Crossing cultures

Action Learning in action

 
Wright, N, (2026). ‘Crossing Cultures – Action Learning in Practice’, Coaching Today, British Association for Counselling & Psychotherapy, January, pp26-30.

Introduction
As a psychological coach, I first became interested in action learning (AL) as a student of organisation development (OD). I was impressed by its power to stimulate critical reflective practice among peers and create impetus for change, and this inspired me to train as an AL facilitator.1 In this article I share what I’ve learned through facilitating AL groups and training AL facilitators from diverse cultures around the world.2

AL is a form of peer coaching that involves a facilitated small group of people (known as a ‘set’) meeting together periodically to provide one another with challenge and support.3 A primary goal is to enable those thinking through an issue (the ‘presenter’) to address complex issues and, as far as possible, to reach solutions they can act on.4 The issues may arise from individual experience or represent broader issues that an organisation would like to address.

Diverse benefits
Benefits to participants can include: building networks of relationships among peers; developing the personal agency of those who take part in a set; growth in awareness and understanding by listening to the issues that others present and think through; learning from how others approach, reflect on and address issues or the questions they pose; and practising transferable coaching and facilitation skills that can be applied elsewhere.5

Benefits to organisations can extend beyond building the capacity and problem-solving capabilities of individuals to: building and strengthening internal and external networks; improving cross-functional and matrix relationships and collaboration; addressing and resolving complex team-functional or organisational issues innovatively; changing the culture by embedding reflection, critical thinking, adaptability and agility as core to its practice.6-8

Key principles
The concept of AL as a semi-structured process was originally developed by Reginald Revans, an international management consultant who saw the value of helping people to think through issues for themselves, often by posing and receiving questions to and from peers.9 Resonating with insights from Kolb’s learning cycle10 and Honey & Mumford’s learning styles11, AL is an approach that can attract and engage activists, reflectors, theorists and pragmatists.

AL sets work most effectively when participants regard each other as peers. This may mean, for instance, working in similar roles in the same organisation or at similar levels in different organisations. This can help build psychological safety in a set as formal hierarchical power dynamics are minimised.12 Participants may also believe that peers are best able to understand and empathise with the complex issues and challenges they are facing.

In my experience, when working with cross-cultural sets13 or with sets of participants in or from high power-distance cultures14, I’ve found that, apart from formal structural hierarchy, participants may also regard factors such as age, gender or language as significant when working together. In view of this, I aim to ensure that, where possible, participants have the opportunity to choose who to work with in a set and, where such differences exist, to establish ground rules together.15

Core process
A typical AL set comprises between five and eight people. The size is significant because if too large, there’s a risk that not enough people will have an opportunity to think through an issue (‘present’), or to pose questions, and this can lead to disengagement. On the other hand, if too small, there may be insufficient diversity of perspectives in a set to help a presenter think through issues, solutions and actions in radically new ways, and this again may lead to disengagement.

The AL process itself typically focuses on individual-level challenges yet can be adapted to address wider organisational issues. At times, an individual will share an issue that has wider organisational resonance, e.g., a challenge that peers are also experiencing. Peers are then able to draw from that person’s learning to effect change in their own situations. Sometimes, a set may choose to work on a project- or organisation-wide issue together.16

The classic approach to AL follows a number of key steps outlined below, although these may be adapted by different facilitators, sets or in different situations to achieve optimal results:17

1. Bidding round – each participant shares a brief synopsis of an issue they would find useful to address;
2. Choosing a presenter – the set chooses which participant(s) to create space for in that particular meeting, to present and work through the issue(s) they have outlined;
3. Opening presentation – the chosen presenter is invited to unpack the issue they had outlined, for instance to give the set a clear picture of the background and context;
4. Questions for clarification – peers are offered the opportunity to ask any points of information, for further clarity;
5. Questions for exploration – peers pose questions to the presenter, intended to help the presenter explore the issue more deeply and broadly for themselves;
6. Questions for action – the presenter is helped to formulate any actions to the issues they have thought through, with a view to enacting those actions following the meeting.

