 39-124). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
Willis, V. J. (2004). Inspecting cases against Revans’ “gold standard” of action learning. Action
Learning: Research and Practice, 1, 11-27.
Willmott, H. (1994). Management education: Provocations to debate. Management Learning,
25, 105-136.
Yamnill, S., & McLean, G. (2001). Theories supporting transfer of training. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 12, 195-208.
Yeo, R. K. (2006). Learning institution to learning organization. Journal of European Industrial
Training, 30, 396-419.
Yorks, L., O’Neil, J., Marsick, V. J., Lamm, S., Kolodny, R., & Nilson, G. (1998). Transfer of
learning from an action learning program. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 11, 59-73.
Bios
Dr. Yonjoo Cho is an assistant professor of Instructional Systems Technology at Indiana
University at Bloomington. She has worked as an HR professional for the last 13 years in South
Korea, both in business and academic sectors. Her latest position was MBA Director and a visit-
ing professor at the KAIST (Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology) Business
School in Seoul, Korea. Her research interests center on action learning as an organization
development intervention, HRD practices of the IT industry, and international HRD. She
received her PhD in Instructional Technology from The University of Texas at Austin.
Dr. Toby Marshall Egan is an associate professor in the HRD program at Texas A&M University.
His areas of expertise include: organization development, individual development, and general
HRD. Formerly a vice-president and senior consultant in a US-based consulting firm, Egan is
an experienced OD consultant, project manager, and educator with over fifteen years of prac-
tice. He excels in several areas of OD from strategic planning to organizational restructuring,
and the management of organization-wide training efforts. His clients have included nonprofit
organizations, NGOs, Fortune 500 and public sector organizations in a wide range of industries.
He received his PhD in HRD from the University of Minnesota.
