Action Learning as a Mindset—The Evolution of PICCO

P1: GVG/GMX

pp668-spaa-454917 SPAA.cls November 7, 2002 18:7

Systemic Practice and Action Research, Vol. 15, No. 6, December 2002 (C©2002)

Action Learning as a Mindset—The Evolutionof PICCO

John Stephens1,3 and Tim Haslett2

Received June 10, 2002; accepted September 2, 2002

This paper investigates action learning as a “maintenance of mindset.” It is an accountof a personal evolution from a 4-year work in progress Action Research (AR) studyexploring organizational viability. That study, involving two separate organizations andfour cycles of AR, has seen the researcher and to some extent the organizations developaction-learning mindsets. The paper is an attempt to step outside the study and itsassociated learning from an organizational perspective and to link the threads of learningfrom the mindset of an action researcher. The paper suggests that adopting the mindsetof an action researcher favors the transfer of learning from one organizational situationto another. Advocating that action researchers do not restart their initial methodologies,it is contended that the second organization has gained advantage of learning from thefirst. It is concluded that action learning mindsets articulate cumulative wisdom fromorganizational and methodological perspectives.

KEY WORDS: action research; systems thinking; Checkland’s SSM; Beer’s VSD;organizational change.

1. INTRODUCTION

Both organizations are Not For Profits (NFP). Organization one, a greyhound-racing club conducts wagering and gaming, generating income of $5 million onturnovers of $70 million pa. Its Directorate is dominated by “greyhound racing”competency rather than specific managerial competency. The club faces majorchange associated with the information technology wave. Organization two isthe legislated controlling body responsible for 14 operations like organizationone. Accountable for turnovers on the Victorian product of $1.4 billion it has anincome approaching $30 million pa. Its Board is appointed by the relevant Ministeraccording to identifiable business expertise. My promotion to CEO of organization

1Greyhound Racing, Victoria, Melbourne, Australia.2Department of Management, Monash University, Caulfield, Australia.3To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]

485

1094-429X/02/1200-0485/0C©2002 Plenum Publishing Corporation

P1: GVG/GMX


486 Stephens and Haslett

two coincided with the formation of the PhD cohort as described (Haslettet al.,2002; Sarahet al., 2002) in this edition ofSystematic Practice and Action Research.

2. MINDSET—UNDERLYING THOUGHTS

The mindset of this action researcher is currently based on three fundamentaltenets. The tenets are not promulgated as “the only” nor “absolute” just as anexpression of predominance in personal thought.

A systems thinking mindset common to the cohort has, in my case, evolvedfrom a blend of postgraduate (Graduate Diploma, Masters, and current PhD) man-agement studies—with active management practice. Having been influenced byopen systems theory, cyclic learning frameworks, organizational learning, andthe concept of the learning organization, the works of Chris Argyris, GregoryBateson, Stafford Beer, Peter Checkland, Steven Covey,Fred Emery, Bob Flood,David Kolb, Abraham Maslow, and Peter Senge spring to mind.

Second, my mindset is infiltrated by the significance of a “matching” learningtheme, which recurs when I tackle complex organizational situations. By matching,I mean the reflective mapping of what actually happens in a particular situation ascompared to what I expected or thought would happen. Investigating situationalincongruence has exposed the importance of system variety as a significant con-tributor to mismatch. Demystifying system variety is not simple but considerationof the Laws of Requisite Variety and Residual Variety offers amelioration. Ashby’sLaw of Requisite Variety (Ashby, 1956, p. 207), only variety can destroy variety,now commonly quoted as only variety can absorb variety (Beer, 1974), is increas-ingly cited in management literature (Espejo and Harnden, 1989; Nonaka, 1994;Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Stacey, 1993). Stacey (1993, p. 125) says from anorganizational viewpoint

an organisation must achieve the goal of continuing adaptation to its environment if itis to survive and succeed. In order to so adapt, it has to employ a control system orregulator. It will successfully adapt when the complexity and speed of the responsesenabled by its regulator match the complexity and speed of the changes occurring inits environment; that is, when it controls its business according to the law of RequisiteVariety.r Awareness of requisite variety and its principles allows me to better un-derstand and deal with mismatches between expectation and reality. TheConant–Ashby Theorem of Residual Variety ( Espejo and Harnden, 1989.p. 387) says that in organizational terms the scale of control is relianton the precision of the controller. From a learning sense I see this as thewider the knowledge/capabilities gap between a manager and his/her or-ganizational unit, the greater the requirement for that manager to cover thegap. I have found appreciation of system variety severely lacking in the

P1: GVG/GMX


Action Learning as a Mindset—The Evolution of PICCO 487

workplace, almost to a point of unconsciousness. When raised to a levelof awareness its significance crystallizes quickly. A John Barton’s sum-mation of the laws of variety, as simply being smarter than the situationyou are trying to manage, helps in their comprehension (Barton, 2002).Later in this paper I contend that confronting requisite and residual vari-ety can be identified as an enabling condition for the knowledge creatingprocess.r Finally my thinking has, for many years, revolved around the concept ofcontinuous learning through cycles. In the previous century, models depict-ing cyclical knowledge creation, usually through four stages, developed.Dewey (1943), Deming (1982), and Senge (1990) have cited similar ver-sions. Others including Revans (1982), Weinstein (1995), and Kolb (1984)have extended action-learning cycles. I find the Kolb model particularlyuseful in igniting thinking about learning. It “has been actively used as abasis for helping individuals identify the kinds of learning activity whichthey will find most satisfying and will improve their learning achievement,also identifying weaknesses in learning styles” (Gulick and Urwick, 1994,p. 99). I have also employed the “Four Stages of Competency” to help in theunderstanding of learning processes. Kitaoka (2002) believes these stagesstem from Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) attributable to Bateson(1973). In this paper I use the Four Stages model (see Fig. 1) to posi-tion, illustrate, and systemically connect my mindset trilogy, suggestingadvancement in my work and possible improvement in Action Research(AR).

