Editorial: collective learning and partnership: relational aspect of action learning

In addition to the problem as the basis for action learning, alongside the questioning and reflective process, taking action and enabling learning, the formation of the action learning group is a distinct interactive component of action learning (Marquardt 2004). The action learning group typically comprises six to eight members who meet on equal terms to discuss their problem and progress (O’Neil and Marsick 2007). What makes for quality in action learning is the collaborative engagement with the real-life issues by action learning members with a commitment to collective learning and reflection. The accounts of practice in this edition highlight this relational aspect of action learning as a key feature of an effective action learning process. According to Casey (2011) and O’Neil and Marsick (2007, 2014) for learning to happen within the action learning process, sufficient trust is needed for participants to feel they can take risks such as: exposing personal information, questioning themselves and others in the group, engaging in reflection and challenging each other appropriately and in some cases their organisations. Several authors refer to the role of the action learning facilitator in creating a learning environment and offering the process for collaborative learning (Anderson and Thorpe 2004; Sofo, Yeo, and Villafañe 2010). The authors here present examples of both self-managed and facilitated action learning sets where relational aspects are examined and highlighted as essential components of action learning. In Twenty-Five Years: A Self-Managed Action Learning Set, Chris Yates explores the success of an action learning set that has not only survived but thrived over a quarter of a century. This account of practice is a continuation of his previous article (Yates 2012) which concluded that independence and fidelity to action learning were the key reasons for the longevity of the set. Chris has presented the voices of six set members to explore their individual relationship with the set, what give the set its continuity and key messages to others engaged in the practice of action learning. The set members responses highlighted that the set is trusted as a place in which people feel safe; words such as care, trust, integrity, safety, support, social, fellowship was referenced to express relational aspect of the action learning membership. Chris has observed in his concluding commentary that,