Breakthrough Problem Solving with Action Learning: Concepts and Cases

Introduction

ACTION LEARNING was first developed in the 1940s by physicist-turned-human relations director Reg Revans to solve the problems of productivity and morale in the coal mines of Wales and England. Instead of turning to outside consultants, Revans wisely and astutely determined that having the coal miners work on their own problems (with their own questions and from their own perspectives), would be a better approach. And it was! The coal mines for which Revans worked had 30 percent greater productivity and much higher morale than any of the adjoining mines. He recognized that humble people sharing what they didn’t bloody know and being willing to ask others what does this look like to you? would eventually lead to breakthrough problem solving.

Later, when he was the head of emergency services in East London, Revans worked on problems in the hospitals of London, where he became interested in how nurses solved complex problems at work (Revans, 1971). Revans’s approach to action learning was driven by a problem-solving approach that identified underlying issues, conceptualized frames of reference for practice, and sought practical and lasting solutions to pressing issues.

Over the years, the action learning principles and practices that Revans pioneered have evolved to even better address the ever more complex and difficult problems of the 21st century. Finding appropriate, sustainable business solutions in today’s world requires insight, systems thinking, and creativity. Problem-solving strategies that may have worked in the past are no longer capable of developing the breakthrough ideas and solutions that will work in today’s environment, since neither the typical individual nor the traditional problem-solving groups have the capability to fully understand today’s problems, and they lack the team learning necessary to develop solutions that are powerful, sustainable, and cost-effective.

In the 12 chapters that follow this introduction, Breakthrough Problem Solving with Action Learning explores why and how action learning has been so successful. We briefly review the theories and research that undergird the effectiveness of action learning and point readers in the direction of related academic works that they may wish to explore. The narrative then turns to stories of how organizations have employed action learning in solving thorny and complex business problems. We use more than 30 cases to demonstrate how real-world models for how action learning can be successfully employed; we hope they provide inspiration and starting points for other businesses facing similarly difficult and complex problems.

Overview of the Book

The characteristics of breakthrough thinking and action can be derived from the integration of complex problem solving with action learning. We first examine the theories and best practices of problem solving and then explore how action learning incorporates these theories and practices in 31 action learning cases from around the world and in nine different business areas. We conclude the book by identifying the key dynamics of action learning that lead to breakthrough problem solving (see Figure I.1).

Part I—Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century

Part I describes the complexity and challenges of problem solving in the 21st century as well as best theories and principles. In Chapter 1, we note that the critical problems faced by organizations today are much more complicated and wicked than problems encountered 10–15 years ago. The 21st-century workplace’s wide array of rapidly changing socioeconomic trends and markets, overnight innovation by competitors, mergers across disparate corporate cultures and industries, new distribution channels, and the globalization of business have generated problems that are ever more difficult to solve. Twentieth-century problems were more technical while 21st-century problems are adaptive in nature and context. Technical problems (for which the necessary knowledge to solve the problem already exists in a legitimized form or set of procedures) are being replaced by adaptive problems, for which a satisfactory response has yet to be developed and no amount of technical expertise is fully adequate.

FIGURE I.1. Framework for Understanding the Structure of the Book

More and more of the 21st-century problems cannot be solved by a single person or leader—there is simply too much information to incorporate and too many implications to be considered. The imaginations, diverse perspectives, and talents of many people are needed in order to uncover the answers to today’s dilemmas. No one person, however prescient, will be able to fully understand the problem; nor can any group composed of people with similar backgrounds and perspectives generate the innovative answers that we need.

In Chapter 2 we present the basic premises and roots of action learning. Action learning begins with the need to solve problems and builds on that imperative—the more complex and urgent, the better suited a conundrum is for action learning. The dynamic interactive process used in action learning allows the group to see problems in new ways and to gain fresh perspectives on how to resolve them. Questioning from multiple perspectives creates solid systems thinking in which the group sees the whole rather than parts, relationships rather than linear cause-and-effect patterns, underlying structures rather than events, and profiles of changes rather than snapshots. The action learning process enables the group to look for underlying causes and leveraged actions, rather than symptoms and short-term solutions. Action learning examines both macro and micro views, so as to discover when and how to best implement the proposed actions.

Action learning, in a subtle, natural, and yet synergistic way, incorporates theories and principles from an array of disciplines, including psychology (behavior, cognitive, social, humanist, and constructivist), physics (quantum rather than Newtonian), management science (e.g., motivation and leadership theories), systems engineering, and sociology. Here, we connect ideas from these disciplines to the core tenets of action learning, as described in the first part of this chapter. These principles, disciplines, and theories are integrated through the intensive utilization of reflective inquiry at each stage of problem solving, be it the reframing of problems, the development of inspirational goals, the creation of alternative strategies, or the generation of breakthrough actions.

