Whenever I share my thoughts with others, they ask questions I haven’t yet thought of. This is true no matter how long I’ve spent brainstorming the questions I think others might have.

I am grateful for a question I hadn’t considered in relation to Coaching Groups: in what ways are they similar to or different from Action Learning Sets? This question came from Ben Sheath, Training and Development Manager at British Gas and my colleague on the Training Journal Daily Digest. Since I’ve never been a member of an Action Learning Set – at least, not one that has gone by that name – I was not in a strong position to answer the question. Thankfully Ben was able to share a link to an introduction to Action Learning Sets at ActionLearningSets.com and willing to share his own experiences. As I write I am still teasing out the similarities and differences between the two.

The introduction to Action Learning Sets begins by saying “Action Learning is an accelerated learning tool which can be applied to any number of different workplace (and personal) issues and challenges”. So far so similar – a Coaching Group also addresses an agenda set by members of the group. This agenda can be as wide and as deep as members choose. Still, I have a suspicion as I read this first sentence which is confirmed by the article’s second question: “What sort of problems do Set members discuss?” This for me, sets an Action Learning Set apart from a Coaching Group. For whilst an Action Learning Set appears to be problem-focused a Coaching Group is clearly outcome-oriented. That is, members of a Coaching Group come together to establish what goals they would like to pursue and members work with their coach and with each other to pursue their chosen goals. Insofar as the members of a Coaching Group address problems, it is in service of these goals.

What are the implications of this difference? I suspect, though I don’t know for sure, that Coaching Groups hold a bigger picture in their sights than do Action Learning Sets. And when group members are working in pursuit of a goal (rather than seeking to solve a problem) the questions they need to answer are, to a greater degree, about themselves. Whilst the Action Learning Set member may focus on how to re-design a process or to establish dialogue with colleagues in another department, the coaching client is more likely to be asking what beliefs are holding him back or what new way of thinking about a goal is likely to open up new and accelerated progress.

It seems to me that this is a matter of degree. At one end of the spectrum you might have a group that is looking at processes and systems and in which limited introspection is needed. This group is more likely to be called an Action Learning Set (or Quality Circle) than a Coaching Group. At the other end of the spectrum a group might be looking at how to improve behavioural effectiveness (as a leader or coach, for example) and this, to me, implies a willingness to reflect, to build self awareness and to share one’s self with the group. This is the Coaching Group.

One statement jumps out at me from the introduction to Action Learning Sets. This is the statement that Research has found that if a skilled facilitator is present, the Set is more likely to be successful. This is the statement that, for me, unites both approaches. For no matter the name or stated purpose of a group, the facilitator or coach needs to be sensitive to the readiness of group members to engage in learning at varying depths – from the surface “how tos” to deeper exploration of personal needs, values, behaviours and even identity. For me, this implies both clarity at the outset about the purpose and processes of the group and an ongoing dialogue with group members about their readiness to move forward.

My thanks to you, Ben, for helping me to tease out these similarities and differences.