Systemic Practice and Action Research

, Volume 27, Issue 6, pp 551–573 | Cite as

Application of Scenario-based Approaches in Leadership Research: An Action Research Intervention as Three Sets of Interlinked Practices

  • Shankar Sankaran
  • Bob Dick
  • Kelly Shaw
  • Colleen Cartwright
  • Alan Davies
  • Jacqueline Kelly
  • Barb Vindin
Original Paper

Abstract

This article illustrates how scenario planning (SP) and scenario analysis as can be conceptualised as practices contributing to an action research (AR) investigation of leadership development. The project described in this article was intended to strengthen leadership capacity in Australia’s rapidly changing aged care and community care sector. A research team comprising academics from three universities and managers from two faith-based not-for-profit organisations providing aged and community care participated in this study. As part of the research, two sets of scenario-based workshops were held: the first, to identify possible futures using SP; and the second, to deal with plausible scenarios these organisations are likely to face with the changes happening in the aged care environment in Australia by using scenario analysis. Although the researchers did not consider a link between practice theory and AR during the SP phase, practice theory became useful during the scenario analysis phase. The article includes a brief literature review followed by a discussion on the relationship between AR and practice theory. The processes used in the two sets of scenario workshops are then described in detail along with the data collected and analysed. The article concludes with some reflections on the use of scenarios in practice as well as an acknowledgment that practice theory would be useful in investigating leadership capability development.

Keywords

Scenario planning Leadership development Not-for-profit organisations Practice-based research Faith-based organisations 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The study to which this paper relates was funded by a grant from the Australian Research Council’s Linkages Program. The research team included researchers from Southern Cross University (SCU), the University of Technology Sydney (UTS), University of Southern Queensland (USQ) and Industry Partners Lutheran Community Care (LCC) and Baptist Community Services (BCS). An earlier developmental version of this paper was presented at the 12th EURAM conference, 6th–8th June, Rotterdam to seek feedback. The authors thank the anonymous reviewers of the conference and Systemic Practice and Action Research for their valuable comments that has helped in improving this article. Permission has been obtained by EURAM to publish this paper in this journal.

