‘SAGA’: a method to support the practice of critical action learning

ABSTRACT

Critical Action Learning (CAL) is undertaken with an awareness of the persistent tension in organisations between the desire to learn and defences against learning. Attempts to learn in organisations are inevitably bound up with the specific emotional and political context that organisations create, as well as the impact that this has on the outcomes of learning. A key question that arises for CAL practitioners therefore is: what methods or approaches can be used to engage directly with underlying emotions and established power relations? In this paper, one answer to this question is provided. The ‘SAGA’ (Situation, Assumptions, Gut feelings /Emotion, Actions) method is explained and discussed. This model has been designed to engage with emotions and power relations as an integral aspect of action learning. Four examples of SAGA in practice are presented. It is argued that the method offers action learning practitioners an effective approach to CAL, as well as supporting the ongoing process of rethinking and developing it.

KEYWORDS:

• Critical action learning
• the SAGA model
• emotions
• power relations
• learning
• change

Introduction

As with all forms of action learning, Critical Action Learning (CAL) supports people’s personal and shared learning through ongoing iterations of reflection and action. What makes CAL distinctive, however, is that it recognises that attempts to learn in organisations are inevitably bound up with the specific emotional and political context that organisations create (both consciously and unconsciously). Underlying emotions and established power relations have significant implications for the outcomes of learning. Organisational attempts to learn produce both ‘learning-in-action’ and ‘learning inaction’ – which acknowledges an organisation’s simultaneous ability to promote and to prevent learning (Vince 2008).

CAL is undertaken with an awareness of this persistent tension in organisations between the desire to learn and defences against learning. A key question that arises for CAL practitioners therefore is: what methods or approaches can be used to engage directly with underlying emotions and established power relations? In this paper, we provide one answer to this question, and we also respond to a recent request to further develop the practice of action learning (Trehan, in Boak 2023).

We focus on ‘SAGA’ (Situation, Assumptions, Gut feelings/Emotion, Actions) – a model that addresses both individual and collective learning within the specific organisational context in which such learning takes place. There are other models of CAL, for example, ‘problem, information, planning (PIP)’ (Cotton 2021). There are existing models of learning that can be adapted to support CAL, for example, ‘head-heart-hand’ (Pedler and Abbott 2013; Pedler, Burgoyne, and Boydell 2010) or the ‘double-loop’ learning model (Argyris and Schön 1996). However, the SAGA model and approach has been designed explicitly to engage with emotions and power relations, as mirrored in assumptions that are integral to learning in organisations.

This results in several advantages:

• - The model is simple, logical and clearly constructed, making it immediately comprehensible even for less experienced users.

• - With the dimensions of the model, the essential elements of CAL such as tensions and power dynamics that enable and prevent learning can be questioned, registered and understood.

• - Emotions (Gut feelings), as an essential component of CAL, are introduced from the start with the SAGA dimensions as a completely natural and comprehensible aspect of problem solving.

• - The consistent distinction between facts (state of the matter, situation) and assumptions creates clarity in an area that is usually mixed up in everyday dialogue. People do not act based on facts, but on the basis of the meaning they attribute to the facts. In SAGA collective in particular, it becomes clear how easy it is for those involved to agree on what are the facts, even from very different perspectives, and how much surprise and learning it triggers when set members notice the different assumptions that the same facts can lead to.

• - Revealing the emotions of the various participants that are linked to the assumptions can create space for new collective emotions.

• - SAGA collective is therefore also suitable for the productive processing of both everyday conflicts and chronic conflicts as an element of CAL (see Example 4)

• - The model can be an inspiration and, especially in SAGA collective, a guideline for CAL facilitators for a transparent process.

‘SAGA’ was introduced by Hauser (2012) as a way of working with the connection between individual and collective impacts on learning in organisations. The model has developed and, in its enhanced form, supports two forms of set work. First, there is an aspect to the model that is used for individual problem solving – to work out the influence of the organisation on individual feelings, knowledge and action. We illustrate this in Example 1 (below). Second, ‘SAGA Collective’ provides a method for working on collective problems. We provide three short examples that show how SAGA Collective has been used: to support the development of a contemporary learning organisation in a national authority; to inform a development programme for junior managers; and to provide a structure for dealing with open conflict. Both forms of the SAGA model take individual and collective perspectives into account when dealing with a problem. However, there are differences between them regarding the specific elements of each approach. The examples cited in this paper are from past experiences of using SAGA with action learning sets. Research ethics principles of anonymity, confidentiality and data security have been applied.