A slightly modified version can be useful where a presenter, having received questions for exploration, remains stuck and unable to find a way forward.18 This variation is known as ‘peer consultancy’.19 Stages 1–5 remain the same as those outlined above, and if the presenter gets stuck, they may ask for, or the facilitator or peers may offer, peer consultancy. We could think of this as inserting an additional stage 5a-h before stage 6 (above):

a. The facilitator invites the presenter to crystallise the crux of the issue for them now, having had an opportunity to receive questions;
b. The presenter summarises the nub of the issue that they would like help with;
c. The facilitator invites the presenter to step back from the group (or turn off their camera if online) and simply listen while peers offer their ‘consultancy’;
d. The facilitator emphasises to the presenter that they do not need to respond to anything they hear from peers during this stage. (This helps reduce pressure on the presenter to agree with any solution offered by a perceived ‘authority figure’ in the set, particularly if in or from a high power-distance culture.)20
e. The facilitator invites peers to reflect on what they might do in the presenter’s situation, and to share those insights or ideas with the group;
f. The facilitator invites the presenter to re-join the group (or turn on their camera) and reiterates that they do not need to respond to anything they have heard;
g. The facilitator asks the presenter to summarise where they are at in their own thinking now;
h. The facilitator guides the group into stage 6 (Questions for action).

Facilitator role
What I have outlined so far is a facilitated AL process (a ‘round’). However, a facilitator may hold responsibility for additional tasks, both before and after a set meeting, as well as during, AL round(s) within a meeting. The role of the facilitator also tends to evolve as a set develops and progresses over time, often becoming less interventional as the set develops its own awareness, trust, skill and flow.21
Before a set, the AL facilitator may, for instance, liaise with key stakeholders to win their support for an AL initiative;22 market AL sets to potential participants; arrange set meeting dates and times; book rooms or online facilities for meetings; provide participants with preparatory materials, etc. After a set, the facilitator may follow up with any participants; report back key themes and actions to stakeholders; or evaluate the AL set’s impact.23

Invitational tone
I particularly like Reg Revans’ invitation, to ‘swap your difficulties, not your cleverness.’24 This may feel alien, however, for managers or professionals who normally expect themselves, and are expected by others, to demonstrate their expertise and competence at all times. In view of this, at the start of a new set, the facilitator will aim to model the spirit of AL; working collaboratively and co-creatively with set members in an open, invitational tone.

I try to do this by preparing myself before I step into a set meeting. I have three words written on a Post-it note in front of me: Prayer, Presence, Participation.25 This reminds me to be open to God; to be genuinely present to the group; and to invite their engagement in all that we do together. It grounds me in my own values and frees me to be open, responsive and adaptive, rather than trying through anxiety to control all that happens.26

If set members are to be willing to share their difficulties with peers in order to address them, they need to feel sufficient psychological safety in the group.27 Without a sense of safety and trust, set members may be unwilling to contribute; may feel threatened and act defensively when asked questions; may feel over-exposed or humiliated when offered challenge in front of the group; or may simply drop out of the set.

Initial induction
To address this, with every new set, I provide an introduction to the spirit of AL (e.g. ‘Everything is an experiment’) and what this entails in practice so that set members have a shared understanding of what it will require from them. I often use a trust-building exercise inviting participants (and myself) to share something of their (and my) own lived experience, such as: ‘How did you get here?’.
This provides a conceptual and relational foundation to discuss and agree culturally-appropriate ground rules for the set; e.g., ‘In view of what we now know about AL and each other, what are we going to need from ourselves, each other, and me (as facilitator) to bring and take our best from this experience?’ Typical ground rules that emerge concern confidentiality; curiosity; courage; commitment; and contribution.28 We review these as the set progresses.

I also offer a brief introduction to: (a) what makes a useful AL topic (e.g. real, important, difficult, and over which the presenter is able to exercise some degree of agency); (b) sample criteria to help choose a presenter for a round (e.g. level of energy, urgency, shared interest, equity); and (c) what tends to make a useful question (e.g. short, simple, open, focuses on ‘you’). I also check how well the latter may work (or may need to be adapted) in cross-cultural sets.13

Capacity building
During the AL rounds that follow, the facilitator focuses on enabling set members to help a presenter to work through an issue while, at the same time, building the capacity of the set to do it well. This may involve, for instance, discussing and agreeing first what the facilitator (or other set members) will do in the moment if, say, a peer asks a leading question or offers a suggestion; or if the presenter feels bombarded with too many questions too quickly.

