W11 CAL Assignments
Example CAL Final Report
This handout provides an example of the final deliverable for the module, the CAL Final Report. Review this example in preparation for Week 11, the week in which your CAL Final Report will be due. You are not required to follow this exact format; however, this example is provided to give you an idea of the kind of content that should be addressed in the report. This is an example you can model and work towards accomplishing throughout the doctoral program. Feel free to consult your Doctoral Tutor on an alternative format.
CAL Final Report
Introduction
The purpose of this document is to provide a narrative of the progress on the problem I identified at the outset and on the process of engaging with the problem. This includes issues encountered with the problem managing process, the steps which were taken to address it, the ways in which the literature informed the process, results and conclusions, and a plan for further action.
Problem overview
The problem I identified is one concerning what I perceived as a serious difficulty with my line manager whose management style I find very difficult and complex. The working relationship is fractured and has caused numerous difficulties with my own team due to what I believe constitute his persistent undermining of my decisions and actions. This case has repercussions for others than simply myself as I believe it is de-stabilising the finance department in which I work, and possibly the wider organisation. Pedler (1996) has argued that a good starting place for action and learning is a sincere question which begins with “How can I…”(1996:44). As a consequence I began the process by posing such a question for myself. My first question therefore was: “How can I deal with what I see as my boss’s aggressive management style?”
The action learning set
I first had the opportunity to present all the facets of my problem to an action learning meeting scheduled for mid June. We had agreed as a set that it would be useful to make use of Pedler’s (1996) problem brief in order to help us think through a suitable problem for consideration by the set (1996:61).
The production of the rich picture, which initially some of us in the set were sceptical about, allowed for what Monk and Howard (1998) saw as the identification of “multiple viewp01oints” in a work situation. Rich pictures are usually constructed by interviewing people, and I drew up the picture by talking through scenarios and reactions in the workplace to get a sense of “stakeholder” views and perceptions. This provided a useful starting point for the process, and for the discussion of myproblem. It also made me think about my line manager’s perspective on the situation and that I needed to better understand the underlying issues and implications from a range of perspectives other than my own.
The meeting in June was the first real opportunity I had ever had to explore and examine the problem I faced in what I knew to be a confidential, supportive and challenging environment. The meeting was not always comfortable. I had to consider questions and perceptions from set colleagues which made me think about my own role in the making the problem (“I am part of the problem, the problem is part of me’) and I had also to consider the implications of this recognition for my own scholarly research and practice.
I recorded in my research journal a memorable set discussion on the issue of reflexivity and we discussed Perriton’s (2001) paper in particular. Reflexivity is one way of problematising both what we know and how we have come to know it, as it reveals something of the assumptions on which such knowledge is based, such as, for example, the author’s particular background (Kelemen and Rumens, 2008:190). It is a way of showing something of the impact of the researcher upon the research (and vice versa), thus making the researcher a real presence in accounts of the research. This avoids the passive voice Perriton (2001) warned of, which, as she asserts “make it seem as if methodology drives the researcher not the other way round and (we) write our research texts as if choices had not been made in the construction of them” (Perriton, 2001:38).
But in exercising such reflexivity we should seek to give the researcher a voice without silencing or lessening the voices of others in the research. This was an important point in our discussions: my perception of the problem may well be very different to others’ views. Some may view a manager’s actions as aggressive whilst others will regard the individual as being merely forthright and direct: a strong willed leader in a complex situation. The part that emotions play in the situation was also discussed at length, drawing in particular upon Vince’s (2008) paper which sought to advance the theory and practice of critical action learning by examining questions of learning-in-action and learning inaction.
Literature Review
In order to begin the process of examining this issue I explored two streams of relevant literature: one on bullying in the workplace and the other on critical action learning which I see as one potential means of shedding light on the power relations and inequalities in the workplace which may, at least in part, be said to account for such problems.
Over the last 15 years, research into bullying in the workplace has emerged as a key field of study in Europe and the USA, although the issue is not a new one. The growing attention given to these matters may in part be explained by changing economic and social conditions, and by relevant changes in employment law. Rayner, Hoel and Cooper (2002) suggest there is no definitive list of bullying behaviours. A major assumption of much of the extant literature is that it is the pattern of behaviours which is key to understanding what might be said to constitute bullying behaviour (2002:9). Rayner et al (2002) assert that the notion of “inbalance of power” (which is prevalent in much Scandinavian, but not British literature) is gaining ready acceptance; “(I)f people have the same degree of power they will be in an ordinary conflict – where two people work out disagreements” (2002:9). This notion of “inbalance” also has resonance in the critical action learning literature, much of which considers inequalities, power relations and emotions and politics in the workplace (McLaughlin and Thorpe, 1993; Willmott, 1997; Reynolds and Vince, 2004; Rigg and Trehan, 2004).
There is a considerable amount of literature focused upon policy issues to do with bullying in the workplace (Rayner, Hoel& Cooper, 2002; Richards & Daley, 2003; Merchant &Hoel, 2003) with legal implications of bullying (Yamada, 2003) and to do with the negative effects the experience has on victims (Hoel, Einarson and Cooper, 2003). My aim here is to link the problem of bullying in the workplace with critical action learning in order to examine more closely the organisational effects of bullying and the context in which such bullying occurs, as well as potential solutions for my own specific problem. Hoel, Einarson and Cooper (2003) have made the point that comparatively little attention has been paid in the literature to the possible relationship between bullying and organisational outcomes (2003:145). Leyman (1990) has argued that a single case of bullying may cost the organisation around $30,000 to $100,000 each year (quoted by Hoel, Einarson and Cooper, 2003:145). In questioning around the problem, my action learning set have encouraged me to think about the wider organisational effects of bullying. Two questions posed by one of my fellow set members gave me considerable cause to reflect. These questions were as follows: What impact has this behaviour had on the wider organisation in which it has occurred? What part might the practice of critical action learning have to play in explaining the problem? This second question led me to look more closely at the literature on critical action learning and its implications.
Critical Action Learning
Willmott (1997) observed that in engaging with the struggles of individual learners, action learning has the capacity to open up to inspection the “darker” aspects of organizational life (1997:170). For their part, McLaughlin and Thorpe had recognised the (possibly untapped) capacity for managers engaged in action learning to address:
…the primacy of politics, both macro and micro, and the influence of power on decision making and non decision-making not to mention the “mobilization of bias” (1993:25).
Willmott (1997) distills from this a link to be made between the embodied insights generated by action learning and the theoretical contributions of diverse traditions of critical analysis (1997:170). But Willmott goes further still in his argument. It is not enough simply to be able to identify power differences and to generate socio-political insights, critical action learning should explore the real potential for changes which can “challenge practices and ideologies through which established exploitation oppression and subjection become institutionalized” (1997:171).
Willmott (1997) set out an argument and a blueprint for critical action learning, but was not, at the time of writing his now classic piece, able to point to examples of critical action learning in practice. Reynolds and Vince (2004) and Rigg and Trehan (2004) took the argument a stage further yet by giving examples of critical action learning in practice. Reynolds and Vince (2004) give an example of developing critical management learning and education as an outcome with the Centre for Health Leadership and assert that:
The projects undertaken by individual managers within the particular action learning set are not only seen as and understood as individual problems but as a reflection of a very broad range of emotional and political issues within this organizational context. Participants…are asked to identify power relations within and outside of the action learning set and work with these inside and outside the set as these are seen as forming the basis for the learning managers will take forward (2004: 452).
Examples of problems worked upon included how to work through the consequences of a dysfunctional top team, how to be a good leader and still be liked and how to improve the communication between senior managers and clinical directors. Reynolds and Vince (2004) encourage the questioning and indeed transforming of power relations as part of the critical action learning process. One might ask what end is thought achievable through such questioning, especially as Reynolds and Vince themselves point to the extent of wider socio-political difficulties making such transformations unlikely at the time of writing (2004:454). This is an area upon which further work could prove fruitful.
