Action learning is, at its heart, about learning through reflecting, while in the midst of action. It's such a fascinating approach, because it ties together process and practice, you know, in this seamless loop. What I find really interesting is how it encourages us to refine our dialogic inquiry—this, uh, ability to engage in rich conversations that lead to deeper understanding. So, when we talk about dialogic learning, it's not just a back-and-forth exchange. There are clear patterns that start to emerge as people get into this rhythm of questioning and reflecting. Think of it like a kind of dance—sometimes it's about slowing down to really listen, other times it's about offering a thought that sparks something new. And, the rhythm of it? That can evolve as the group or team learns together. And here's something to consider—what makes dialogic learning stand out is how it embraces complexity. We're not looking for quick answers or surface-level solutions. Instead, it's about creating a space where layers of perspectives can unfold, guided by the questions we ask and explore together. In the context of action learning sets, there’s this, uh, fascinating interplay between structure and spontaneity. What I mean is, the way these sessions are designed—with clear goals and a flexible process—actually satisfies what Vygotskian theory calls the first stimulus. Essentially, that’s the initial spark or framework that helps us navigate complex problems. And I think, I guess, that’s why structure is so important. Now, here's where it gets really interesting. The type of questions we ask within these sets? They’re not just any questions; they’re intentional. They guide us towards what Vygotsky termed double stimulation. It’s this idea that we can use a second stimulus—like a new perspective, or even a provocative question—to challenge the way we see things and, well, kind of change the meaning we derive from it. It’s like a spark that turns into action, you know? And then there’s agency, which is the driver behind all of this. Participants are not just responding to the questions; they’re taking ownership. They’re, um, intrinsically motivated to explore, act, and find meaning. It’s not just about solving problems—it’s about engaging deeply with the process itself and finding purpose in it. When we're thinking about action learning sets, the structure really plays such an important role. It's not, um, a random process. Every sequence, every piece of it, has purpose. There’s this deliberate flow, you know? Each part kind of builds on what came before—and that's what allows participants to, well, really connect their learning back to their actions. So, at the beginning, there’s usually this, uh, clarifying phase. People bring forward their challenges, but with a specific focus in mind. It’s not just venting or unloading—there’s an intent to frame the challenge in a way that opens it up for exploration. And the framing? That’s key. It’s actually what sets the direction for everything that follows. Then there's this rhythm of questioning and reflecting—kind of like a back-and-forth exchange that keeps, well, deepening as it goes along. What stands out for me here is how this approach steers clear of solutions, at least initially. Instead of jumping straight into fixing things, the focus is on really unpacking the problem, layer by layer. And it’s, I guess, a bit counterintuitive, because letting go of quick fixes isn’t always easy. And here's the thing—why does the flow matter so much? Well, because it mirrors how people process information. It’s not a straight line. It's more like a cycle—of discovery, reflection, and then coming back to action. And as participants move through it, the structure naturally creates room for insights to emerge in ways they might not have expected. It’s, um, almost like the process nudges them to see beyond their own edges. So, let's delve into this idea of space making, shall we? It’s really about creating an intentional environment where, well, stories can emerge. And not just any stories—lived stories that have, like, real meaning and purpose. When we give those stories space to surface, the whole process becomes a lot more, I guess, focused and goal-oriented. It’s kind of fascinating how that shapes what comes next in an action learning set. Now, this idea of time travelling—it’s not as sci-fi as it sounds, but it’s just as exciting. What we’re talking about here is using what we've, um, experienced in the past to inform decisions and actions for the future. It’s about consciously weaving those threads together, you know, so that our decisions aren’t just reactive but actually rooted in something deeper, something grounded. And that grounding? That’s what gives us perspective. And then there’s edgewalking, which has such a, I don’t know, evocative feel to it, doesn’t it? It’s about crossing boundaries—those lines we’ve drawn around ourselves, around our ways of thinking. The questions edgewalkers ask, they’re not always, um, comfortable or easy. They challenge us to, like, think differently, to expand our view and see connections in places we hadn’t before. It’s a kind of dialogic ignition—this deliberate stirring that shifts how we approach problems. But here’s the thing—all three, space making, time travelling, and edgewalking, they don’t exist in isolation. They’re, um, interconnected. Together, they create this dynamic framework where growth happens not by accident but because the right questions, the right stories, and the right experiences come together in meaningful ways. And, you know, when an action learning set is infused with these principles, it’s not just about learning. It’s about... reshaping how we even think of learning... So, what happens when an action learning set incorporates the SETS principles? Essentially, the shift, I think, is pretty significant. One of the key differences you’ll, uh, notice is how it expands the space for decision-making. Leaders aren’t just reacting or solving short-term problems—they’re engaging with complexity in a way that feels more integrated and, honestly, more empowering. These principles—space making, time travelling, and edgewalking—they kind of act like lenses, you know? They help leaders see beyond the immediate challenge and into the broader system. And, by working through that complexity, leaders start to—well—redefine what success even looks like. It’s not just about the outcome, but the process itself becomes a source of learning and growth. And that, I think, is where the real impact lies. Another thing I find so compelling is how this approach naturally fosters collaboration. When we’re learning in action—when we’re in that reflective loop together—it stops feeling like a solo effort. The decisions and actions that emerge are richer, because they’re informed by all these different perspectives. You start to get this sense of shared ownership, and there’s this, I guess, synergy that you don’t often find in more traditional settings. And, you know, this focus on collaboration really highlights why action learning sets stand out as a tool for tackling complex problems. Complexity doesn’t disappear when we solve one issue, right? It keeps evolving. But the way participants are equipped to handle that complexity—it shifts. They leave with, um, not just insights but practical skills to navigate uncertainty in the long term. So, if we step back and look at the bigger picture, what sets this approach apart is its capacity to transform. It’s not just about shaping better decisions; it’s about shaping better decision-makers. And that’s a pretty powerful outcome, isn’t it? To walk away not just with answers, but with the ability to ask better questions, and to lead in a way that’s more fluid, more intentional. And that’s all for today. Thanks for joining me on this journey through action learning sets and the SETS framework. It’s been such a meaningful conversation, and I hope it’s sparked something valuable for you too. Until next time, take care!

Episodes

Action Learning Sets