Part II—Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving with Action Learning

In the 21st century, action learning has enabled organizations around the world to achieve breakthrough solutions to a multitude of complex problems. In this section we examine nine types of problems that have been addressed with action learning. Thirty-one case studies are presented from European, African, Australian, Asian, and American companies—large as well as small, public as well as private. We explore why action learning was employed, how the action learning problem-solving teams were chosen, the critical moments during the problem-solving cycle in which breakthrough thinking emerged, and the successful application of the action learning strategies. Lessons learned and suggested applications to other types of problems and organizations are also discussed.

Chapter 3 examines how four organizations—Nationwide Insurance, Lexus-Toyota, PepsiCo, and Bristol-Myers Squibb—used action learning to solve problems related to marketing and sales. In Chapter 4 we describe how Goodrich, Kirin Brewery, and Krones employed action learning to expand and improve the power of technology for internal infrastructure and operations as well as external customer/client support.

More and more organizations around the world have recognized the importance of being socially responsible and being concerned with not degrading and even improving the environment. Chapter 5 describes how DuPont used action learning in developing breakthrough strategies for going green, in both the development and the delivery of its products around the world. We also relate how several Caribbean countries used action learning to create a better environment through comprehensive water management, as well as how the Downer Group, an Australian mining company, developed a road analysis control system that resulted in significant reductions in wasted materials.

Nations face tremendous challenges in responding to the economic, educational, and social needs of their people. Chapter 6 presents how action learning was used for the development of the health system in the Cook Islands, community development in Australia, and economic and social development in Wales and Kenya. Chapter 7 tells the stories of how three companies—Morgans Hotel Group, Toyota Motor Company, and Just Born Candies—used action learning to innovate and develop their products and services.

In Chapter 8 we describe how four organizations—Panasonic, National Bank of Dominica, Anglo American Mining, and Union Church Hong Kong—changed their corporate cultures and ethical practices by incorporating action learning. Chapter 9 explores how three organizations—Microsoft, National Bank of Dominica, and Boeing—used action learning for talent management and leadership development. Action learning was determined by these companies to be the most powerful and effective way to develop both current and future leaders.

As more and more problem-solving teams work virtually, more and more organizations are employing the practices and principles of action learning to make these teams more effective and efficient. Chapter 10 describes how Hewlett-Packard, Kanbay-Capgemini, Virtual City–Kenya, and George Washington University are using action learning to improve virtual work and learning. Chapter 11, the final chapter of Part II, shares how three organizations on three different continents—Constellation Energy in North America, Deutsche Bank in Europe, and Kentz Engineers & Constructors in South Africa—used action learning to solve problems related to one or more of these forms of organizational learning and restructuring.

Part III—Principles and Strategies for Using Action Learning for Problem Solving

In Chapter 12 we bring together the 10 elements that were found to be essential to the success of action learning in the cases described in Part II, in particular how the questions, the diversity of the groups, the learning, and the urgency of the problems resulted in breakthrough thinking, strategies, and actions. We also describe how learning while solving problems enables groups to become masters at solving complex problems.

It has been said that the greatest and most significant learnings and achievements in history have occurred when individuals, teams, organizations, communities, and nations faced seemingly overwhelming problems and unreachable challenges. The action learning approach turns such problems and challenges into powerful learnings and actions. We encourage the readers of this book to test this approach in their own organizations. We are confident that action learning can help all organizations achieve great solutions to seemingly unsolvable problems.

I

PROBLEM COMPLEXITY AND PROBLEM SOLVING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

1

Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century

For nearly 20 years, Nationwide Insurance had been searching for an equitable way to offer its associates a discount on insurance and financial services products. A few weeks after forming an action learning team the company developed a breakthrough strategy that is now being implemented nationwide.

Although the problem appeared fairly simple on the surface, it had been challenging Constellation Energy for a number of years—namely, how to develop a work schedule to cover one of its power plants for six days a week, 24 hours a day. It was a challenge to design a system that would be fair to all the employees and still meet to the financial and legal constraints of the company. Remarkably, an action learning group, in less than eight hours, came up with a solution that had eluded Constellation for many years; it was a solution that met the approval of the plant workers and managers as well as the financial and legal people at Constellation.