Fig. 1. Bateson’s Four stages of Competency (Bateson, 1973).

P1: GVG/GMX



3. THREADS OF LEARNING—FROM THE MINDSETOF AN ACTION RESEARCHER

3.1. Cycle Oner The starting point of this study was questioning whether corporate status,“justified” through years of experiential learning, gut feeling, and eco-nomic rationalism during stable times, may impinge on organizational vi-ability in more dynamic environments. In this case whether “greyhoundcompetency” could match required managerial competencies. It furtherconsidered how conventional methods of inquiry having identified exist-ing viability strangulation failed to instil any desire for behavioral change.This theme is not uncommon as we question whether our current think-ing will suffice in a wildly dynamic future (Drucker, 1997; Flood andJackson, 1995; Ruggles and Holtshouse, 1999) or how are we to approach“learning within the unknowable” (Flood, 1999). Cycle one confidentlysought creation of awareness about current competencies within a com-pany Directorate. It was designed on the Lewin (1946, 1973, [1948])unfreeze/refreeze theory base and without direct reference to the focusgroup. The Flood concept of learning within an unknowable was the fur-thest thing from this researchers’ mindset when the cycle wascreated.r Cycle one had three parts involving outsiders to the organization. It com-prised a briefing session outlining corporate governance and fraud pre-vention, then a pr´ecis of a successful change process promulgating ma-jor corporate growth. Cycle one concluded with direct participation inthe “beer game,” a production/distribution system simulation as describedin Senge (1990, p. 27). Attempting to highlight some recognition andhopefully activation of competency learning as a means of enhancingorganizational viability, the aim of the cycle was to induce change (un-freeze/refreeze) through exposure to the knowledge and experience ofothers. Following cycle one the mindset of the Directorate remained asit were before the exercise—frozen. The plan had ostensibly failed butrevealed behavioral characteristics including Double Loop Learning anddefence mechanisms (Argyris, 1982, 1993) and lack of requisite vari-ety (Ashby, 1956) as progression inhibitors to the research. It is impor-tant to note that during this cycle “unrest in mindset” dealtsquarely with Directorate (in) competence rather than that of theresearcher.r In evaluating possible reasons for cycle one failure I assessed my mentalmodel of the situation as an action researcher. At the time I was unaware (un-conscious) that I had commenced evaluating my first situational mismatch

P1: GVG/GMX



or the reconciliation of “project mindset” with “action researcher” mindset(Sarahet al., 2002). Some findings from cycle one (Stephens and Haslett,1998, p. 8) included the following:

1. Implying a need for the Directorate to learn “touches a nerve” and thereaction is to defend the current situation, stoughtly.

2. Establishing a need to surface current competencies is difficult, almostoffensive to the Directorate.

3. The establishing of required competencies is almost nonexistent, againalmost an insult to the Directorate.

4. “Competencies are for management that’s what we pay them for.” Weare the decision-makers; our competencies are not an issue.

5. The external search fails to relate our product to the concept of a changeprocess.

6. We seek to continue to control with a minimum, or no need ofcommitment.r In hindsight four mindset observations—opportunities for learning—

emerged.My mental model had been couched within an environment immersed incause and effect thinking and based on rote learning. My thinking had been,“I know about this issue, I will follow a logical sequence and I will solvethe issue.” “If I do this, then that will happen—simple QED.”This theme remains central to management and is neither bad nor obso-lete. But the industrial age gurus F. W. Taylor (1856–1915) and HenryFayol (1841–1925) accredited with scientific management articulation ifnot birth worked nearly a century ago. The contrasting Human Relationsage of Elton Mayo (1880–1949) is now half a century in gestation. Giventhe dynamics of today’s information era one has to consider not the neces-sity, but the sufficiency, of cause and effect thinking in addressing perhaps“unknowable” management issues? Perhaps surprisingly (for devout sys-tems thinkers) cause/effect expectation is common in most of the papersappearing in this edition.

The first study was based on a mental framework that the correct answerto the problem was a simple technological one (Tepe and Haslett, 2002,p. 4)

the initial desire to “get it right” remained deeply embedded in the subtext ofthe cohort (Sarahet al., 2002, p. 8)

These (ethical) questions were valid and reflected a traditional scientific ap-proach to objectivity and distance of the researcher. (Walker and Haslett, 2002,p. 7)

P1: GVG/GMX



Some of the key projects became (unexpectantly?) “bogged down” during theaction cycles partly due to. (Molineux and Haslett, 2002, p. 5)

. . .practitioners begin to act as if operating in a “known and steady state whichcarries the assurance that what has been planned for will eventuate. (Olsen andHaslett, 2002, p. 2)r Second, my identification of “unrest” involved a separation of researcher

and the “application” researchee—the issue being “out there”—wrappedup in the mindset of an unconsciously incompetent (UI) Directorate—“inno way connected with the competency of the researcher.”r “Unrest in the mindset” of the action researcher had not connected to anypersonal inadequacy or unknowable outcome. An unquestioned total ex-pectation of success—in situational evaluation, action plan, and suggestedguarantee of result—permeated the cycle. My planning had assumed per-sonal conscious competence (CC).r Finally, an initially recognized curt retort (following completion of the beergame simulation)—“but where is the beer?”—hit a chord. Consideration ofthe process, or any association of the process with corporate competencies,had not been considered by the Directorate.