Critical action learning

Action Learning is an ‘approach to individual and organisational development’ in which ‘people learn from their attempts to change things’ (Pedler 2008). Insights arise in action learning through a process of questioning. Problems are tackled by the members of a group (‘the action learning set’) with ‘clear, direct and challenging questions’ (Hauser et al. 2023). Sometimes, however, participants feel a resistance to asking openly, be it to avoid offending anyone or out of loyalty (Rigg, Ellwood, and Anderson 2021) or because there are unwritten rules or expectations in the organisation that certain things should not be said (Vince et al 2018). There is then a risk that the core of the problem will not be addressed and, as a result, the problem will not be solved appropriately. The critical reflection of underlying assumptions and emotions, that support or prevent learning in organisations (Vince 2008) is at the core of CAL.

The concept of CAL was originally introduced by Wilmott (1994) and further developed with focus on critical reflection (Anderson and Thorpe 2004; Rigg and Trehan 2004), with the relation between action learning and critical social theory (Pedler 2005), and with the impact of emotions, micropolitics and power relations on action learning. Vince (2004) enhanced Revans’ learning equation of programmed knowledge (P) and questioning insight (Q) with an O to reflect existing organisational dynamics in the action learning process to L = P + Q + O. And it was pointed out how underlying emotions and power dynamics, which inevitably occur in organisations and hence also in action learning sets both promote and prevent learning (Trehan 2021; Trehan and Rigg 2015; Vince 2008).

An overview of the main components of CAL facilitation is provided by Hauser et al. 2023: Connecting ‘questioning knowledge' and ‘organizing insight’, working with associative emotions, questioning what is taken-for-granted by promoting critical reflection, working with and through difference, naming what is being avoided, hidden, and resisted in the set, working with embedded social power relations, working with behaviour in the set as a mirror of behaviour in organizations, providing containment for engagement with emotions and power relations.

Key dimensions of the SAGA model

CAL is a learning process that deliberately questions set members’ assumptions as well as the prevailing assumptions that inform situated knowledge or ‘how we do things here’ in organisations. The term ‘prevailing assumptions’ refers to explicit and implicit power dynamics and relations that determine the extent to which learning is supported, avoided or prevented in an organisation (Vince 2004; 2008). Emotions also have an important role in CAL because they make power dynamics, and the tensions they trigger, immediately perceptible. Unconscious and unspoken emotions arise at the individual and collective levels, which influence a set's ability to learn and to act on their learning. For example, Cotton’s (2021) approach to CAL includes exploration of unconscious and group dynamics associated with UK Health Care workers and their defences against learning and well-being.

SAGA helps to make different aspects or dimensions transparent and thus to look at a problem in a holistic way. The four main dimensions of the SAGA model (Table 1) are:

Table 1. SAGA – questioning dimensions for reflection.

Situation, state of affairs, facts

What has happened? Who was involved? …

Assumptions, beliefs, meaning

What do you think is the reason for this? What do you think will happen next? …

Gut feelings/emotions, intuition

What do you feel when you think at this situation? What feelings do you have now? What information do your feelings signal you about the situation and yourself?

Action, motivation

What will you do next? How likely is it that you make things happen – between 0 and 10?

Situation (S): This refers to the facts that are relevant in relation to the problem under consideration and are therefore the basis for any solution.

Assumptions (A1): This refers to assumptions made by the problem holder as well as his/her assessments in relation to prevailing assumptions of other actors and in the organisation. For example, set participants can act as a ‘reflecting team’ (Andersen 1991; Hauser 2012) to provide the problem holder with responses concerning what assumptions the problem and their presentation trigger in them. Assumptions are important in relation to facts because people do not act according to pure facts, but based on the meaning they give to facts. Assumptions are therefore understood as theories about the meaning of facts.