Design an energy-neutral building to house 1,200 employees? Impossible! But an action learning group did so. The building—the headquarters of the United Nations Environment Programme in Nairobi—was described by the UN secretary general as a living model of our sustainable future at opening ceremonies in March 2011.

The Growing Complexity of 21st-Century Problems

The critical problems faced by organizations in 2011 are much more complex than problems encountered even five to ten years ago. The 21st-century workplace is marked by an enormous amount of ambiguity that has arisen from a wide array of rapidly changing socioeconomic trends and markets, overnight innovation from competitors, mergers across disparate corporate cultures and industries, new distribution channels, and the globalization of business.

As organizations evolve, they must maintain their strategic capability as they deal with internal and external complexities. Problem solving has thus become a way of life in challenging times. Organizational members, particularly leaders, are required to exercise discretion, take calculated risks, capitalize on the constraints of time and resources, analyze environmental uncertainties, make skillful decisions, and take considered action. As problems become increasingly complex—that is, they are not easily identifiable at first sight and are oftentimes subsumed within other issues—leaders are tasked with the responsibility of providing a way out so that, collectively, they take their organizations to the next level of competitive resilience.

Action Learning—21st Century’s Powerful Problem-Solving Tool

Organizations around the world have discovered that action learning is a powerful way to solve complex problems and develop sustainable strategic actions (Boshyk and Dilworth, 2010; Marquardt, 1999, 2004a, 2004b, 2011b; Kramer, 2008, Pedler, 1983, 1991, 1997, 2012). A special issue of Business Week (2005) proclaimed that action learning is a key problem-solving tool for managers. And a 2008 study by the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) found that 63 percent of all executive programs used action learning for problem solving and leadership development. Action learning is increasingly seen as not only the best, but as the only problemsolving tool that can solve large, complex problems, a tool so critical in times of whitewater changes.

Why does action learning work so well in generating breakthrough strategies that solve complex problems? Because it was conceived, designed, and tested for the express purpose of solving problems. It has all of the elements that are necessary for group problem solving. It enables diverse groups to learn while they are solving problems and thus become smarter and better equipped to comprehend the root problems and issues, to explore multiple resources and options, and to creatively and systematically identify the best powerful and effective actions. The ability of action learning groups to learn while working (changing the tire while the car is moving, so to speak) and to fully employ the most powerful problem-solving tool available—i.e., the question—leads to consistent and remarkable breakthrough strategies.

It is the inherent and spontaneous problem-solving nature of action learning that makes it such a powerful tool for enabling organizations to develop breakthrough strategies while working on critical and complex problems (Marquardt et al., 2009; Pedler, 2012). In Chapter 2 we explore how and why action learning is so powerful and successful, but first let us (a) examine why problems have become more complex and (b) the essential elements of breakthrough problem solving.

The Complexity of 21st-Century Problems

Complex problems are those that are intricately connected to the roots of other problems. Normally, a complex problem is solved by carefully considering its individual layers and issues. However, given the organic structure of today’s organizations, in which inter-, intra-, and extra-organizational dynamics are changing so rapidly, complex problem solving has become a lot less straightforward. Organizational dynamics includes human relations as well as sophisticated team, organizational, and environmental structures. Complex problem solving, therefore, is not just about seeking solutions; it also entails the identification of new problems that could potentially emerge from each solution found. The complexity therefore lies in the uncovering of the more deeply rooted symptoms of a problem.

Assume, for example, that a surgeon is performing a complex operation on a crucial organ of a patient. The surgeon is of course well aware of the intricate interconnectedness of all of the human body’s parts and system. The removal of one part may create complications for the functioning of another, just as it does in an organic organization. Leaders therefore need to be aware that approaching complex problems in organizational contexts requires a systematic yet exploratory approach in order to understand and manage each problem’s multiple facets.

The defining characteristics of today’s complex problems, according to Bertolt Meyer and Wolfgang Scholl (2009), are based on the complexity, opaqueness, interconnectedness, dynamics, and polytely (multiple goals) of the situation.

1. Complexity is determined by the amount of information that needs processing, usually beyond the capability of human processing. Failure to absorb and make sense of all available information prevents the problem solver from making appropriate decisions and undertaking optimal action.

2. Opaqueness suggests the density of a problem’s root causes such that frequent, active, and updated information is required to unravel them.

3. Interconnectedness refers to the interdependence of issues and events that contribute to the intricacies of the problem properties such that a systemic (overall) perspective would be required in order to give the problem solvers a complete picture of the problem structure.