From cycle one evaluation (see Fig. 2) the first ideas of process action learningbegan to surface. My thoughts assimilated the (Sarahet al., 2002) shift from “rightand wrong” to “learning.” As an action researcher I began to realize that I neededto be very careful in “assuming some sort of linearity sequence and causation,”even in a cyclical sense.

Fig. 2. Learning cycle one.

P1: GVG/GMX



3.2. Cycle Twor In moving to cycle two, an updated mindset took with it both an awarenessof the nonlinear interconnectedness of the issue, process, and outcome cy-cle and a need to consider researcher competencies. In the second cycle,systems thinking under a stronger framework of Soft Systems Methodology(SSM; Checkland, 1985, 1991; see Fig. 3) was used to “better” plan theprocess—having aims and objectives similar to those attempted in cycleone in mind. SSM, variously described as central to this AR cohort, pro-vides a rigour on which to base our practice. In Flood terminology we seeit as assisting in “organizing the unorganizable” (Sarahet al., 2002). Itis valuable to note the SSM template. The more static Lewin model usedin cycle one implies the importance of feedback in the unfreeze/refreezeprocess. In SSM I believe the interconnection of the iterative process isexplicit.r Cycle two also comprised three parts.r Completion of two diagnostic instruments—Learning Style Inventory

(Kolb, 1976) and Management Teams (Belbin, 1981)—by the Directorate.

Fig. 3. Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)—Checkland and Scholes (1990).

P1: GVG/GMX



Fig. 4. Causal loop diagram—“competencies.”

r Consideration and dialogue between the researcher and the Directorateinvolving a series of journal documents “Paradigm-Creating Loops”(Kim, 1993), “Teaching Smart People How To Learn” (Argyris, 1991),and “Developing the Competitive Organisation” (Beer and Walton, 1990).r Using results from the diagnostic to revisit the current Directorate elec-toral process involved analysis of the “required competencies” of anynew Director.r The intent of cycle two still had been to highlight recognition and activa-

tion of competency learning (see Fig. 4). But the redesign of frameworkand methodology had now focussed on allowing the Directorate to perceivetheir involvement in cycle two as specifically ‘real world’—yet the underly-ing intention was to promote “nonlinear” dialogue tending toward a systemsthinking mindset. Cycle two did show signs of success. Dialogue regardinglearning styles and team behaviors took place and the cycle teased out someprimary behavioral issues of the Directorate. The company recognised andacted on the competencies required for any new Director signifying “a linein the sand” but attention to current competencies did not occur.r In an evaluation of cycle two—from an AR perspective—my mindset for es-tablishing situation awareness had changed. I had taken my original some-what “static” cycle one and added to it perceived deficiencies to create theF, M, and A for cycle two. SSM is an effective model for intervening inhuman systems because it gives structure to a flexible process. It seems thisresearcher (people?) needs to align some sort of structure to the processbeing employed. In allowing feedback to abridge gaps within F, M, and A,

P1: GVG/GMX



SSM provides for the dynamics of the system in question. It attacks defi-ciencies uncovered in the researcher, the processes used, and the overallsubject matter. In the eyes of Senge it produces a balancing process almostforcing improvement.r There is however an inherent danger in this causal sequence. As the per-ceived “gap” shrinks, there will be an increasing pressure on the actionresearcher to maintain awareness of need. It emphasizes the requirementof continuous learning in a dynamic environment. My action learning fromcycle two also enabled me to reevaluate the cycle one failure suggestingthe following:r In management situations it is hard to step back from a normal cause

and effect paradigm—some notes from journal and thesis (Stephens andHaslett, 1998, p. 2).r What we seem to miss is that most change models are presented as fixed,step by step formulae, almost guaranteeing our success wish-list.r Senge (1990, p. 17) details “learning disabilities,” Barker (1992, p. 155)“paradigm paralysis,” and Woodcock and Francis (1982, p. 195) “block-ages” as contributors to stagnation (in the form of nonlearning) andfailure but the trend continues.r I had not initially realized (I had been unconscious of) the fact that I camefrom a somewhat incompetent base. I had UI in relation to the situationat hand, when I originally thought I had CC. My UI contributed to thedemise of cycle one.r That by constructing my cycle one plan with perceived CC, – I had shutthe door to learning. I had effectively cancelled the feedback loops nowevident in my cycle two SSM as indicated from concluding remarks(Stephens and Haslett, 1998, p. 27):

Of course these thoughts imply that the Directorate are fundamental to myperception of the corporate drowsiness. This may be true but I must alsorecognize they can only be part of the problem. “Out there” and “in here”form part of a system. The Directorate and the Chief Executive are together,major players in the decision-making processes, which generate group in-teraction.

The way we each (Board/CEO) perceive the stagnation problem maybe theproblem. To them there is no stagnation. And what’s more, at this actualpoint in time, if we obtain a snapshot of the real world today, they canbe seen as being right! I am assessing the situation with regard to previ-ous trends and the next decade, they are looking at money in the bank,today.

What this means to me is that my expression of the inactivity problem needsto be confronted by myself, “in here.” “When you think that the problem isout there then that is the problem.” (Covey,1992, p. 89)

P1: GVG/GMX



r A revelation that the problem was much more profound than origi-nally expected. What I was really talking about in cycle one involveda paradigm shift in the mind of the Directorate (Stephens and Haslett,1998 p. 9).

Could it be that experiential wisdom, so important in days of stability, linearityand predictability, can, in more turbulent times no longer compensate for lack ofprogression in competencies, for learning?