Gut feelings/emotions (G): People often feel (without having to be told) what is and what is not acceptable behaviour in an organisation. Such unspoken feelings affect how things are (supposed to be) seen, what can be questioned and what cannot. People’s shared sense of the limits of acceptable behaviour often create an ‘imagined stability’, where feelings of caution or anxiety implicitly create self-limiting structures, and then these structures reinforce limits on behaviour (Vince 2002). Personal feelings in organisations may reflect organisational as well as personal or interpersonal dynamics. For example, if a person feels small and incompetent in a certain environment, but competent and effective in another environment, then these feelings obviously say something about the environment and not just about the person (Hauser et al. 2023). Such emotions are rarely addressed and documented openly. Making these feelings consciously transparent opens a new perspective on problems/cases and can reveal vital stimuli for a solution.

Actions (A2): As with all forms of action learning, the intention in CAL is problem solving in ways that stimulate action to initiate productive change. However, such actions are always undertaken within a context that contains assumptions, emotions and embedded power relations. The dynamics that arise in this context can lead to both productive action, unproductive actions and inaction, to learning, and to the avoidance of learning. The actions we take as part of action learning then help to create further situations that become open to questioning, reflection and development. Ideally (although not always in practice), action and reflection are permanently joined together in an iterative process of openness to learning and change.

The SAGA model provides a framework through which participants in CAL can better understand its ‘critical’ intent. In particular, the model offers a structure through which to explore how personal and organisational assumptions are linked to individual and collective emotions. Understanding this link opens underlying organisational dynamics that can otherwise be easily ignored or avoided. Such dynamics impinge on both individual and organisational capability to learn. One of the aims of the SAGA model is to provide clear dimensions for addressing persistent problems with ‘learning inaction’, and to provide confidence in doing so.

Prior to working with SAGA our set participants receive a briefing on and visualisation of the SAGA dimensions and their significance in tackling problems as displayed in Table 1. The focus is on practical application rather than on theoretical background. For example, we explain, that as human beings we do not act upon facts (‘situation’), but upon the meaning (‘assumptions’) we give to the facts. And our feelings are important as our quickest ‘real-time’ access to reality. For example, we can immediately feel if we are welcome or if the atmosphere is tense.

During the process and between the set meetings participants are encouraged to keep a learning log to document their progress and learning. The log is structured according to the four SAGA dimensions.

SAGA: individual questioning

In this form of set work, each participant is invited to bring in their own problem. SAGA can be used, for example, to raise general awareness, as a guide to evaluate cases in action learning, or as a ‘learning log’. In Example 1 (below), the SAGA dimensions are used to analyse an individual problem.

Table

Example 1: How can I say no …  A participant in a set of managers introduces the topic: ‘How can I say no without feeling guilty?’ The set participant worked on the question over several sessions. She found it difficult to talk about how she felt at the beginning. She kept a SAGA learning log for this purpose, from which small excerpts are shown below: Situation: Even if my boss demands too much, I don't say no. He does not notify the HR department of the extensive overtime he requests at weekends, so I do not receive the compensation I am entitled to, and I don't manage to raise the issue. I feel bad when I don't meet his demands. The boss has a drinking problem. (Like my father.) Assumptions: I am undecided what to do. I am perhaps not good enough and he might get the impression that I am not prepared to go the extra mile. I want confirmation that I am giving it my all and at the same time I doubt that he will give me that. The problem is deeper than I thought. It's about boundaries, (also towards my father.) Gut feelings / Emotions: Sadness, anger at myself and my boss, shame. Fear of the unpredictability of the boss and getting into an unpleasant situation with him. Fear of losing face if I demand something. It’s uncomfortable to talk about it. Action: Setting boundaries, taking care of myself, admitting that I don't always have to be perfect. Seek advice from HR and Works Council and start with small demands. The set participant noticed that her feelings changed for the better and it also became easier to talk about it as she started to change her behaviour towards the boss in small steps. In conclusion, she stated, that it felt good to receive understanding and support from others and to report on initial successes in the set.

Set participants can use the SAGA model to create a differentiated learning log (one that breaks the problem down into the SAGA components). This is helpful in connecting individual problems with the organisational context that affects them. In Example 1, the problem holder identified references to her own history in the process that triggered deep emotions and allowed her to understand why the power dynamics associated with her boss had such a strong effect on her. Through the set work she was able to free herself from repeating historically embedded emotional patterns and take concrete steps to set limits to how she was affected by the power dynamics in her professional environment.

