American Management Association 27
www.amanet.org
In the last chapter, we discussed how informal and incidental learning in
project organizations can lead to surprises and blowups that trigger red-
light learning, resulting in “blamestorming” and other detrimental long-
term e ects. We also discussed the problems associated with traditional
“lessons- learned” practices and why they have proved ine ective for facili-
tating learning and performance improvement—primarily because these
practices defer structured re ection until after projects are over, when
it is too late for teams to implement meaningful improvements. In this
chapter, we discuss the foundations and principles of multi- level learning,
beginning with the concepts associated with productive re ection, then
moving to a discussion of how both the U.S. Army and companies adopt-
ing agile software development approaches engage in periodic re ection
to improve performance from one iteration, one phase, and one project
to the next. The chapter concludes with an overview of the principles of
multi- level learning.
REFLECTION ON ACTION
In his book Educating the Re ective Practitioner, Donald A. Schön (1990)
demonstrates how re ection plays an important role in the development
of “professional artistry,” the “kinds of competences practitioners some-
times display in unique, uncertain, and con icted situations of practice”
(p. 22). He distinguishes this type of competence from competence that is
based solely on the application of the explicit rules and guidelines of one’s
2 FOUNDATIONS
AND PRINCIPLES OF
MULTI-LEVEL LEARNING
28 Foundations
American Management Association
www.amanet.org
profession. Professional artistry, according to Schön, involves the applica-
tion of tacit knowledge, described by Michael Polanyi (1967) as that which
we know but cannot readily express in words.
Despite the tacit nature of our “knowing- in- action,” as displayed pub-
licly through physical performances, Schön claims that “it is sometimes
possible, by observing and re ecting on our actions, to make a description
of the tacit knowing implicit in [these actions]” (pp. 25–28).
Schön’s view of the re ection process begins when the application of
our know- how does not produce the expected results, and we are surprised
that our actions have failed to meet our expectations. After experiencing
such a surprise, we may ignore it, or we may respond to it by re ecting
in one of two ways. We may re ect on action by stepping away from
the action and thinking back on our experience to understand how our
knowing- in- action contributed to an unexpected outcome. Alternatively,
we may “re ect in the midst of action without interrupting it.” Schön
refers to the former as “re ecting on action” and the latter as “re ection-
in- action.”
When we re ect, we question the assumptions behind our knowing-
in- action and “think critically about the thinking that got us into this x
or this opportunity; and we may, in the process, restructure strategies of
action, understandings of phenomena, or ways of framing problems.”
Like Schön, Jack Mezirow (1991) de nes re ection as a process whereby
we “stop and think” about what we do or have done in order to “inter-
pret and give meaning to an experience” (p. 104). He de nes three types
of re ection based on the object of the re ection process itself: content,
process, and premise re ection. The rst, content re ection, involves re-
viewing how ideas have been applied in solving problems at each stage
of the problem- solving process. The second form of re ection, process
re ection, examines the problem- solving process itself, focusing on the
procedures and assumptions involved in previous applications. The third
form of re ection, premise re ection, goes one step further by uncover-
ing the assumptions that guided the need to address the problem in the
rst place.
Peter Cressey, David Boud, and Peter Docherty (2006) position re ec-
tion as a means of enhancing informal learning among communities of
practitioners in the workplace. They claim that the application of re ec-
tion at work had previously been “the province of vocational training
Foundations and Principles of Multi-Level Learning 29
American Management Association
www.amanet.org
practitioners and discussed in terms of the training of individuals in the
workforce” (p. 9). Yet two factors have created greater recognition of the
need for productive re ection. First, informal learning has come to be
recognized as a vitally important aspect of workplace learning. It has
moved beyond its traditional role as a means of preparing professionals
for the workforce and into the province of ongoing executive development
through practices such as action learning, which was originally conceived
by Reginald W. Revans (1971). The authors claim that this is because “is-
sues of competence development cannot now be seen as separated from
organizational and workplace practice” (Cressey et al., p. 12). The sec-
ond factor in uencing the increased recognition of the need for re ection
in the workplace has been the organizational learning movement of the
1990s, in which group re ection is viewed as a cornerstone of organiza-
tional learning.
“Productive re ection,” as de ned by Cressey et al., has six key fea-
tures. First, its outcomes are focused on the organization rather than the
individual; it is collective rather than individual in its orientation. In the
author’s words, “productive re ection as we express it is focused on re-
ection to lead to action with and for others and for the bene t of the
organization as well as the participants” (pp. 20–22). The second feature
of productive re ection is that it takes place within the work environment
and connects learning and work. In this view, work drives the re ection
and frames what is legitimate. The third feature of productive re ection is
that it can involve stakeholders at all levels, seeking to connect these stake-
holders rather than isolate them within their own perspectives. Fourth,
productive re ection is generative rather than instrumental in its focus. By
this, the authors mean that productive re ection cannot be controlled in a
way that leads to predetermined outcomes. It is exploratory and genera-
tive and cannot be reduced to “just another technique.” The fth feature
is that productive re ection is developmental in character. It “is part of a
range of organizational practices designed simultaneously to contribute
to solving [the] organizational problems of today while equipping mem-
bers of the organization to be better able to deal with challenges that face
them in the future.” The sixth and nal feature of productive re ection,
according to the authors, is that it is an open, unpredictable process that
is dynamic and changes over time. That is, it is not possible to predict in
advance where productive re ection will lead, and therefore it necessarily
..................Content has been hidden....................
You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.