Could longevity of position be now seen as a sort of immunity to learning, toself-development? Is stagnation of the mind a clue to stagnation of thecompany?

In using SSM, I discovered from an organizational perspective that the gapbetween existing competencies and required competencies of the Directorate wasmuch greater than anticipated. From an action-learning point of view, this hadimpacted on their ability to embrace the thinking behind the methodologies em-ployed.

In short, an expectation that systems thinking methodologies, couched inreflective Double Loop Learning, will be successful, - must be assessed in a contextof the learning behaviors of the subjects at hand. Action researchers need to ask—“Is it reasonable to think that those experienced in rote learning and cause and effectanalysis will find action learning easy to embrace?” These concluding remarks(Stephens and Haslett, 1998, p. 16) summarize the difficulties and realities ofaction research.

The research has produced wonderfully rich positive results. Not to the extent of mon-umental change (there I go again, this will produce that, and bloody–well now!), butthere are significant signs that the combination of synthesis and analysis within systemsthinking has produced change. When I look back at the task, bombarding people so setin their real world of today only, with approaches from a far and distant world, it couldbe considered a minor miracle that progress occurred. For that fact alone this ActionResearch is justified. For that I have systems thinking to thank.

This company can, as any group interaction, be considered a learning organisation. Theonly real variable is the learning, of which unfortunately, here, there has been little. Asthe use of systems thinking does continue, in an attempt to foster learning, I see thislearning organisation as “a tentative road map, still indistinct and abstract, a target towhich the organisation might aim to become generative. It is not a destination, but anever-ending journey. It is part fantasy, part psychology, and part struggle.” (Watkinsand Golembiewski, 1995, p. 99)

An action-learning summary of the first two cycles raised the following “in-formation flow” issues as taken from Researcher/Supervisor journal notes 1998:

The “failure” of cycle one should be considered in relation to cycle two. You must askyourself, why did it fail, what is “fail” in the context of the exercise, if it failed, thenwhy is there a cycle two?

P1: GVG/GMX



Would cycle two be actioned without cycle one? What have you learned from cycleone? Answer these questions in the light of cycle one “failure.”r Success via (conscious) action in cycle two did not imply that its format orcontext was necessarily the right one. From a researcher point of view, itis more important to note that there was a second cycle. Cycle one (albeita “conscious failure”) may have “prepared the way” for cycle two. Andthis may not have been obvious to the researcher in the sense that “nothingnever happens.”r In considering cycle two, can you align any theoretical base to your actions?Can you surface your learning? (Journal notes, 1998)r Did the dropping back of (a few) levels of inquiry equate to any morethan (somewhat UI) attention to requisite variety? If the summation of“what happened in cycle one”? is (UI) nothing, does the researcher thenneed to iterate, “well I know it cannot be nothing, how can I bring to thesurface (move from UI to CI) what is not apparent at this time”? Is theresearcher then doing anything other than addressing the question - “Howcan I become smarter than the situation I am trying to manage”? [Howcan I address the requisite variety which, at this time I am not aware of?Hence the contention that attention to requisite variety (resulting in eitherUI becoming CI or CI becoming CC) may be identified as an enablingcondition for the knowledge creating process.]r In evaluating your work can you now interlink the action, any associatedtheory, and the model that was used? Dare to be critical—I want to knowwhat happened in your mind (Journal notes, 1998)r Is this type of “recursive nature” (the movement of UI to CI) somewhatforeign to SSM?—In the context of its process improvement, does thereneed to be recognition that to go forward, you may first have to go back-wards? [I believe Checkland would argue my actions in fact negate thisstatement—what I am suggesting is that particularly for novice action re-searchers an iterative process involving irregular steps of regression andprogression may not be immediately obvious. From an AR perspective,reflection is not a time-based linear progression]r Consider not only your learning and your contribution, comment on thegroup, they were/are your subject matter (Journal notes, 1998)r Cycle two concerned involvement of individuals in their own learning thateventually produced group learning. Cycle one had been aimed at collectivegroup-based inquiry virtually ignoring individual learning.r There is “carry” from study 1 to study 2

Dare to stand “outside” the action of your work. Where is your contribution?What do you think, that is not directly attributable to others? Can you contributeto knowledge? (Journal notes, 1998)

P1: GVG/GMX



As a final comment from cycle two, my latest reflection concerns the Argyris(1991, p. 103) view that it is a universal human tendency to design one’s actionsaccording to four basic values:

1. To remain in unilateral control2. To maximize winning and minimize losing3. To suppress negative feelings4. To be as rational as possible

In my cycle two work I did conclude that the behavioral characteristics of thisaction researcher seemed to have congruence with the views of Argyris. Whetherthese four basic values form the basis for my AR need to be queried. Should actionresearchers seek unilateral control of their project? Do they maximize winningand minimize losing? Do they not seek and grab negativity as an ultimate learningopportunity? If rationality (in this context) pertains to linearity, is that what actionlearning is about?

Could it be that action researchers have tendencies to reflect on their findingsat odds with the Argyris’ “universal human tendency”? If this is so, does it addor take from the process under study? Could stepping outside universal humantendency be pivotal to AR process improvement?

I began to question whether the AR mindset should possess a greater consid-eration of the involvement of information flows into any structure/process dynamicas a means of investigating the learning/viability dilemma. In departing (if that ispossible) from cycle two the mindset still concerned the recognition and activationof competency learning as a means of enhancing organizational viability in moreturbulent times.