SAGA collective: common joint problems

To address a Common Joint Problem, a learning set works together on a problem that is self-defined or prescribed by the organisation. In contrast to individual problems, the task of the set is not to ask questions in ways that encourage an individual set member to generate a solution to their expressed problem. Rather, all set members work together to develop a solution. One advantage of this approach is that it increases the potential for the results to have an impact on the organisation – and therefore the overall context for learning.

Individuals pose problems that relate to their experience. Everyone else questions things from their respective backgrounds and they are not directly involved in a solution. This gives individuals a high degree of independence, making it easier to ask questions from different perspectives. A common joint problem requires interdependence. Set members must develop a shared understanding of the problem, as well as the organisational power dynamics inevitably associated with it. Such dynamics are often unconsciously imported and enacted in the set (Trehan and Rigg 2015; Vince 2012). Working openly with how established power relations are manifest in the ‘here and now’ dynamics of the set has the advantage of making differences visible (Hauser et al. 2023). Acknowledgement of difference is also an acknowledgement of the political complexity of the environment in which learning takes place.

The SAGA Collective approach uses the same overall structure as individual set work. However, the practical application of the model is different. It is not a prescription but provides an initial framework for processing a collective problem in a solution-oriented way. The CAL facilitator can help to shape or change the process according to the requirements within the set.

SAGA collective – underlying ideas and approach

Facts, assumptions and feelings are often arbitrarily mixed up in collective discussions, making it difficult to find a solution through dialogue. The method we present here, which has consistently shown itself to be effective in practice (Hauser, Lanz, and Radl 2022, Hauser 2014, Hauser and Kanther 2018), separates the different elements of the SAGA model to generate solutions from a holistic perspective that can be supported by everyone involved. This provokes a shift of emphasis in the model towards the articulation of and engagement with common problems.

Situation (S): as with the individually orientated model, SAGA Collective focuses on the facts that matter in relation to the problem under consideration. We have found that, when the focus is on facts (e.g. what is known and accepted by everyone), sets are often very quickly able to put together a common picture of the situation, no matter how different their individual assessment of the problem. A key aspect to collective acceptance involves disassociating facts from assumptions and judgments. This sometimes requires some effort because facts often are deeply connected with assumptions or judgements. To get a clear picture of shared facts can sometimes lead to a clarifying dispute about which aspects of a statement are ‘real facts’. The model positions ‘facts’ as either right or wrong. However, in relation to assumptions (theories about the meaning of the facts), an important question is: do they help to solve the problem, or do they make it worse? The facilitator has a key task at this stage to support the set in collecting the facts and to question statements by set members regarding these facts. We have found that (with facilitation) the set develops considerable clarity on the facts as they see them.

Assumptions (A1): There are several, often inter-connected, assumptions that may be present in the collective. For example, the personal and shared assumptions of set members, assumptions about the top leaders’ expectations, set members’ views about the assumptions of stakeholders within and outside the organisation. The facilitator supports the set by giving space to all the different assumptions about the possible meaning of the facts. This often leads to a productive process in which set participants listen to each other attentively and appreciatively. As many people in everyday life tend to take their own explanations of a situation for the truth, this phase is often an eye-opener for the different ways in which the same facts can be understood. Assumptions as theories about the meaning of the facts play an essential role in creating a solution space for the problem. At the same time, this discourse promotes mutual understanding and appreciation among the set members. The facilitator's task at this stage is to encourage the full range of assumptions to be expressed and recorded. This helps to counteract the danger that power dynamics within and outside the set lead only to certain interpretations of reality being permitted.

Gut feelings / emotions (G): Emotions are a central source of information about self, other and the environment in which attempts at learning and change are made. Emotions are often avoided in organisations because they are seen as disruptive, unnecessary or unwanted. However, while the avoidance of emotion can create a sense of stability and normality that dissuades conflict, it also limits the scope of learning and change and discourages people’s awareness and acceptance of difference in organisations. The term ‘gut feelings’ as one of the SAGA dimensions signals that people’s intuitive feelings about what is going on in a set or in an organisation often help to show both how connected we are with others and the differences between us. It is important within a learning set that gut feelings are shared out loud (rather than avoiding speaking out). The facilitator will pay attention to emotions that emerge and help to make them discussable (see Hauser et al. 2023). All set members should be encouraged to share emotions evoked by the task, as well as people’s associations with others’ emotions. The facilitator will help to record what has been expressed, to clarify what these emotions might mean for the task, and whether there are collective emotions that can be perceived (e.g. a common mood in the set, or underlying unconscious dynamics).

Actions (A2): Deriving measures and setting priorities is part of what managers and leaders do daily. The facilitator task is to support the set in becoming concrete in relation to the actions that emerge from engaging with assumptions and emotions. Our experience has shown that it often makes sense to collect all the impulses for action from the individual set members to use the creative potential of the set and then to jointly derive the actions to be carried out.

As an illustration of this process (Table 2), we present three Examples to highlight problems that have been tackled using the SAGA Collective approach.

Table 2. The SAGA collective process.

Situation, state of affairs, facts

Collect and note all relevant facts with regard to the problem from the participants Make sure only facts are noted!

Assumptions, beliefs, meaning

Collect and note all the assumptions the participants have with regard to the problem and the facts Every assumption counts, diversity is welcome!

Gut feelings/emotions, intuition

Collect and note all the feelings the participants have in the here and now having listened and contributed to the facts and assumptions What is the collective emotion in that moment?

Action, motivation

Collect and note what could be done with regard to the problem (brainstorming) Tick all set decisions as to what to do next Check state of actions in the next set meeting

Table

Example 2: Designing a learning organisation. The primary focus: How can we design the learning organisation of the future for our agency? Situation: The organisational context was a national agency with branches across the country. The set members were education managers from the head office and from regional branches. Assumptions: (from the head of the working group): For this task an open learning process is most helpful to create something new together. Assumptions: (from the regions): As always, the head office has already thought of everything. Let's see what can be done to prevent the worst from happening. Gut Feelings / Emotions: friendly scepticism at the beginning, with openness trust and a feeling of togetherness that developed. Actions: In regular meetings with a high proportion of reflection, the group overcame subtle but blocking divisional egoisms and developed an innovative concept, and the members ensured resonance and co-thinking in their areas of responsibility. At first, the set participants saw themselves primarily as representatives of their organisational unit rather than the organisation as a whole. Some were not interested in questioning the interests of the status quo. In this respect, the set reproduced established power structures from their organisation. As they reported later, they expected to have to support decisions of the head office that had already been largely formulated and prepared themselves for defensive struggles. In this phase the facilitator often felt ineffective and without real access to the participants. This changed when he questioned and appreciated their different perspectives, individual dilemmas and loyalties to their respective parts of the agency. They then realised that it was about an open, collaborative learning process in which they were taken seriously as partners and had an active designing role. Only at this point – once contrasting assumptions had been acknowledged – did innovative ideas emerge.

A key element in Example two involves separating facts (S) from assumptions (A1). There were different conceptions of the facts in the set, shaped by different experiences of the organisation. Opening different loyalties, explicit and implicit expectations (A1), and connected feelings (G) led to a situation where the group’s micro-political understanding changed. They began to perceive the group less as an arena to defend the various interests of their units, and more as an opportunity to work in the interest of the whole organisation.

Table

Example 3: Achieving service excellence. The primary focus: How can we achieve service excellence? Situation: A hospital group. An assignment from the CEO to the participants of a leadership development programme to work on this topic. The programme was designed as an action learning effort for continuous development of the participants with 5 two-day sessions over 9 months and 2 half days for the kick-off and a final workshop together with top management. To complement the action learning approach participants were provided with basic knowledge and models (P) in the form of topics like communication, from expert to leader, team development and managing change. Action learning was practised with individual problems as well as tackling a common joint problem given as an assignment from the CEO. Assumptions: (of the programme managers): Participants can learn to take responsibility, initiate change and apply leadership in a concrete way. Assumptions: (participants). A demanding unfamiliar task. Can I live up to the expectations? Gut Feelings / Emotions: Fear, uncertainty, stress, curiosity, pride. Actions: The group used the modules of the programme for reflection on progress and individual competence development. It went into self-organisation, participants analysed the situation on site at their locations and presented numerous ideas to senior management at the end of the programme, many of which had already been agreed with local management and some of which had already been implemented. The CEO’s assignment led some participants to experience stress, anxiety and uncertainty. This had to be acknowledged and worked through again and again in set meetings. The communalisation of emotions had a relieving effect, so that the group itself became a place of containment for emotions, in which the participants gave each other mutual reinforcement and recognition.