4. Dynamics suggests environmental influences on the shape and evolution of the problem over time.

5. Polytely refers to the different goals that are needed to satisfy the multiple and sometimes conflicting aspects of a complex problem.

In the Caribbean Water Action Learning Project described in Chapter 5, the problem faced had all of these ingredients. The action learning teams needed to comprehend and integrate multiple sources of information with a wide array of communities to develop the insights needed to solve the problem.

Connectivity and dynamics are two primary features of a complex problem (Funke, 2001). Changes in connectivity alter the structural properties of the sublayers of a problem and sprout to form new problem branches; situational dynamics transform the problem over time and interactions with environmental properties. As such, complex problem solving requires that the solver be highly aware of the situational requirements of the task, which include mental, emotional, communicative, social, and intellectual competences.

Technical and Adaptive Problems

Rapid organizational change challenges managers to clearly identify the types of problems that they need to solve. Problem solvers need to understand each problem’s primary drivers, particularly the environmental factors that could help them make sense of the level of complexity.

Problems can be based on existing knowledge or a lack of existing knowledge. For instance, Ronald Heifetz and Donald Laurie (1997) distinguish between the problems that were more common to the 20th century (technical problems) and those that are (so far) most prevalent and important in the 21st century—that is, problems that are adaptive in nature and context.

Technical problems are those in which the necessary knowledge to solve the problem already exists in a legitimized form or set of procedures. Solving these problems requires the efficient and rational acquisition and application of knowledge, a more Newtonian manner. Technical problems have a linear, logical way of being solved, with precedents within or outside the organization; they are somewhat like puzzles, with single right answers.

Adaptive problems are those that may have no absolute answers or that require no technical expertise necessary to solve. In other words, adaptive problems are complex problems that surface in less recognizable forms. The nature of these problems often changes with circumstances and time, making them difficult to define and tackle. Complex organizations are more likely to give rise to such problems because they themselves must adapt to external competition and forces. People working to solve these kinds of problems will sometimes need to make uncomfortable adjustments—changes in attitude, work habits, basic assumptions, and expectations. They need to constantly generate new ideas, modify their strategies, and integrate other perspectives when responding to adaptive problems.

One immediate requirement is that they let go of entrenched habits by exploring alternatives and seeking opportunities to handle the problems. Solving adaptive problems may also require them to learn new skills and develop new knowledge to meet the demands. Needless to say, it is essential that people in organizational settings collectively apply their intelligence and competence to resolving these problems.

Note, though, that technical problems are not unimportant or necessarily easier to solve than adaptive problems. They are called technical problems only because the information and knowledge needed to resolve them already exists; clear procedures and guidelines in organizations can be used to resolve technical problems. As organizations become more complex, however, strategic and operational problems will require more than a technical response. Problem-solving teams may therefore need to acquire more adaptive approaches to questioning, dialogue, feedback, and reflection (Ellstrõm, 2001).

Types of Complex Problems

There are four broad types of problems that are related to organizational threats and their effects on problem-solving capabilities. These are characterized as universal exigencies in all forms of social systems; they present themselves as adaptation, goal attainment, integration, and latency or tension problems (see Table 1.1). They interact with each other and affect the overall organizational system in complex ways. Complex problems can weaken the structure, systems, and strategy of an organization. These types of problems are intricately related to the behavioral aspects of organizational dynamics in the 21st century involving people, process, and purpose.

Adaptation Problems

Adaptation problems are different from adaptive problems. Adaptation problems are caused by misalignments of expectations within the subsystems of an organization, including culture, technology, people, and structure. They require problem solvers to incorporate a systems perspective on organizational interrelations. They need to understand the organization’s subsystems by recognizing that together they constitute one autonomous system, and be aware of the roles and independent agencies that drive these subsystems into a collaborative unit of operation. Unlike adaptive problems, adaptation problems can fully rely on existing knowledge and expertise to provide possible solutions.

TABLE 1.1

Comparison of Adaptation, Goal Attainment, Integration, and Legacy Problems

Adaptation problems frequently drive organizations to manage with limited resources while making the most of a situation. Individuals are expected to be resourceful in seeking opportunities for improvisation. This involves viewing the same situation from different angles and diverse perspectives and performing tasks in new ways, usually modifications of already triedand-tested methods.

Adaptation problems exist when employees are myopic in their worldview at work, focusing on their narrow job scope without considering how the complexity and significance of their own work relates to other functions. To a large extent, adaptation problems trap employees in their comfort zones. Such employees restrict themselves to old ways of doing things and don’t take risks that might improve their performance (Maier and Hoffman, 1960).

Goal Attainment Problems