Wiki contents


2019 Learning journals
2018 Learning journals
2015 Learning journals
2014 Learning journals
2013 Learning journals

Smartsims Support Centre

Blog updates

Recently Updated

Recent updates

Recently Updated

All updates

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata


It is now week seven, and the results of our last roll-over were themselves: weak. The fundamental problem was that we did not reach our sales targets. Now, in hindsight we appear to have been too ambitious. This has not only limited our ability to make decisions next roll-over, but have caused stagnation in our SHV. To keep this reflection focused, I will just be looking at the fundamental issue of not meeting our sales targets.

 So what are the reasons for this miscalculation by me and our team? While attempting to answer this question in the analysis of my issue I will try and avoid becoming ‘defensive’ with my reflection to avoid merely solving this superficial problem, but rather to solve the fundamental cause of problem, taking the ‘double loop’ approach (Synnott, 2013). It appears that to a large extent, our sales targets were in-fact far too high, exemplified by our decision to increase production of one of our product lines by 150 percent. Looking at historical splits of data, we can see this was ambitious, with no team coming anywhere near this in sales in the past roll-overs.  

 So this was the immediate cause of the problem, but what did I do to cause this, and what did we do as a team to contribute to this? I can honestly say I believe I was enticed by the prospect a significant sales and therefore profit and market share gains that I ignored the plausibility of our goals. Perhaps I and my team figured ‘there will always be elements of risk in MikesBikes and those who dare to take the risks have the best chance at winning.’

 I must now ask this question of myself:  is it better to make achievable goals and hit them rather than far-reaching goals and potentially miss? Choosing the former has obvious advantages including greater control and lower risk, although rewards may also be lower (as they seem to exist on a paradigm). From now on I will make sure I keep my goals achievable, and make my decisions systematic, deliberate and conscious of plausibility, rather than making them making purely wishful. I think these lessons are things I could take with me into the world of entrepreneurship and business in general if I do indeed take these routes. Obviously this is not a group made up of individual choices, or at least we do not set out to be, and there will have to be a consensus of attitude of what our goals are and how we are realistically going to achieve them. 



Synnott, M. (2013). Reflection and double loop learning: The case of HS2Teaching Public Administration, 31(1), 124--134. doi:10.1177/0144739413479950


  1. From this weeks rollover, it appears your experience has aligned with the readings that we were given for this weeks learning journal.  

    Your journal has taken the key aspects of Synnott's argument, and applied it towards the problem that you encountered and what you have learnt in hindsight in regards to how the problem came about.  I like how you have also attempted to reflect the problem onto yourself, by admitting that the ambition and prospect of greater results allowed you to become less focused on the achievability of these goals.  Admittedly I will say that these prospects also made me less cautious in my decision making, where the prospect of more cash and profit alongside the potential for a higher shareholder value outweighed the cautions that these actions created.

    From your learning journal I think you could of referenced more so towards the Argyris, 1991 article where mentions defensive reasoning.  Although you briefly mention it in your journal it may pay to actually reference what your defensive thoughts may have been and then related that towards the article and the 'double looping' to make your observations come full circle.  By putting this in it would show the development of your reflection and how you came to learn that avoiding the situation is not a productive manner to confront the problem at hand, and would of also related to how your learning from your defensive analysis would not lead to reason productivity, which would of been reflected through the analysis that you have presented within your journal already.  

    Overall, a well written journal, which was an interesting read.  (smile)


  2. Hi Henry, 

    Your journal this week demonstrates that you are at the higher levels of blooms taxonomy as you are able to critically analyse our groups problem, evaluate the causes of the problem, and identity where you and where the team went wrong. I agree that part of our problem was that we were over confident which i believe is because our risk the previous week had paid off. We were all quite focused on the long term and therefore didn't pay enough attention to the potential implications for the short term. There is definitely a lot to be learnt from this weeks results and your proposed actions will certainly help us get on the right track. 

    The readings assigned this week were quite relevant to our team and to further improve your journal i would also recommend incorporating them more into your analysis by reflecting back on their key points as this will add more depth to your journal. Using material from the readings will also help support your reason to choose the proposed actions that you have over any alternatives.

    Overall your journal has been very well written and by following Daudelin's reflection process you have ensured that your structure is very clear and it is easy to see how you have come to the conclusions that you have.