References

  1. Ackoff R (1979) The art of problem solving. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander JA, Comfort ME, Weiner BJ, Bogue R (2001) Leadership in collaborative community health partnerships. Nonprofit Manag Leadersh 12(2):159–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. APSC (2001) Senior leadership capability framework. Australian Public Service Commission, Canberra. http://www.apsc.gov.au/selc/index.html. Accessed 15 June 2006
  4. Ashby WR (1960) Design for a brain: the origin of adaptive behaviour, 2nd edn. Chapman & Hall, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bishop P, Hines A, Collins T (2007) The current state of scenario development: an overview of techniques. Foresight 9:1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Börjeson L, Höjer M, Dreborg K-H, Ekvall T, Finnveden G (2006) Scenario types and techniques. Futures 38:723–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carroll B, Levy L, Richmond D (2008) Leadership as practice: challenging the competency paradigm. Leadership 4:363–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chermack TJ, Lynham SA, Ruona WEA (2001) A review of scenario planning literature. Future Res Q 17(2):7–31Google Scholar
  9. Coghlan D (2012) Action research: exploring perspectives on a philosophy of practical knowing. Acad Manag Ann 5:53–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Corradi G, Gheradi S, Verzelloni L (2010) Through the practice lens: where is the bandwagon of practice-based studies heading? Manag Learn 41:265–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cronholm S, Goldkuhl G (2004) Conceptualising participatory action research: three different practise. Electron J Bus Res Methods 2:47–58Google Scholar
  12. Dick B (2002) Postgraduate programs using action research. Learn Org 9(4):159–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Emery F, Trist E (1965) The causal texture of organizational environments. Hum Relat 18:21–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eppler MJ, Platts KW (2009) Visual strategizing: the systematic use of visualization in the strategic planning process. Long Range Plan 42:42–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hannah ST, Lord RG, Pearce CL (2011) Leadership and collective requisite complexity. Org Psychol Rev 1:215–238Google Scholar
  16. Heracleous L, Jacobs CD (2008) Crafting strategy: the role of embodied metaphors. Long Range Plan 41:309–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Institute of Medicine (2001) Improving the quality of long-term care. National Academy of Science, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  18. Jarzabkowski P, Balogun J, Seidl D (2007) Strategizing: the challenges of the practice perspective. Hum Relat 60:5–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jiménez J (2008) How do scenario practices and search conferences complement each other? In: Ramirez R et al (eds) Business planning in turbulent times: new methods for applying scenarios. Earthscan, London, pp 17–30Google Scholar
  20. Kemmis S (2009) Action research as a practice-based practice. Educ Action Res 17:463–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kornberger M, Clegg S (2011) Strategy as performative practice: the case of Sydney 2030. Strateg Org 9:136–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lewin K (1952) Field theory in social science: selected theoretical papers. Tavistock, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Mietzner D, Reger G (2005) Advantages and disadvantages of scenario approaches of strategic foresight. Int J Technol Intell Plan 1:220–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Neilson RE, Wagner CJ (2000) Strategic scenario planning at CA International, 12 Jan/Feb 2000Google Scholar
  25. OECD (2005) OECD factbook: an essential tool for following world economic, social and environmental trends. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  26. Orlikowski WJ (2002) Knowing in practice: enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Org Sci 13:249–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pieteroburgo J, Wernet S (2010) Merging missions and methods: a study of restructuring and adaptation in non-profit healthcare organisations. J Healthc Leadersh 10:69–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Productivity Commission (2011) Caring for older Australians: draft inquiry report. Productivity Commission, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  29. Ramirez R, Selsky JW, van der Heidjen K (2008) Business planning for turbulent times: new methods for applying scenarios. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Ratcliffe J (2002) Scenario planning: an evaluation of practice. School of Construction and Property Management, University of Salford, SalfordGoogle Scholar
  31. Rittel H, Weber M (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schatzki T (2012) A primer on practices: theory and research. In: Higgs J et al. (eds) Practice-based education. http://www.csu.edu.au/research/ripple/publications/publications/Schatzki-110721-Primer-on-Practices.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2012
  33. Schoemaker PJH (1995) Scenario planning: a tool for strategic thinking. Sloan Manag Rev 36(2):25–40Google Scholar
  34. Schön D (1983) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Selsky JW, McCann JE (2008) Managing disruptive change and turbulence through continuous change thinking and scenarios. In: Ramirez R et al (eds) Business planning in turbulent times: new methods for applying scenarios. Earthscan, London, pp 167–186Google Scholar
  36. Selsky J, Parker B (2005) Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: challenges to theory and practice. J Manag 31:849–873Google Scholar
  37. Stauffer D (2002) Five reasons why you still need scenario planning. Harvard Management Update, pp 3–5Google Scholar
  38. Vaara E, Whittington R (2012) Strategy-as-practice: taking social practices seriously. Acad Manag Ann 1–52Google Scholar
  39. van der Heijden K, Burt G, Cairns G, Wright G (2002) The sixth sense: accelerating organizational learning with scenarios. John Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  40. Varum CA, Melo C (2010) Directions in scenario planning literature—a review of the past decades. Futures 42:355–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Von Bertalanffy KL (1950) An outline of general system theory. Br J Philos Sci 1:134–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Weiner J, Tilly J, Howe A, Doyle C, Cuellar A, Campbell J, Ikegami N (2007) Quality assurance for long-term care: the experiences of England, Australia, Germany and Japan. Public Policy Institute, http://www.theceal.org/downloads/CEAL_1183152108.pdf. Accessed 16 Jan 2012
  43. Whittington R (2003) The work of strategizing and organizing: for a practice perspective. Strateg Org 1:117–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wilkinson A (2008) Postscript. In: Ramirez R et al (eds) Business planning in turbulent times: new methods for applying scenarios. Earthscan, London, pp 295–304Google Scholar
  45. Wilson I (2000) From scenario thinking to strategic action. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 65:23–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shankar Sankaran
    • 1
  • Bob Dick
    • 2
  • Kelly Shaw
    • 2
  • Colleen Cartwright
    • 2
  • Alan Davies
    • 2
  • Jacqueline Kelly
    • 3
  • Barb Vindin
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Design Architecture and BuildingUniversity of Technology, SydneyUltimoAustralia
  2. 2.Southern Cross UniversityLismoreAustralia
  3. 3.Lutheran Community CareBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations