Action learning and innovation

Abstract

‘Innovation is an essential assumption in Revans’ action learning, and implicit in his calls for fresh thinking, fresh questions and questioning insight in the face of intractable problems and challenging opportunities’ (Pedler and Brook 2017, 221). Innovation has been defined simply as the process of coming up with good new ideas and making themwork technically and commercially (Tidd andBessant 2018), or as ‘the introduction of new and improved ways of doing things’ (West et al. 2003, 394). Both these short definitions capture the essence of innovation, but gloss over the uncertainties, difficulties and pressures that often arise when we try to innovate. Popular literature on innovation frequently focuses on novel products that embody new technologies, but many innovations concern new processes, including changes in management or professional practices (OECD 2018). Innovation has long been considered important to the long-term success of organisations (Crossan and Apaydin 2010; Uhl-Bien and Arena 2018) to enable them to survive in changing environments and to solve recurring problems. We have seen this recently, when the initial effects of the COVID-19 pandemic created radical problems for organisations and communities and stimulated innovative solutions, including the development of vaccines with unprecedented speed, the repurposing of manufacturing facilities, the move to online working practices and online education, and entrepreneurial social initiatives to support the more vulnerable (Cohen and Campbell 2021; George, Lakhani, and Puranam 2020; Heinonen and Strandvik 2021; Netz, Reinmoeller, and Axelson 2022). Pedler and Brook’s (2017) paper in an earlier issue of this journal explored literature on action learning and innovation, and the connections between them, and argued that action learning could not only stimulate the creative aspect of innovation – the collective learning processes enabling people to escape from old mindsets – but could also provide support for the challenges of implementing new ideas and actually bringing about change. Studies of innovation have drawn on ideas from theories of organisational learning, in particular that there is a need both for a search for new knowledge and ideas (known in this literature as ‘exploration’) and also the implementation of knowledge the organisation already possesses (known as ‘exploitation’). There is a tension between exploration and exploitation, not least in that they compete for resources, and the ability to maintain a balance between these two competing forces has become known as ambidexterity (March 1991). The idea of ambidexterity has also been applied to individual behaviours, where exploration means opening up areas for inquiry and creativity, and exploitation means closing down possibilities, developing objectives and plans and implementing them (Rosing, Frese, and Bausch 2011; Havermans et al. 2015; Zacher, Robinson, and Rosing 2016). The dialogue in the action learning set can provide a supportive structure for these opening and closing behaviours, as it encourages set members to challenge assumptions and to think differently about an issue, and also leads them to make choices, and develop and implement plans. Jeff Gold’s paper in this issue of the journal explains how an innovative idea was introduced into the daily practice of officers in a UK police force, and how action learning was used as a