Systemic Practice and Action Research

, Volume 15, Issue 6, pp 485–507 | Cite as

Action Learning as a Mindset—The Evolution of PICCO

  • John Stephens
  • Tim Haslett


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

action research systems thinking Checkland's SSM Beer's VSD organizational change 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Argyris, C. (1982). The executive mind and double loop learning. Organiz. Dyn. 11(2), 5-22.Google Scholar
  2. Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching smart people how to learn. Harv. Bus. Rev. May–June, 99-109. Reprint 91301.Google Scholar
  3. Argyris, C. (1993). Education for leading-Learning. Organiz. Dyn. 21(3), 5-17.Google Scholar
  4. Argyris, C., and Schon, E. (1978). What is an Organization that it may Learn? Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  5. Ashby, W. R. (1956). An Introduction to Cybernetics, Chapman and Hall, London, UK.Google Scholar
  6. Barker, J. (1992). Paradigms: Understand the Future in Business and Life, The Business Library, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  7. Barton, J. (2002). Informal Verbal Discussions: Management in Practice, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  8. Bateson, G. (1973). Steps to an Ecology of Mind, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  9. Beer, S. (1959). Cybernetics and Management, English Universities, London.Google Scholar
  10. Beer, S. (1966). Decision and Control: The Meaning of Operational Research and Management Cybernetics, Wiley, Chichester, UK. Reprinted 1994.Google Scholar
  11. Beer, S. (1968). Management Science: The Business Use of Operational Research, Aldus, London.Google Scholar
  12. Beer, S. (1972). Brain of the Firm, 2nd edn., Wiley, Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
  13. Beer, S. (1974). Designing Freedom, Wiley, Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
  14. Beer, S. (1979). Heart of the Enterprise, Wiley, Chichester, UK. 2nd edn., 1994, reprinted 2000.Google Scholar
  15. Beer, S. (1985). Diagnosing the System for Organizations, Wiley, Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
  16. Beer, S. (1994). Beyond Dispute: The Intervention of Team Syntegrity, Wiley, Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
  17. Beer, M., and Walton, E. (1990). Developing the competitive organizations: Interventions and strategies. Am. Psychol. 45(2), 154-161.Google Scholar
  18. Belbin, R. M. (1981). Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail, Heineman, London.Google Scholar
  19. Checkland, P. B. (1985). Achieving “desirable and feasible” change: An Application of SSM. J. Oper. Res. 36(9), 821-831.Google Scholar
  20. 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 Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions, Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  21. Checkland, P. B., and Holwell, S. (1998). Action Research: Its nature and validity. Syst. Pract. Action Res. 11(1), 9-21.Google Scholar
  22. Checkland, P. B., and Scholes, J. (1990). Soft Systems Methodology, Wiley, Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
  23. Covey, S. R. (1992). The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. Restoring the Character Ethic, Simon and Schuster, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Deming, W. E. (1982). Out of Crisis, Massachusetts Institute Of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  25. Dewey, J. (1943). The Child of the Curriculum and the School and Society, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  26. Drucker, P. F. (1997). Managing the Non Profit Organisation, Butterworth and Heineman, New York.Google Scholar
  27. Emery, F. (1993). In De Greene, K. B. (ed.), A Systems Based Approach to Policy Making, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp. 184-192.Google Scholar
  28. Emery, M., and Purser, R. (1996). The Search Conference, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  29. Espejo, R. (1994, Summer-Fall). What is systems thinking? Syst. Dyn. Rev. 10(2/3), 199-212.Google Scholar
  30. Espejo, R., and Harnden, R. J. (eds.) (1989). The Viable System Model: Interpretations and applications of Beer's VSM, Wiley, Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
  31. Flood, R. L. (1999). Rethinking the Fifth Discipline: Learning Within the Unknowable, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  32. Flood, R. L., and Jackson, M. (1995). Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention, Wiley, Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
  33. Gulick, L., and Urwick, L. (1994). British academy of management. In Papers on the Science of Administration, Eighth Annual Conference, London, pp. 99-110, UK, The Management School, Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  34. Haslett, T., Molineux, J., Olsen, J., Sarah, R., Stephens, J., Tepe, S., and Walker, B. (2002). Action Research: Its role in the university/business relationship. Syst. Pract. Action Res. 15(6), 437-448.Google Scholar
  35. Kim, D. (1993). Paradigm-creating loops: How perceptions shape reality. Syst. Thinker 4(2).Google Scholar
  36. Kitaoka, G. (2002). Cyber book, CD-ROM. Scholar
  37. Kolb, D. A. (1976). Learning Style Inventory: Technical Manual, McBen, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  38. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  39. Lewin, K. (1946). Action Research and minority problems. J. Soc. Issues 2(4), 34-46.Google Scholar
  40. Lewin, G. W. (eds.) (1973). Resolving Social Conflicts, selected papers on group dynamics by Kurt Lewin, Souveneir Press, London. (Originally published in 1948)Google Scholar
  41. Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and Personality, 2nd edn., Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
  42. 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.Google Scholar
  43. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of Organisational Knowledge Creation. Organ. Sci. 5(1), 14-37.Google Scholar
  44. Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge Creating Company: How the Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  45. Olsen, J., and Haslett, T. (2002). Strategic management in action. Syst. Prac. Action Res. 15(6), 449-464.Google Scholar
  46. Revans, R. (1982). The Origins and Growth of Action Learning, Chartwell Bratt, UK.Google Scholar
  47. Ruggles, R., and Holtshouse, D. (1999). The Knowledge Advantage, Ernst and Young LLP, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  48. 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 Research in business organisations. Syst. Pract. Action Res. 15(6), 535-546.Google Scholar
  49. Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. The Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation, Random House, Australia.Google Scholar
  50. Stacey, R. D. (1993). Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics, Pitman, London, UK.Google Scholar
  51. Stephens, J., and Haslett, T. (1998). Must One be Blind Before One can See? Unpublished Thesis, Master of Organisational Systems, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  52. 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 Contemporary World, Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA, Proceedings of Systems in Management 7th Annual conference of the Australia and New Zealand Systems Society (ANZSYS).Google Scholar
  53. Stephens, J., and Haslett, T. (2002). Viable systems diagnosis: An adaptive agent? In proceedings of Sixth International Research Conference on Quality, Innovation and Knowledge Management, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.Google Scholar
  54. Tepe, S., and Haslett, T. (2002). Occupational Health and Safety Systems, corporate governance and viable systems diagnosis: An action Research Approach. Syst. Pract. Action Res. 15(6), 509-522.Google Scholar
  55. Walker, B. C., and Haslett, T. (2002). Action Research in management-Ethical dilemmas. Syst. Pract. Action Res. 15(6), 523-534.Google Scholar
  56. Watkins E., and Golembiewski, R. (1995). Rethinking organisational development for learning organisations. Int. J Organ. Anal. 3(1), 86-101.Google Scholar
  57. Weinstein, K. (1995). Action Learning: A Journey in Discovery and Development, Harper Collins, London.Google Scholar
  58. West, D., and Stansfield, M.H. (2001). Structuring action and reflection in information systems Action Research studies using Checkland's FMA Model. Syst. Pract. Action Res. 14(3), 251-281.Google Scholar
  59. Woodcock, M., and Francis, D. (1982). The Unblocked Manager: A Practical Guide to Self-Development, Gower, Hampshire, UK.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Stephens
    • 1
  • Tim Haslett
    • 2
  1. 1.Greyhound RacingVictoriaAustralia
  2. 2.Department of ManagementMonash UniversityCaulfieldAustralia

Personalised recommendations