3.3. Cycle Three

As a result of promotion I moved from running one operation to being CEO ofthe State system controlling 14 operations like my old one and being accountablefor product turnovers of $1.4 billion pa.

The magnitude of these figures emphasizes the importance of organizationalviability within the NFP sector. The appointment provided an opportunity to ex-pand this research. Viable System Diagnosis (VSD) (Beer, 1985) was deemed asan appropriate methodology complimenting the SSM work because of its linkagesto information flows and requisite variety. A brief summation of VSD appearsas the Appendix of this paper and the excellent action research case study (Tepeand Haslett, 2002) provides for further detail. VSD cycles form the basis for my“structured” AR PhD thesis.

In Checkland’ terms cycle three becamer Framework of ideas (F)—investigation using previous SSM learning, in-tertwined with VSM

P1: GVG/GMX



r Methodology (M)—ARr Area of application (A)—Organizational Learning and its relationship toviability in the organization of which I am the CEO

The thesis seeks answers to questions such asr What constitutes a viable system in the Australian NFP sector?r What is Organizational Learning in the context of a viable Australian NFPsector system?r What variables determine the success of a viable system in the AustralianNFP sector?

The intent of cycle three was to use AR as a methodology to implementpure VSM into three hierarchical levels of the organization designated as Se-nior Management, Middle Management (internal), and Subsidiary Management(external—in the context of autonomous bodies under some control of the parentbody).

To say the cycle failed is again subjective (see cycle four) and the similaritiesgleaned from the cycle one and two “package” emerge as real action learning. Cyclethree, however, did establish that “F,” the introduction of VSM in this context, wasjust too hard. Pure VSD was aborted under protest as “too difficult to understand”and “its” learning got in the way of “normal work.”

I revisited cycle three seeking to establish variables of both consciousnessand competence affecting implementation of the VSM methodology. I infor-mally interviewed employees. Here are some of their responses followed by mythoughts.r The competence and status of the action researcher?

“Well he has qualifications, and he is the CEO” [shades of action researcherCC in the mind of the employees?]—“so we had better listen and give thisa try” and “I respect the CEO—he would not do this for fun, I am willingto put in some effort” [Suggesting cooperation from employees throughrespect of position rather than understanding the process. Some UI and CIof the employees?].As an action researcher, there is a problem in how much you know. Thetendency is to assume they do to! [residual variety means you have towork harder to explain your thoughts and to cover for lack of employeeknowledge]People/employees in the area of application “A” appear to need to haveexplained to them some understanding of the content of “F” and the mindsetof the action researcher.r The competence and status of the people to which the methodology isapplied?

P1: GVG/GMX



The interviews revealed links between employee academic status and co-operation [employee CC in the eyes of the action researcher], and employeeambition and cooperation [Employee UC in the eyes of the action re-searcher]. [Current learners or those with a desire to learn did show someenthusiasm].“You always feel a bit stupid when someone points out something so obvi-ous or recognizes that something is missing—but I guess that is the benefitof getting feedback.”The action researcher at “F” needs to consider the competencies of peo-ple/employees involved at “A.”r The degree of difficulty in understanding the methodology?VSM is difficult (as is AR), particularly in the minds of those based in linearcause and effect thinking and rote learning. Understanding and willingnessto try to understand seem linked to both competencies and desire.“The academic world is a far and distant place from the reality of thecoalface. I just want to get my work done.”“Unless people are part of, have an understanding of, the required infor-mation, that information has no meaning to them.”For methodology learning to occur (people/employees need to move ini-tially from UI to CI) there needs to be desire and motivationr The relative importance of the learning versus “normal work” conundrum?A “What’s In It For Me” (WIIFM) mentality exists [there is a separation of“real work” and seeing learning as a methodology for getting better at thatreal work. Some employees are only interested in getting their job done—they “learned” at school, there is too much on their plates to be motivatedinto new learning]For people/employees to have desire or motivation they may first have tolearn about self.Checkland emphasizes these thoughts suggesting need “for the researcherto declare in advance the intellectual framework of ideas within whichknowledge can be considered if accounts of the research are to avoid beingmerely anecdotal” (West and Stansfield, 2001, p. 267).Revisiting cycle three established both consciousness and competence vari-ables affecting the implementation of the VSD methodology. I began theevolution of a “Bateson within SSM” model (see Fig. 5).It seemed to me that this AR needed to be clearly defined by two funda-mentals:

1. That the AR methodology (M) requires a more structured reflective cycle—this helps reiteration, turning the methodology over. In this case the Batesoncycle attempts to move UI toward CI and eventually CC.

2. That a similar structured reflective cycle must occur at both F and A.

P1: GVG/GMX



Fig. 5. Bateson within SSM.

So I worked through and reflected on the “four stages of learning”—at eachof the SSM phases and realized the following:

r That in cycle three I had looked to treat people individually—there hadbeen an unconscious (on my behalf) carry over from the previous cycles.There had been an avoidance of the group learning process!r I had made a theoretical jump—from talking to “the group” to talking indi-vidually to people about learning ideas [Continuous improvement, learningstyles, learning cycles, common vision, time management.]r I had moved the ready employee support base from their learning abouta process to their learning about learning and found that it helps to beinvolved with those who have had recent new learning experiences. [Bythis I mean employees who were involved in current/recent studies or hadof late changed organizational position.]r The stronger the individual competency base, the greater the emphasis todrive and encourage. [Is there an individual level, below which you donot attempt this sort of thing? Are my conclusions valid? Are my methodssufficient, correct, and competent?]r There was little support from groups of people seeking group learning.

P1: GVG/GMX



r I still have a tendency to regress to a linear cause and effect expectation. IfI do this, then an intended result will necessarily follow.r I commence with the notion or assume that the people/employees in-volved were UI (why?) and that my methodologies could (quite easily)move them to (wards) CC or alternatively that the people/employees in-volved were CI and they would see what a great thing VSD was as aresult.

So now from three cycles, came a learning summary desirous of the creationof a living, working model that needed to encompass the following:r Easy to understand phasesr Strongly systems orientated but based on VSM and SSMr Structured but cyclic and flexibler Encourages iterative (Bateson) learning cycle at each stage

In moving on to cycle four, an end or beginning is not suggested. In cyclefour as in the other cycles I am categorizing simply to indicate pivotal points ofcontinuous learning in this AR.

3.4. Cycle Four

Cycle four proposed an adaptation of VSM—from its classical form compris-ing five operative components: implementation, coordination, control, informa-tion, and policy—into an elementary isomorph, PICCO. The mnemonic embracesa reversal of the original order of components with the implementation functionreplaced by an “operations” function. This type of adaptation is typical of AR as theframework of ideas is adapted and developed as studies progress and researchersreflect on their framework of ideas (Checkland and Holwell, 1998).

PICCO is seen as a first phase of “contextual VSM” with evolution towarda truer VSM in the future. The five systems assimilate the operative compo-nents of classical VSM and an overarching feedback system allows system im-provement as the person/group/department moves between from operation to-ward policy, not in any particular order. In its simplest form PICCO can berepresented as shown in Fig. 6. The intent of this simplification is to present amodel that allows for two fundamentals vital in addressing requisite variety inthis organization—people/employees having the capacity to create ownership ofprojects through a better understanding of hierarchical information flows con-cerning the project – and then being able to visualize their projects within theorganizational hierarchy.

The recursive nature of PICCO is as important a factor in the desire to ad-dress requisite variety—being smarter than the situation we are trying to man-age. Irrespective of the “status” of the employee or department using it, a logical(smarter) sequence of decision making is obvious (see Fig. 7). In simple terms

P1: GVG/GMX



Fig. 6. PICCO.

any departmental project/paper/strategy policy statement (S5) passes to the nextlevel of management as intelligence (S4). PICCO is used with no formalized se-quence of components. “Logically there must be a ‘bookend’ process with a ‘start’attention to a particular operation and some ‘closures’ decided by the policy mak-ers. But it must be realized that a contextual systemic interaction of components

Fig. 7. PICCO hierarchy.

P1: GVG/GMX



delivers random behaviors and flexibility to all components including the book-ends” (Stephens and Haslett, 2001, p. 7).

PICCO has attained positive results in process development, a better un-derstanding of hierarchical information flows, and isolation of areas for processimprovement. Some real examples of the success of PICCO applicable to this casestudy include the follwing:r Attention to previously unsuccessful legal defence.Using PICCO (see

Fig. 6) the company has been able to weld industry knowledge with legalprocesses to win a significant case (The first in some 40 years of oper-ation). The company identification of issues at SI, S2, and S3 and legalcontribution at S4 formed a successful defence strategy.r Human Resource Management.The base PICCO template shown as Fig. 7has been used very successfully to both explain and improve on manage-ment decision-making processes.r Board Policy.The Board, in seeking a paper on animal welfare policy, hasbeen recently presented with a “left-field” concept—addressing fundamen-tal change to industry culture—that has emanated from the Fig. 6 template.The template was used to tease out the issues involved and to formulate aradical (S5 for the middle manager involved) course of action. That mid-dle management S5 has passed onto senior management as intelligence(S4) and with minor adjustment has become senior management S5 policy.A recommendation for animal welfare reform would bring about majorchange in strategic direction for the industry.

It should be noted that these examples have been supplemented if not drivenby the CEO, and then developed by the relevant department in the organization. Oflate an Information Technology/Marketing Internet strategy has been presented tosenior management (for the first time) at the self-initiated discretion of staff usingPICCO. I guess ultimate endorsement would CC in the use of PICCO throughoutthis organization.

But at this early stage it seems PICCO has been able tor contribute to the management expertise and overall viability of this orga-nization,r provide this organization with rational pathways to improve managementskills, andr instil a suggested “contagious learning” in the organization.

4. FINAL THOUGHTS—FOR NOW

The issues from the mindset of this action researcher are not at rest. Theybecome how did we move “not work” (that is learning) into “real work” and

P1: GVG/GMX



does “now working” give a sustainable advantage—promoting organizationalviability?

From reflecting on earlier cycles we sought to confront linearity and encouragelearning, hoping to influence organizational viability. The result so far is a systemsthinking learning model having a structure characterized by iteration, flexibility,and ease of understanding, particularly for those not necessarily versed in modernthinking patterns or AR.

The work in progress suggests that AR is a sensible methodology that can leadto the creation of a workable learning model through cycle iteration. PICCO (seeFig. 8) can help structure information to help achieve requisite variety—the abilityto be smarter than the situation you are trying to manage. PICCO allows bettercongruence in mapping what is really happening, onto what the action researcherwants to happen by helping address system variety contributing to mismatch. It issuggested that addressing system variety is an enabling condition for the knowledgecreating process.

It is further argued that the recursive nature of PICCO can create “local”information flows (Stephens and Haslett, 2002) revealing the influence of system

Fig. 8. PICCO—action research.

P1: GVG/GMX



variables on organizational viability. Finally it is contended that the amalgam ofPICCO with emergent inquiry techniques can address system variables surfacingtacit knowledge.