Reynolds and Vince (2004) conclude that there is much to be gained from advancing action based approaches to learning which are social and situated in work and which challenge existing power relations by subjecting current practice to critical questioning. Rigg and Trehan (2004) argue that critical theory can be “mobilized and applied in the process of understanding and changing interpersonal and institutional practices” (2004: 149).They produce convincing illustrations of critical action learning from their own practice which they use to show the outcomes such an approach can produce for its participants. On example given is a powerful demonstration of how indirect racism is tackled in a set meeting. Rigg and Trehan draw the conclusion that critical action learning “has a performative benefit in that experiences of power, politics and emotion offer potential for significant learning” (2004:162). Critical action learning offers the potential to examine with deliberation tensions and conflicts in the workplace, and to assist in understanding what Revans called the “micropolitics of the organisation”. A potential problem with the approach comes with trying to go beyond identifying power differences and generating socio-political insights; participants might have cause to question how practices and ideologies are to be challenged without risking potentially career-limiting consequences for the challengers.
Steps taken to address the problem and outcomes
Following discussions with the set, some of whom had considerable HR knowledge which I found to be valuable contributors to my understanding, and thinking about the problem and its implications from different perspectives I decided to tackle the issue from both an organizational and individual perspective. I felt it was important not to undermine the line manager but to ensure I got support and that the wider departmental team also got support in the process.
From an organizational perspective, I decided to look into the prospects for introducing a dignity at work policy which did not exist in the company at the time. To this end, I examined a range of literature, including Rayner, Hoel and Cooper’s (2002) guide which described the kinds of tangible statements such policy documents are most likely to contain. I approached the company HR officer and we had a productive discussion about the need for such a policy and the way in which such a policy could be introduced by the company. We also examined the informal procedures which need to be in place to support the introduction of such a policy.
On an individual level, the issue made me think about my own values as a manager, and what I could do to ensure my own behaviour and responses were appropriate in the workplace. A chapter in Rayner et al (2002) helped me to consider what could be done on an individual basis. I decided that I would investigate the use of coaching to look at the impact of these behaviours, and to try and understand the underlying issues by communicating more effectively with the line manager and the team. I realized that my own values centred around trusting people themselves to do the work and by respecting and valuing staff. Vince’s (2008) article has made me think about failing to act or refraining from action (learning inaction) and the implications of this in a highly charged working environment. A consideration of this helps us “to identify some of the emotions and politics that underpin and constrain managers’ actions within roles” (2008: 95).
Concluding reflections
The problem I brought to the set has not been completely resolved, but I do not regard this as a failure because of the learning that has come from my engagement with it, and with the action learning set. Revans (1998) was clear that action learning should not be concerned with dealing with puzzles, which usually have a comparatively easy solution, but with “the menace of urgent problems” and to make “useful progress upon the treatment of some problem or opportunity in the real world” (1998:8-15). It was thus important for me to attempt to tackle what I regarded as a messy and potentially intractable problem with no clear solution in easy sight. In doing this, I have learned about myself and my own values as a manager, and what matters to me, and this may mean that I have to make some different choices in the future about the kind of organisation within which I wish to work. I regard this positively.
References
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Jackson, P. (2008) Management Research. London: Sage Publications.
Einarson, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper (2003) Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International perspectives in research and practice. London: Taylor & Francis.
Kelemen, M., & Rumens, N. (2008) An Introduction to Critical Management Research. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Pedler, M. (1996) Action learning for Managers. London: Lemos& Crane.
Perriton, L. (2001) ‘Sleeping with the enemy? Exploiting the textual turn in management research’, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 4 (1), pp. 35-50.
Rayner, Hoel, & Cooper (2002) Workplace Bullying: What we know, who is to blame, and what can we do? London: Taylor & Francis.
Rigg, C., &Trehan, K. (2004) ‘Reflections on Working with Critical Action Learning’ Action Learning: Research & Practice, 1 (2), pp. 149–165.
Vince, R., & Martin, L. (1983) ‘Inside action learning: an exploration of the psychology and politics of the action learning model’, Management Education and Development , 24 (3), pp. 206-215.
Vince, R. (2004) ‘Action learning and organizational learning: power, politics and emotion in organizations’, Action Learning: Research and Practice 1 (1), pp. 63-78.
Vince, R. (2008) ‘Learning-in-action and learning inaction: Advancing the theory and practice of critical action learning’, Action Learning: Research & Practice, 5 (2), July, pp. 93-104.
Willmott, H. (1997) ‘Critical Management Learning’, In: Burgoyne, J., & Reynolds, M. (eds.). Management Learning: Integrating Perspectives in Theory & Practice. London: Sage, pp 161-176.