I have found that contracting explicitly with a group in this way helps build psychological safety and trust. It helps avoid the risk of someone being taken by surprise or feeling embarrassed if I were to step in the midst of a round to, say, invite them to reframe advice as an open question. In all my interventions as facilitator, I try to retain a spirit of ‘invitation, not expectation’ so that participants feel valued and respected and not humiliated or controlled.

Towards the end of a set meeting, the facilitator may invite participants in the group to reflect, first, on their own learning and, second, on the AL process as a whole. For the first part, I often offer a prompt question such as, ‘What have I discovered?’ (e.g. about myself, about the issues and ideas raised in the rounds); then for the second part, ‘What did we do well?’ and ‘What would make it better next time?’ This macro-reflection enables participants to glean optimal value from the set experience and engage in continual improvement.
Crossing cultures

Much of my own AL work is international and I have a particular interest in working with sets where participants are from different cultures to my own, and/or from different cultures to each other.29 Here, I share how I have applied the learning from these experiences to enhance my own AL facilitation practice, bearing in mind the specific nuances and preferences of different individuals and groups in the same contexts.30

In a new set based in Somalia (a relationship-oriented and collectivist culture31), participants requested to spend a good proportion of time on introductions. They were keen to share information about their families and invited me to do so too. This meant managing the timetable for the rest of that session accordingly but the participants all agreed it was worth it. The lesson for me is to co-create set session design with actual set members.

In another set with participants in five different countries, a participant from Jordan was unable to join us for the start-up session. The other members agreed that they would be happy for her to join the next session if I were to meet and brief her beforehand. When I met her online for the briefing, she had her camera turned off. I wondered if there was a connectivity issue and asked her if she needed anything in order to turn on her camera. She explained that she hadn’t realised we would have our cameras on, so she hadn’t worn her hijab to work that day.

The lesson for me is to let participants know in advance that, if we are meeting online, we will have cameras on unless technology or other distracting issues prevent us doing so. It also affirmed my AL facilitation practice of asking in a spirit of curiosity, ‘If we (or you) were to… what would you need?’ to model invitation and co-creating solutions.32 This takes the pressure off me to solve every issue and affirms the resourcefulness of set participants.

In a set with participants in and from five different continents, towards the end of an AL round in which a participant from Myanmar was presenting, the group moved to the final Questions for action stage. The presenter was willing to explore various options for action but appeared to push back when peers invited him to commit to an actual action step. I could sense his and their growing frustration, and the group appeared stuck.

I reflected this apparent stuckness as an observation, then asked the presenter in a spirit of curiosity, ‘If you were to commit to an action, is there anything you would need?’ He immediately explained that, in his culture, it would be considered disrespectful to commit to an action without first discussing it with his line manager and that he needed to respect their authority.33 This revelation came as an important flash of realisation for the whole group, including me. The lesson for me is to tease out any personal, cultural or contextual considerations we need to take into account when sharing the AL process steps with participants, at the initial meeting or as they arise.

Finally, in another cross-cultural set, a participant from Malaysia commented that any questions for exploration that asked how a presenter was feeling were totally inappropriate at work. Again, in a spirit of curiosity, I asked her ‘What would concern you most about asking such questions?’ She responded that talking about feelings was ‘unprofessional’. I learned she was happy to explore emotional dimensions but without using the word ‘feel’.34

Concluding thoughts
AL offers a powerful methodology for developing individuals, teams and organisations. By combining critical reflection with practical action, it helps participants to engage deeply with complex, real-world issues while fostering collaboration and accountability. When skilfully facilitated, AL can also act as a catalyst for cultural change: building trust, enhancing cross-boundary relationships and embedding learning as an integral part of organisational life.