As such PICCO is suggested as a somewhat analytical technique that pro-vides enabling conditions for refining organizational learning and viability. Doaction learning and the emergence of PICCO suggest organizational learning inthis case study? Checkland endorses this thought advocating the need for suchframeworks—“Accounts of action research without even the ghost of an analyt-ical framework are no more than anecdotes (Checkland, 1985, p. 2). And finallyaccording to Argyris and Schon (1978),

Organizational Learning occurs at both individual and collective levels. Individual learn-ing is a critical and essential condition of Organizational Learning. Alternatively, anorganization is able to learn independently of some individuals, but not independentlyof all individuals. Organizational Learning is the logic that learning is a primary processaffecting the way in which successful organizations consciously learn and manage theirresponses more successfully than those who do not.

There is individual learning in the mindset of this action researcher. Other in-dividuals within this organization have exhibited both “assisted” and self-initiateduse of the new model. In finality although this organization is beginning to haveconscious learning competence—we will have to keep working on action learningas a mindset.

APPENDIX: STAFFORD BEER VIABLE SYSTEM DIAGNOSIS (VSD)

Stafford Beer devoted his life to the study of operational research. His au-thoritative cybernetic revelations are momentous, but Viable Systems Diagnosis(VSD) will be his legacy to management science. VSD is however far from somefly by night management fad.

Evolving through Beer’s books, principallyCybernetics and Management(1959), Decision and Control (1966), Management Science (1968), Brain of theFirm (1972), Designing Freedom (1974), Heart of the Enterprise (1979, Diag-nosing the System for Organizations (1985), and Beyond Dispute (1994), VSDis unashamedly modeled on the human body and its functional systems. VSDsuggests a better way of understanding any viable system is by constructing anadaptive learning model of the systems information flows.

VSD lays down conventions that assist organizational viability—the ability tomaintain separate existence. Five management components—operations, coordi-nation, control, intelligence and policy—provide information feedback and controlloops to the organization.

VSD uses amplifiers (to increase activity input), attenuators (to absorb activityvariety), and transducers (to decode information) between the components. The

P1: GVG/GMX



VSD convention of five operative components creates recursion (Ashby, 1956)similar to a set of Chinese dolls whereby the whole can be found in any/all of theparts.

To give a brief insight into VSD, a simplified model separates the significantoperations of an organization into divisions. The model designates correlationsbetween these divisions, and the remaining four management components thatserve them.

Operations (system one) are the nuts and bolts; they achieve what the orga-nization is set up to do. Operations are divisions with separate managers. Eachdivision operates as an autonomous viable system (within its own immediate en-vironment) without ostensibly affecting the contract of the whole.

Coordination (system two) balances the use of resources. Information is re-ceived about immediate difficulties in system one and coordination “quietens” orprovides for inconsistent fluctuations between divisions.

Control (system three) audits the performance of operational problems andhandles issues when coordination is unable to cope.

System four grows intelligence. This component gathers information aboutthe total environment. Strategic planning, brainstorming, SWOT, analysis, andgeneral dialogue provide environmental intelligence. System four represents theconduit for information flow to policy makers.

Policy (system five) is decided from intelligence supplied to it and is respon-sible for the “whole” and its direction.

A value of VSD is getting people within the organization to begin to thinksystemically, to realize the interdependedness of parts of the system. The processof developing VSD is what counts to organizational viability.

“The value of VSD is to make clear how an organization actually works,as distinct from the way that it allegedly works—so that it maybe improved”Beer (1972, p. 155).

REFERENCES

Argyris, C. (1982). The executive mind and double loop learning.Organiz. Dyn.11(2), 5–22.Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching smart people how to learn.Harv. Bus. Rev.May–June, 99–109. Reprint

91301.Argyris, C. (1993). Education for leading—Learning.Organiz. Dyn.21(3), 5–17.Argyris, C., and Schon, E. (1978).What is an Organization that it may Learn? Jossey-Bass, San

Francisco, CA.Ashby, W. R. (1956).An Introduction to Cybernetics, Chapman and Hall, London, UK.Barker, J. (1992).Paradigms: Understand the Future in Business and Life, The Business Library,

Melbourne, Australia.Barton, J. (2002).Informal Verbal Discussions: Management in Practice, Monash University,

Melbourne, Australia.Bateson, G. (1973).Steps to an Ecology of Mind, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Beer, S. (1959).Cybernetics and Management, English Universities, London.

P1: GVG/GMX



Beer, S. (1966).Decision and Control: The Meaning of Operational Research and Management Cy-bernetics, Wiley, Chichester, UK. Reprinted 1994.

Beer, S. (1968).Management Science: The Business Use of Operational Research, Aldus, London.Beer, S. (1972).Brain of the Firm, 2nd edn., Wiley, Chichester, UK.Beer, S. (1974).Designing Freedom, Wiley, Chichester, UK.Beer, S. (1979).Heart of the Enterprise, Wiley, Chichester, UK. 2nd edn., 1994, reprinted 2000.Beer, S. (1985).Diagnosing the System for Organizations, Wiley, Chichester, UK.Beer, S. (1994).Beyond Dispute: The Intervention of Team Syntegrity, Wiley, Chichester, UK.Beer, M., and Walton, E. (1990).Developing the competitive organizations: Interventions and strategies.

Am. Psychol.45(2), 154–161.Belbin, R. M. (1981).Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail, Heineman, London.Checkland, P. B. (1985). Achieving “desirable and feasible” change: An Application of SSM.J. Oper.

