About LTL Program

We have been developing the Leadership Through Learning (LTL) program since 1997. The history of program development started with experiencing the action learning process in 1996 at Salford University in England. During this experience, Reg Revans (the father of action learning) stated that the role of the facilitator in the action learning process was to “…hang coats and get coffee.” What he meant by this statement was that the facilitator was to get out of the way of learning for the group. To us, this meant that the facilitator could be easily removed from the group if a structure for the action learning process was provided. To accomplish this, we used learning circles to develop an action learning process that did not require an external facilitator. This was achieved after three years of trial and error with various groups. The result was an action learning process that honoured each member of the group, as well as the process itself.

Workplace Learning This structured process was successful in creating self-managed groups in which individuals were able to learn in an engaging way that increased internal motivation to take effective action. This was true workplace learning. Action learning provided a system for learning while doing work. But, the action learning process had a weakness. It was dependent on the quality of critical thinking resident in the group. Our next challenge was to improve critical thinking. We started by looking at systems thinking as described in The Fifth Discipline by Peter Senge. Systems thinking is a discipline for seeing wholes, interrelationships, and patterns between a set of things. The problem with systems thinking was that it was too difficult for most people to understand and apply in daily work. Many researchers and practitioners in the field of systems thinking believe that it is a discipline that takes years to learn, and must be learned in a specific way. Our systems thinking approach was developed and designed from the assumption that systems thinking is an innate ability – that everyone is naturally a systems thinker. People simply need a way to tap into this innate ability.

Archetypes & Universal Patterns We decided to use one of the lesser used systems thinking approaches – archetypes, or universal patterns, that describe patterns of behaviour in complex situations. At the time, there were 10 archetypes that had been developed and researched by MIT. These 10 archetypes described negative or undesired patterns of behaviour. For example, Fixes that Fail describes a pattern of behaviour in which people solve problems by reacting to the problem in real time without considering possible negative side effects. People in our test groups found these archetypes very useful in understanding the complexity of their situations, and were able to take effective action as a result. What the test groups noticed the most was how easy it was to have a respectful and honest dialogue about what was really going on in their situations. Although the test groups found the 10 negative archetypes useful, they also wanted a way to understand what was working in their situations. As a result, we developed 10 complimentary positive archetypes that describe the positive or desired patterns of behaviour. In 2000, we met with Peter Senge, who was very impressed with our approach to systems thinking.

Reflexive PracticeAs we continued to use both action learning and systems thinking together in organizations and classrooms, we noticed that systems thinking was not challenging deeply held individual assumptions and mental models. Our approach to systems thinking helps people to tell the story of the operational system: what people are doing, why they are doing it, and what happens as a result. What our approach to systems thinking does not do is describe what is driving people to keep the undesired patterns of behaviour in place. We found a second approach to critical thinking in our work with Christine Oliver, and her work on reflexive practice (mindful thinking and action), based on the research of Vernon Cronen, and Barnett Pearce. Reflexive practice is both a skill in the development of critical consciousness (mindfulness), and a language for understanding, and working within, the complexity of relationships. When people work reflexively, they examine relational reflexes – the effects their behaviour is having, and might have, on the relationship of which they are a part. They also question the interpretations of, and explanations made for, the communication and actions that occur within relationships. Reflexive practice was truly transformational at an individual level. It allowed people to understand how to become responsible and accountable for their choices, their actions, and their contributions to the relational aspect of the system.

Using our test groups, we looked at the patterns of relational behaviour that occur in any situation. At the time, there were only two patterns developed – the strange loop pattern and the charmed loop pattern. With Christine Oliver, we developed four more relational patterns, as well as six reflexive choice patterns that allowed people to take more mindful action. In a recent email from Christine Oliver, she wrote:

I am going to California in January to a conference in honour of Barnett Pearce …. A book will come out of the conference and he has sent on his chapter to me as I am leading a session. In that chapter he describes our book as “wonderful”. I was very touched as he was one of the originators of Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM) from which strange loops emerged.

Effective & Sustainable Action At the Learning Company Conference in England in 1998, Mike Pedler, a co-author of The Learning Company: Strategy for Sustainable Development, stated that a profound problem of most research on learning organizations is the lack of understanding of the effect of power and politics on learning. In 2001, we revisited the work of Tom Boydell, also a co-author of The Learning Company: Strategy for Sustainable Development. Boydell had developed a learning matrix that described how people learned in two ways: types of learning and levels of learning. We noticed that his three levels of learning were also descriptions of ideology. For example, Level 1 learning is an ideology that promotes dependent learning in which people learn to implement and do things well. Boydell called this level of learning the conforming stance, and described it as an ideology that was effective when there was a great deal of stability in the system. We found that Boydell’s learning matrix could be used to described the corporate culture in which people work. It could also be used as a diagnostic to determine what people were allowed to learn and how they were allowed to learn it, thus influencing the success or failure of change efforts. Staying with the same method of patterns of behaviour as described in systems thinking and reflexive practice, we worked with Tom Boydell to develop strategic practice – three cultural stance patterns, seven cultural patterns of behaviour, and four strategic choices. People were now able to understand their situation as a pattern of basic assumptions (ideology) that are shared by a group, and that are used to solve both external and internal problems.

Decision Support System The critical thinking aspect of the action learning process was now strengthened by adding systems thinking to understand the operational system, reflexive practice to understand the relational dynamics underlying the system, and strategic practice to understand the cultural power and politics that define the system. Now people could transform their thinking and take effective and sustainable action. We call these three aspects of critical thinking a decision support system. This decision support system allows people to tell archetypal stories of their situations from three different aspects. The action learning process creates the conditions for people to learn. In 2009, this became its own course called Leadership and Storytelling. In this course, people learn to integrate action learning, systems thinking, reflexive practice, and strategic practice. Of all of the courses, this course is the most transformational because people can now see the different dynamics that are occurring in a system, and determine which one needs to be addressed.

In 1997, we attended the Learning Company Conference in England and were introduced to the concept and model called Energy Flow, developed by Mike Pedler. This model had four aspects: policy, operations, ideas and actions. This model was based on the Learning Cycle and action learning process. It was a perfect fit with the LTL program. In 2010, we developed a course called Learning and Organizational Design. Although currently run as a stand-alone course, it works best when action learning, the decision support system, and systemic storytelling are understood. The resource material is still being developed.

Our purpose for developing the LTL program was to help people in organizations, facilitators of learning, and consultants to be able to create profound change. Peter Senge, in his book The Dance of Change, defines profound change as “…organizational change that combines inner shifts in people’s values, aspirations, and behaviors with outer shifts in processes, strategies, practices, and systems.” Since 1996, our work with clients, practitioners of our work, and university students has shown us that we have developed a system that allows people to create profound change. We have documented many of these experiences on our website.

Marilyn Herasymowych and Henry Senko
January 2011


Learning Styles	Action Learning	Systems Thinking	Reflexive Practice	Strategic Practice	Systemic Storytelling	Organizational Development

About LTL Program

Leave a Reply

Marilyn Herasymowych & Henry Senko, Managing Partners

Leadership Through Learning Course Guides

Upcoming Courses

Upcoming Publications

Latest News