Facilitating AL across diverse cultural and organisational contexts reinforces the importance of sensitivity, adaptability and co-creation. This practice reminds us that learning does not occur in isolation from context or relationship, but rather through them. As organisations face increasing complexity and uncertainty, AL offers a framework not only for solving problems but for nurturing critical-reflective practitioners who can lead with empathy, insight and agility.
​
References
1 Wright N. Critical reflection. [Blog.] https://tinyurl.com/y98ta35s (accessed 9 October 2025).
2 Wright N. Cross-cultural action learning. [Blog.] https://tinyurl.com/7b5rd8a4 (accessed 9 October 2025).
3 Blakey J, Day I. Challenging coaching. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing; 2012.
4 Beaty L, McGill I. Action learning: a practitioner’s guide. London: Routledge; 2001.
5 Clore Social Leadership. Agents of change. [Blog.] https://tinyurl.com/2by9yhw9 (accessed 9 October 2025).
6 Pearce D, Williams E. Seeds for change: action learning for innovation. Cardiff: Menter a Busnes; 2010.
7 Butler L, Leach N. Action learning for change. Cirencester: Management Books 2000 Ltd; 2011.
8 Action Learning Associates. Benefits of action learning for organisations. https://tinyurl.com/ywmf4ykp (accessed 9 October 2025).
9 Revans R. The origins and growth of action learning. Bromley: Chartwell Bratt; 1982.
10 Kolb D. Experiential learning. New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 1983.
11 Honey P, Mumford A. The learning styles helper’s guide. Maidenhead: Peter Honey Publications; 2000.
12 Wright N. Psychological safety. [Blog.]. https://tinyurl.com/vssu8 (accessed 9 October 2025).
13 Action Learning Associates. Crossing cultures. https://tinyurl. com/3kbavjhd (accessed 9 October 2025).
14 Hofstede G, Hofstede J, Minkov M. Cultures and organisations. New York: McGraw Hill; 2010.
15 Facilitator School. What are ground rules? [Blog.] https://tinyurl.com/4nrwmjcr (accessed 9 October 2025).
16 NHS Learning Handbook. Action learning sets. https://tinyurl.com/ynww6psy (accessed 9 October 2025).
17 Pedler M, Abbott C. Facilitating action learning. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2013.
18 Strachan D. Making questions work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2007.
19 Action Learning Associates. Peers as consultants. https://tinyurl.com/4wwn3bts (accessed 9 October 2025).
20 Hofstede G. Dimensionalizing cultures: the Hofstede model in context. International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology 2011; 2(1). https://tinyurl.com/5232wzvr (accessed 9 October 2025)
21 Pedler M. Action learning in practice. Aldershot: Gower; 2016.
22 Weinstein K. Action learning: a practical guide. Aldershot: Gower; 1998.
23 Trehan K, Pedler M. Evaluating action learning. Action Learning: Research and Practice 2010; 7(2).
24 Wright N. Critical ventures: cultural influences on action learning. https://tinyurl. com/mrynwwss (accessed 9 October 2025).
25 Wright N. Guiding principles. [Blog.] https://tinyurl.com/ym32z2a3 (accessed 9 October 2025).
26 Wright N. Control to curiosity. [Blog.] https://tinyurl.com/rm6xrzaz (accessed 9 October 2025).
27 Wright N. A safe-enough space: action learning and vulnerability. Coaching and Life 2022; 22 January. https://tinyurl.com/ uv8bwsar (accessed 9 October 2025).
28 Hunter D. Break the rules: how ground rules can hurt us. Training for change. https://tinyurl.com/ychjprzs (accessed 9 October 2025).
29 Plaister-Ten J. The cross-cultural coaching kaleidoscope. London: Routledge; 2016.
30 Livermore D. Weird, rude or different? Awkward cross-cultural moments. Cultural Intelligence Center. https://tinyurl.com/ ejtmuavt (accessed 9 October 2025).
31 Weng L. Individualism and collectivism. The SAGE encyclopaedia of intercultural competence. London: Sage; 2015: pp.424-430. ed 9 October 2025).
32 Action Learning Associates. The power of the word ‘If’ in action learning. https://tinyurl. com/bdf7xsvr (accessed 9 October 2025).
33 Nickerson C. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory. Simply Psychology. https://tinyurl.com/4f7b2k59 (accessed 9 October 2025).
34 Wright N. How do you feel? Emotion in coaching. Coaching Today 2020; April: 30–32.
 
This article first appeared in the January 2026 issue of Coaching Today, published by the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy. www.bacp.co.uk/bacp-journals/coaching-today/ ©BACP 2026.