Res.36(9), 821–831.Checkland, P. B. (1991). From framework through experience to learning: The essential nature of

Action Research. In Nissen, H. E., Klein, H. K., and Hirschheim. R. (eds.),Information SystemsResearch: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions, Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Checkland, P. B., and Holwell, S. (1998). Action Research: Its nature and validity.Syst. Pract. ActionRes.11(1), 9–21.

Checkland, P. B., and Scholes, J. (1990).Soft Systems Methodology, Wiley, Chichester, UK.Covey, S. R.(1992).The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. Restoring the Character Ethic,

Simon and Schuster, New York.Deming, W. E. (1982).Out of Crisis, Massachusetts Institute Of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Dewey, J. (1943).The Child of the Curriculum and the School and Society, University of Chicago

Press, Chicago.Drucker, P. F. (1997).Managing the Non Profit Organisation, Butterworth and Heineman, New York.Emery, F. (1993). In De Greene, K. B. (ed.),A Systems Based Approach to Policy Making, Kluwer

Academic Publishers, Boston, pp. 184–192.Emery, M., and Purser, R. (1996).The Search Conference, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.Espejo, R. (1994, Summber–Fall). What is systems thinking?Syst. Dyn. Rev.10(2/3), 199–212.Espejo, R., and Harnden, R. J. (eds.) (1989).The Viable System Model: Interpretations and applications

of Beer’s VSM, Wiley, Chichester, UK.Flood, R. L. (1999).Rethinking the Fifth Discipline: Learning Within the Unknowable, Routledge,

London.Flood, R. L., and Jackson, M. (1995).Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention, Wiley,

Chichester, UK.Gulick, L., and Urwick, L. (1994). British academy of management. InPapers on the Science of

Administration, Eighth Annual Conference, London, pp. 99–110, UK, The Management School,Lancaster University.

Haslett, T., Molineux, J., Olsen, J., Sarah, R., Stephens, J., Tepe, S., and Walker, B. (2002). ActionResearch: Its role in the university/business relationship.Syst. Pract. Action Res.15(6), 437–448.

Kim, D. (1993). Paradigm-creating loops: How perceptions shape reality.Syst. Thinker4(2).Kitaoka, G. (2002).Cyber book, CD – ROM. http://www.dircon.co.uk/creativity/guhen/competent.htmKolb, D. A. (1976).Learning Style Inventory: Technical Manual, McBen, Boston, MA.Kolb, D. A. (1984).Experiential Learning, Prentice–Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Lewin, K. (1946). Action Research and minority problems.J. Soc. Issues2(4), 34–46.Lewin, G. W. (eds.) (1973).Resolving Social Conflicts, selected papers on group dynamics by Kurt

Lewin, Souveneir Press, London. (Originally published in 1948)Maslow, A. (1970).Motivation and Personality, 2nd edn., Harper and Row, New York.Molineux, J., and Haslett, T. (2002). Working within organisational cycles—A more suiable way to

Manage Action Research Projects in large organisations?Syst. Pract. Action Res.15(6), 465–484.

P1: GVG/GMX



Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of Organisational Knowledge Creation.Organ. Sci.5(1), 14–37.Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H. (1995).The Knowledge Creating Company: How the Japanese Companies

Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York.Olsen, J., and Haslett, T. (2002). Strategic management in action.Syst. Prac. Action Res.15(6), 449–

464.Revans, R. (1982).The Origins and Growth of Action Learning, Chartwell Bratt, UK.Ruggles, R., and Holtshouse, D. (1999).The Knowledge Advantage, Ernst and Young LLP, Oxford,

UK.Sarah, R., Haslett, T., Molineux, J., Olsen, J., Sarah, R., Stephens, J., Tepe, S., and Walker, B. (2002).

Business Action Research in practice—A strategic conversation about conducting Action Researchin business organisations.Syst. Pract. Action Res.15(6), 535–546.

Senge, P. (1990).The Fifth Discipline. The Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation, RandomHouse, Australia.

Stacey, R. D. (1993).Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics, Pitman, London, UK.Stephens, J., and Haslett, T. (1998).Must One be Blind Before One can See? Unpublished Thesis,

Master of Organisational Systems, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.Stephens, J., and Haslett, T. (2001). Viable systems diagnosis and organisational learning. In

Hutchinson, W., and Warren, M. (eds.),The Rrelevance of Systems Thinking in the Contem-porary World, Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA, Proceedings of Systems in Management 7thAnnual conference of the Australia and New Zealand Systems Society (ANZSYS).

Stephens, J., and Haslett, T. (2002). Viable systems diagnosis: An adaptive agent? Inproceedings ofSixth International Research Conference on Quality, Innovation and Knowledge Management,Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Tepe, S., and Haslett, T. (2002). Occupational Health and Safety Systems, corporate governance andviable systems diagnosis: An action Research Approach.Syst. Pract. Action Res.15(6), 509–522.

Walker, B. C., and Haslett, T. (2002). Action Research in management—Ethical dilemmas.Syst. Pract.Action Res.15(6), 523–534.

Watkins E., and Golembiewski, R. (1995). Rethinking organisational development for learning organ-isations.Int. J Organ. Anal.3(1), 86–101.

Weinstein, K. (1995).Action Learning: A Journey in Discovery and Development, Harper Collins,London.

West, D., and Stansfield, M.H. (2001). Structuring action and reflection in information systems ActionResearch studies using Checkland’s FMA Model.Syst. Pract. Action Res.14(3), 251–281.

Woodcock, M., and Francis, D. (1982).The Unblocked Manager: A Practical Guide to Self-Development, Gower, Hampshire, UK.

Action Learning as a Mindset—The Evolution of PICCO

Documents

Transcript of Action Learning as a Mindset—The Evolution of PICCO