In Example 3, the CEO of an organisation assigned a task to junior leaders within a development programme (S). This unleashed several embedded individual, group and organisational dynamics. The participants were technical experts or low-ranking managers (S) and had a self-concept of limited responsibilities within prescribed boundaries which reflected the way things were done in many parts of the organisation (A1). The CEO’s demand gave rise to intense feelings, many of them self-limiting (G). Sharing these feelings openly, using the SAGA Collective process, strengthened their mutual connections and community-building. Participants organised themselves to monitor progress, emphasise mutual recognition and provide each other with mental support (A2). Expressing feelings (G) that had previously shut down their ability to learn and develop, led to a process that challenged their assumptions (A1), producing surprising results (A2). Participants were surprised by how empowered they felt and became. Here, the SAGA Collective process helped to address and overcome self-imposed and self-limiting dynamics which are so often in the way of success.

Table

Example 4: Increasing customer satisfaction. The primary focus: How can we achieve a satisfactory company result and increase customer satisfaction? Situation: A network company that has been making losses for years. With persistent conflicts between the department heads, the supervisory board initiated a CAL process for the division managers as a crisis intervention. The process consisted of an initial briefing of the facilitator by the supervisory board, diagnostic interviews with the department heads, a kick-off meeting with all parties including management and supervisory board, followed by four half-day action learning sessions using SAGA collective over 6 months, a final workshop with all parties, and a follow-up session to review the sustainability of their learning (6 months later). Assumptions: The others are deliberately making my life difficult, they don't understand our business (one is too young and inexperienced, the other too old and uncooperative, etc.), they are sabotaging my work to the detriment of the company. Gut Feelings / Emotions: frustration, anger, mistrust. With the disclosure of individual assumptions amazement at how the situation turned out for the other side and at the effect of one's own behaviour. And then only cautiously finally a very clear willingness to cooperate. Actions: agreements for cooperation, joint appearance before the staff, comprehensive communication and involvement. The business results improved in a short period of time. The motivation for CAL in this context was a disastrous economic result for the company. The conflict management process was initiated by the supervisory board, which was not prepared to accept such performance results and expected the divisions to find effective solutions. This meant addressing a persistent tendency in the organisation’s divisions (and mirrored in the set) towards devaluing each other, blaming and open conflict in front of others. Over time, the department heads agreed with the supervisory board to engage in set work. Using the SAGA method, set members were able to comprehend how the power dynamics between organisational Divisions influenced the learning process and therefore their ability to increase their own and customers’ satisfaction. Their work together led to the dissolution of deep-seated blockages.

In chronic conflicts, like the one described in Example 4, there is often a long history of mutual negative feelings which leads to self-reinforcing vicious circles that keep the conflict alive and kicking. It never gets better and seems to worsen with every new interaction. The intense and simmering conflict between participants in this organisation was unlearned using the SAGA process. The unlearning started when S and A1 were disassociated. The participants had a first positive experience of being able to identify the relevant facts about the situation. They considered the people’s different interpretations of the facts and found common ground on what facts could be mutually accepted and recognised. This created a positive work experience (G). The facilitator immediately felt the change in the atmosphere from cautious distance to increasing intensity and connection.

The facilitator invited all set members to listen carefully to their colleagues. They systematically shared their assumptions (A1) and collectively made sense of the situation based on the facts relevant for their respective stories. The positive feelings that emerged (G) helped to reverse their anger, frustration, antipathy towards others and fear of failure. Their newly developed willingness to listen and try to understand each other allowed them to take a new course of action (A2). Instead of defending against and blaming each other, they started to discuss together the individual and collective actions that would be helpful for the business, as well as what to do when they did not get the support they urgently needed from other departments. The SAGA Collective process helped them to develop openness to other perspectives in the context of crisis – at least enough to address the identified problems and create pathways towards productive solutions.

Discussion

Action learning is based, in part, on the ability of those involved to generate questioning insight – questions that are context specific, develop from lived experience of the situation and acknowledge the effort of attempts to learn and change.

