The world is changing and business schools are struggling to keep up. Theories of reflective practice developed by the likes of Schon (1983), Gibbs (1988), Driscoll (1994, 2007) and Kolb (1984, 2015) are outdated and unfit for current purposes. Problems include the chronology of events, the orientation of the observer, the impact of external inputs, and the fact that neither education nor the workplace follow a structured, linear path.

In response to these challenges, we propose a new ‘solution’: John Boyd's OODA loop. We argue that OODA loops offer the chance to reshape reflective practice and work-based learning for a world in which individuals must cope with ‘an unfolding evolving reality that is uncertain, ever changing and unpredictable’ (Boyd, 1995, slide 1). By embracing the philosophy of John Boyd and his OODA loop theory, business schools can develop greater resilience and employability in graduates, preparing them to embrace change while also embedding the concept of life-long learning to make them better equipped to face the uncertainty that the modern world brings.

The concept of ‘reflective practice’ has been in common use for almost a century, with Dewey (1933)  among the first to identify reflection as a specific way of thinking about the world – a way of thinking in and of itself. While Dewey's concept was a marked departure from previous ways of thinking about learning, it wasn't until the 1980s that the concept really started to gather momentum, with the works of Schon (1983)  and Kolb (1984)  among the two most prominent theories to arise in this period.

However, while there are certainly a broad range of theories on reflective practice, no single dominant theory has emerged. While we strive for our theories to be as effective, applicable and generalisable as possible, few are ever perfect. Even Kolb's Experiential Learning Cycle – the ‘most famous manifestation’ of experiential learning (Tomkins & Ulus, 2016 , p. 160) – is beset with problems that limit its applications, both in the workplace, and in an educational setting. These problems include the chronology of events, the orientation of the observer, and the fact that any or all stages in a cycle could occur at the same time. Adaptations have been proposed to Kolb's model, such as the scaffolding applied to the model by Wright et al. (2018)  in an attempt to address the shadow side of reflective practice, but these have not been adopted widely. There are also several challenges posed by Kolb's more recent re-framing of the cycle as a ‘spiral’ (2015, p. 104), which he likens to a shell (p. 107). This shell comparison suggests that both learning and reflection follow a structured, linear path through time and space, in which recursive intent ultimately leads to continuous repetition of ineffective learning practices.

This poses a major challenge for management education. This is because the modern world does not work in linear, structured pattern and Kolb's model simply does not allow for continuous external inputs which should lead to a change of direction, but often don't. A more authentic management learning experience should therefore seek to foreground the uncertainties that permeate every aspect of management practice and indeed, daily life (Bureau & Komporozos-Athanasiou, 2017 ).

Kolb's misapprehension is part of a much bigger problem, one highlighted by the UK Government Office for Science, which notes how the pedagogies underpinning work-based and management learning are dominated by the ‘acquisition’ model of skill formation (Felstead & Unwin, 2016). While the acquisition model readily captures skills acquired through formal education pathways and training programmes, it also suggests that the formal qualification is the endpoint in learning, and the most important aspect.

One of the main issues with the acquisition model is that it fails to capture the ‘soft skills’ and experiences that are critical to success in any workplace. Yet despite these obvious weaknesses, the acquisition model of learning is widely adopted within universities and other educational settings. By embracing this model, there is a distinct danger that we are failing to equip users with the sort of mindset to adapt to a rapidly changing workplace – a workplace that in the twenty-first century often has no clear progression pathway, no formalised structure, and no defined endpoint. This is a particular challenge in light of the fourth industrial revolution, where disruptive technologies and trends are challenging formal modes of learning and changing the way we all live and work. We therefore agree with scholars who have suggested that business and management education must transform itself (Graduate Management Admission Council, 2013; Perusso & Baaken, 2020 ; Tourish, 2019, 2020).

We argue that OODA loops offer the chance to reshape reflective practice and management learning for a world in which both individuals and organisations must cope with ever-increasing uncertainty and change. In so doing, we build on the foundational works of Schon et al. alongside more recent developments around the role of collective learning in reflective practice (Déa Roglio & Light, 2009 ; Yeo, 2013 ), and modern pedagogies proposed by the likes of Biggs and Tang (2011) , Laurillard (2012)  and Ashwin (2020) . As such, this paper proposes a new pedagogical approach for higher education using OODA loops as an approach for developing critical self-reflection, resilience and ultimately, employability  in graduates, equipping them to embrace change while also embedding the concept of life-long learning to make them better equipped to face the uncertainty that the modern world brings.

While there are clearly some issues with Schon's approach, his work served to lay the groundwork for many of the theories that have followed. Not least because it played a critical role in raising the profile of reflective practice and putting it on the ‘professional agenda’ as something practitioners should engage in to get better at what they do. In this way, Schon's work is an important antecedent for the work of David Kolb, whose four-stage Experiential Learning Cycle (1984, 2015) is among the most influential approaches to learning, and is a staple of business school teaching on reflective practice.

In its modern form, Kolb's Experiential Learning Cycle comprises four elements: Concrete Experience, Reflective Observation, Abstract Conceptualisation and Active Experimentation (2015, p. 93). Or, more simply: something happens; we reflect on our observations; form an abstract concept around what happened; and experiment with our concept in the real world. While the cycle certainly seems to make some intuitive sense in terms of how we deal with an experience, it is arguably far too simplistic to represent the complexities of the modern world. It also fails to capture the importance of observation, and the ability (or not) of the participant to actively shape the world they inhabit. There is also then some question around the relationship between each individual cycle and each new lived experience. How does one cycle feed into another? How does ‘Active Experimentation’ work in practice? What does it mean for the other three elements of the cycle?

While Kolb's theory has gained significant traction in management circles – in part thanks to its simplicity and ease of use – its simplicity is also its biggest weakness as arguably the cycle only works in abstract isolation.

Kolb's cycles gives us a way of thinking about reflection, but doesn't tell us what we should do – in this way it is not an ‘active’ theory as such, and does not equip practitioners with a mindset to adapt and change to the modern world of work.

‘The learning cycle, of course, is not a circle but a spiral where, as T.S. Eliot reminds us, we return again to the experience and know it anew in a continuous recursive spiral of learning’

However, one of the key issues with Kolb's spiral concept is that it implies a self-referential journey of symmetry that follows a naturally derived mathematical pattern. This may well have been the case many decades ago, pre-internet and pre-globalisation, but paths through careers simply do not follow a linear trajectory and our reflections must constantly change through time.

our reflection over time does not follow a linear path through time and space.

ways of improving pedagogy and increasing the systems-thinking skills of learners are grappled with in light of existing models of reflective practice. However, a more radical rethink is required to facilitate the management of ever-increasing inputs into the reflective learning process.