Inspecting cases against Revans' ‘gold standard’ of action learning

A purposive sampling and analysis of ten case histories of action learning in the US suggests that applications tend to be partial, hierarchical, and leader controlled, thus running counter in several significant ways to the gold standard of Revans' action learning theory and egalitarian rules of engagement. Using critical markers to inspect the cases reveals either significant departures from Revans' theory or, at best, silence about the degrees of attention paid to it. If standards specified are not being met in common practice, then there is reason to question whether what is called action learning may actually be falling short of the mark Revans set.