The SAGA model is an approach for both individual and collective problems. We have given an example of an individual problem to show how the SAGA dimensions can be of help in generating ongoing solutions. The SAGA dimensions are comprised of the core elements of CAL, with a view to understanding tensions and power dynamics which support or prevent learning. In the set process these dimensions help participants to pose questions that reach beyond the obvious when questioning underlying assumptions or complex emotions. SAGA can be used to provide set participants with a mental structure for questioning, and enhance the range of questions from different directions. SAGA dimensions also help to check if an important aspect needs closer inspection. In this way the SAGA dimensions provide participants with a wider view of the options in the classical questioning process. This makes the SAGA dimensions very helpful when introducing CAL.

One way to reflect on the use of SAGA Collective as a method for supporting the practice of CAL is for us to reflexively pose some questions to ourselves about the design and implementation of set work using this model. We have provided three short examples of what the SAGA Collective process looks like. We now discuss five key questions about the design and application of the model. We relate these questions back to our examples. With the first 3 questions we examine whether SAGA collective is suitable for tackling action learning problems as described by Pedler (2008; Hauser 2012). The fourth question addresses critical reflection of underlying assumptions and their connection to individual and collective emotions (Reynolds 2011; Rigg and Trehan 2008; Vince and Reynolds 2004; Vince and Reynolds 2009) in the context of SAGA collective. Finally, the fifth question highlights the specific implications for the role of the critical facilitator when working with SAGA collective.

Does SAGA Collective address real problems? Pedler (2008) defines ‘real problems’ as problems that you want to do something about. In principle, several solutions are conceivable, and the problem provides a clear focus for learning through reflection and action. The initial emphasis of SAGA on ‘facts’ means that set members must come to a clear agreement about what it is that they want to do something about. This is helpful in creating containment for the messy work of engaging with the emotions and power relations that arise from their attempts to learn and change.

Is the problem being questioned? The process of questioning insight is a central component of action learning. In the case of individual problems, the problem holder receives questions from set participants not involved in the problem to reflect and look at their problem from new perspectives and thus act on preferred solutions. However, there are no uninvolved persons in the case of common problems (even though some organisational members may imagine it so). CAL adds the notion of ‘organising insight’ (Vince 2004) to recognise the situated nature of problems and the emotions and organisational power relations inevitably associated with them. Disclosing assumptions and feelings provides a mechanism for engaging with power relations and for revealing differences (that make a difference). For instance, in Example 4, a conflict that had become chronic over the years provided the initial spark for overcoming people’s deep-seated reservations. It led to open and mutual questioning of the set members involved in the conflict.

Are solutions developed and tested in practice? Learning through acting and reflecting on action is a central component of all action learning. The SAGA model explicitly positions action in the context of set members’ collective awareness of the assumptions that underpin and undermine action. The organisational context in which learning is attempted both helps and hinders set members’ efforts to implement the insights they generate through working collectively. Therefore, it is not only the ideas that are tested in practice in the SAGA model, but also whether those ideas are able to transcend embedded emotions and power relations in ways that create and sustain organisational learning and change. For instance, in Example 3 there are parallel assumptions, reflecting competing expectations, that mutually reinforce misunderstanding and disconnection between persons in different roles and at different organisational levels.

Are assumptions, procedures and solution processes made transparent and thus in principle subject to critical review? In the SAGA Collective model, special emphasis is placed on transparency and documentation of the four dimensions as a framework for reflection and action. The idea here is that set members remain aware of the facts, assumptions and emotions underlying the problems they seek to address. To arrive at and sustain this shared understanding, a diverse range of contributions must be acknowledged as integral to how solutions to problems progress. All three examples we present of SAGA Collective share clarity of focus on the importance of process documentation for the different problems being addressed. The way that we have presented the Examples reflects this. In Example 2, set members documented their loyalties and assumptions from the part of the organisation they belonged to, making these transparent to all set members. In Example 3, set members’ emotions, such as fear and uncertainty, were documented to acknowledge the ongoing role of underlying emotions in addressing the problem. In Example 4, each step was made transparent and was documented from the different perspectives of the conflicting parties. Critical review here involves critical reflection on the ways in which contextually specific emotions and power relations persist at the same time as we are trying to transform them.

