Action Learning

Introduction

Action learning is a structured instructional method for developing people while solving real organizational problems. It differs from traditional training by integrating learning and work: small groups take action on live challenges and reflect critically on the results. It is especially useful for L&D professionals seeking to build leadership, collaboration, and adaptive problem-solving skills while advancing strategic priorities. While it draws from learning theory, action learning is best understood as an instructional method—not a theory of how people learn.

What Is Learning According to This Method?

In action learning, people learn by taking action on unfamiliar, real-world problems and reflecting on the results. Unlike formal instruction, there is no expert content delivery. Participants develop new skills and insights by engaging in inquiry, navigating ambiguity, and extracting lessons from real experience.

This approach assumes that deep learning occurs when people are forced to think in new ways under real constraints, then collaboratively make sense of those experiences. Learning is social, situational, and reflective—and validated by both insight and impact.

What Are Its Philosophical Roots?

Action learning is grounded in pragmatism and experiential learning. It reflects the influence of:

• John Dewey, who argued that reflection on experience is central to learning
• Kurt Lewin, who connected action and research in organizational change
• Constructivist theory, which emphasizes that knowledge is built through interaction and experience

The method was formalized by Reg Revans in the mid-20th century. Revans observed that traditional training often failed to prepare managers for complex challenges. He argued that learning must be embedded in the process of solving real problems—not simulated or abstracted.

How Does Learning Work Mechanically?

Action learning unfolds as a structured, repeating cycle of problem-solving and reflection. A small group—often called a “set”—works together to address a real, unsolved organizational problem. Learning happens through the cycle of doing, pausing, questioning, and adjusting.

Here’s how it typically works:

1. A real organizational problem with no known solution is identified.
2. A small, cross-functional group is formed to tackle it.
3. The group takes an initial round of action to address the issue.
4. They pause to reflect on what happened, what worked, and what failed.
5. The group engages in structured questioning to surface assumptions and challenge their thinking.
6. Based on these insights, they take further action.
7. The cycle repeats, with each iteration deepening both insight and impact.

The group is supported by a facilitator (or “set advisor”) who ensures the focus remains on learning—not just solving the problem. The facilitator does not provide answers but guides reflection and dialogue.

What Are the Implications for Instructional Design?

Instructional design for action learning is not about building content or sequencing instruction. It’s about designing a learning environment in which growth occurs through real work. Designers must:

• Identify meaningful, unresolved problems tied to business priorities (e.g., customer churn, workflow inefficiency, stalled product rollout)
• Form small, diverse groups with complementary experience and perspective
• Provide orientation to help participants understand the structure and purpose of action learning
• Design touchpoints and formats for structured reflection, such as learning journals or reflection sessions
• Select or train facilitators to guide group dynamics and learning

Designers must also define the rhythm of the experience—how often groups meet, what outputs are expected, and how progress and learning will be tracked.

Action learning is poorly suited to domains that require standardized content mastery or procedural fluency. It works best where outcomes are emergent and skills like judgment, influence, or problem-framing are central.

When Is Action Learning Most Useful—and When Is It Not?

Action learning is most valuable when both learning and action are needed at the same time. For example:

• A financial services team is struggling to retain mid-career talent. Instead of sending managers to a workshop, an action learning group investigates root causes, pilots solutions, and reflects on what they learn about leadership, culture, and engagement.
• A global tech company wants to grow internal innovation capacity. It forms cross-functional teams to explore strategic growth areas while building skills in collaboration and uncertainty tolerance.

It is not useful when:

• You need to teach standardized procedures, such as compliance workflows, IT security protocols, or manufacturing steps.
• The learning objective involves acquiring specific, well-defined skills (e.g., technical troubleshooting, giving feedback, leading meetings, operating software, interview techniques), where targeted instruction and deliberate practice are typically more effective.
• Learners lack enough context or motivation to engage with ambiguity.
• Business problems are too politically sensitive or restricted to explore openly.

The key test is whether the learning depends on working through ambiguity. If the knowledge can be transferred directly, other methods are better. If understanding must be built through experimentation and reflection, action learning is likely to be more effective.

What Is the Role of the Facilitator?

In action learning, coaching takes the form of facilitation. The facilitator is not there to instruct or direct, but to safeguard the learning process. A good facilitator reinforces learning by helping participants examine their assumptions, reflect on their actions, and extract insight from group experience.

Effective facilitation strategies include:

• Asking open-ended questions to probe beneath surface explanations
• Encouraging metacognition and self-awareness
• Surfacing group dynamics that support or inhibit learning
• Helping participants connect current actions to broader goals

Reinforcement occurs naturally—not through rewards or repetition, but through:

• Real-world consequences that shape decisions and behavior
• Peer accountability and social feedback during group dialogue
• Reflections that draw attention to critical patterns, insights, and missteps

The facilitator is the guardian of learning, not the leader of the group.

What Are the Limitations?

Action learning is powerful but resource-intensive. It requires real problems, motivated participants, and skilled facilitation. Without those conditions, it risks devolving into informal problem-solving without reflection—or reflection without impact.

It’s ineffective for:

• Basic task training (e.g., software shortcuts, safety drills)
• Teaching foundational knowledge with no real-world application
• Situations where participants have limited autonomy or psychological safety

Some participants may also resist the lack of structure, preferring clearer expectations or concrete answers. Others may struggle to balance urgency for action with the need for reflection.

Notable Contributors

• Reg Revans – Founder of action learning
• Michael Marquardt – Expanded the model for modern organizations
• Yury Boshyk – Advocate of action learning for executive development

Conclusion

Action learning is a distinctive instructional method that turns real organizational work into a vehicle for individual and group development. It does not transfer knowledge—it grows it through experience, inquiry, and reflection.

For L&D professionals, it offers a path to build adaptive leadership, strategic thinking, and team collaboration in real time. When designed well, it produces not just insights, but real change—within individuals, teams, and the organization itself.