What is the role of the facilitator? In contrast to individually focused action learning, the role of facilitator means supporting collective work on problems. The facilitator using SAGA Collective looks at the work of the set from an independent perspective. To support this, it is likely that facilitation will involve an approach that offers structure for and containment of discussions about assumptions. Facilitators ensure that there is clear documentation of the SAGA dimensions to provide the set with an overview of their starting points as they progress, and to support critical reflection. In our experience, the facilitator using SAGA Collective must pay careful attention to the underlying emotional, relational and political dynamics that affect set members’ understanding and motivation to act. For instance, in Example 4 the facilitator was identified as someone who was not part of the conflict, who created a safe space and made sure that each side was heard, documented and involved.

Because SAGA Collective deliberately works with underlying emotions and power relations, the facilitator’s role is the creation of a ‘holding’ space that allows set participants to openly reflect on difficult aspects of a problem. These are often concealed while collaborating.

It is often a relief for the facilitator that, with the SAGA approach, participants become clear about the process. This enables them to intervene on dimensions like underlying assumptions and collective emotions. Challenges arise, when the set too easily, or from the start, tends to agree on the ‘one’ or the ‘correct’ assumption. To overcome this the facilitator can intervene with a question like ‘could this be seen differently by some of those involved?’

Certain assumptions, key emotions, and power dynamics in the set provide the facilitator and the set with a mirror that reflects the complexity of the organisational context in which learning and change are being attempted.

Our view is that this will be part of every facilitation using the SAGA Collective approach to tackling common joint problems. While this makes the approach especially challenging, it also creates the potential for deeper and more lasting change. We have found that the SAGA model is effective in providing participants with a mental structure that offers containment, security and permission. This even helps set members who are not used to engaging with emotions and power relations to address real problems in depth.

Conclusion

In this paper, we outline a model for the application of CAL in practice. The two forms of the SAGA model provide approaches to address individual and collective problems. CAL always considers the tensions between the individual and the organisation. We have emphasised SAGA Collective here because we want to encourage action learning set work that generates and utilises organising insight. There is no significant difference between the four dimensions of the SAGA model in each approach. What is different, is in how the SAGA method is facilitated in support of individual and organisational development. The model is suitable for experienced practitioners of CAL as well as for users who are not so familiar with it. For those new to CAL, it will assist with understanding and working with the development of solutions to problems and with the role that assumptions and emotions play in the process. The SAGA model has become established as a tried and tested approach to CAL. It has been applied in various situations from individual case work to large events in which more than 10 sets have worked simultaneously with SAGA Collective on solutions to the problems of an organisation (see Hauser, Lanz, and Radl 2020).

At its core, set work is always an open learning process. Each set is different and there is no guarantee of a solution. However, it is the task of set members and facilitators to find out together how learning can be achieved within a particular context, and to always remain open to what a concrete situation requires and enables. The SAGA model, both individual and collective, offers action learning practitioners a clear approach to critical action learning, as well as supporting the ongoing process of rethinking and developing it.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Helga Lanz, Stefan Kanther, Thomas Radke, Clare Rigg, Michael Kovacs, Sarah Blattner, Sabine Wegner-Kirchhoff and Brigitte Bauer for their insightful comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Bernhard Hauser

Bernhard Hauser is Honorary Professor for Change Management at the University of Applied Management, Faculty of Business Psychology in Ismaning, Germany and Lecturer for Action Learning at the Rosenheim Technical University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences. He serves as member of the editorial board of the journal Action Learning: Research and Practice. As Director of the bhcg.impact.network, he is active in numerous international programmes and projects with critical action learning in global companies, authorities and SMEs. He has written two books and numerous articles on action learning and critical action learning and conducts development programmes for action learning facilitators. His main interest is in critical reflection and collective learning.

Russ Vince

Russ Vince is Professor Emeritus at the School of Management, University of Bath, and Honorary Professor of Management at the University of St Andrews, UK. The focus of his research is on management learning and education, emotions in organizations and institutions, leadership and change, and the psychodynamic study of organizations. His research has been published in: Academy of Management Review, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Journal of Management Studies, Organization Studies, Human Relations, British Journal of Management, and Management Learning. Russ is a former Editor-in-Chief of Management Learning, and a former Associate Editor of the Academy of Management Learning and Education (AMLE) journal. In addition to his research, Russ has led developments in the application of psychodynamic experiential learning in Business and Management Schools.