Karen E. Watkins

Towards a theory of informal and incidental learning in organizations

In this article we develop a theoretical framework for understanding informal and incidental learning that is, while not empirically tested, at least in part empirically derived. Informal and incidental learning can be characterized by the following: (1) based on learning from experience; (2) embedded in the organizational context; (3) oriented to a focus on action; (4) governed by non‐routine conditions; (5) concerned with tacit dimensions that must be made explicit; (6) delimited by the nature of the task, the way in which problems are framed, and the work capacity of the individual undertaking the task; and (7) enhanced by proactivity, critical reflectivity and creativity. We first identify why our theory is important for recent trends toward continuous learning for continuous improvement. We illustrate our theory, discuss other uses of the concepts of informal and incidental learning, expand on our definition in terms of the above seven characteristics, and further discuss implications in light of cur...

Building the learning organisation: a new role for human resource developers

Changing workplace demands now challenge human resource developers to extend the scope of their practice from predominantly one of training individuals, to one of facilitating learning of individuals, teams, and organisations. In our work, we suggest that human resource developers need an equally broad vision of the field in order to embrace this broader scope. One such compelling vision which we believe may drive a redefinition of the field is that of the learning organisation. The learning organisation is defined both in terms of the outcomes by which we assess whether or not the organisation has learned, and by the process by which the organisation must change to embed learning. A model of how the organisation learns is given along with design principles for human resource developers who would create a learning organisation.

Action Learning and the Learning Organization: Building Learning Capacity in Individuals, Groups and Organizations

Moving to healthy, open organizations has been a fundamental aim of organization development (OD) since Kurt Lewin’s (1951) early work contrasting authoritarian and democratic groups. Later, Rensis Likert’s System 4 framework (1967) offered a set of dimensions or organizational capacities that enable the organization to learn from its environment, people and markets. Recent focus on creating learning organizations led to the evolution of a number of interventions that help organizations embed these critical capacities. Perhaps no other intervention has the potential of action learning to build capacities at the individual, group and organizational levels.

Paradoxes Human Resource Developers Face.

It is clear from the work of Watkins and Marsick that management devel opers - both internal and external to the organisation — will often undermine their own objectives through inconsistent, paradoxical behaviour. Through the literature on group and family therapy, it can be seen that paradoxes are a normal by-product of the way people assign meaning to interpersonal action. Case studies from the authors separate research efforts illustrate four paradoxes which affect human resource or management developers. A model for encouraging reciprocally reflective learning based on the works of Argyris (1982) and Schon (1987) is offered to enable individuals to critically examine paradoxes in their work.

Creative leadership: Discovering paradoxes of innovation and risk

Abstract Investigations of both creativity and leadership have focused primarily on genetic and/or teleological accounts. As such, they have tended to emphasize the attributes, behaviors, and purposes of individual actors. This research shifts the locus of inquiry to explore paradoxes inherent in the enactment of creative leadership in complex interpersonal situations. The most significant finding to emerge from interviews with 27 exemplary public school superintendents about their professional practice is their relatively closed problem-solving orientation. In specific instances of their practice, the superintendents in this study consistently framed difficult interpersonal interactions as problems to be solved rather than as problems to be explored. In retrospective reflections with the researchers, the superintendents explored previously unexamined dilemmas and binds in these situations with a more open, problem-finding orientation. The implications of this more open, problem-finding orientation for creativity are discussed.

Action Learning through the Lens of Action Learners

This chapter looks at action learning from the perspective of a participant. Each of the contributing authors in this chapter has experienced action learning in some form as a learner. Some of them have also managed action learning initiatives. Their comments prove that there are varying perspectives on action learning. The first four contributors (Dilworth, Willis, Videtic and Garban) either met Revans or worked with him closely. Dilworth and Willis, in particular, spent much time with Revans. Two of the longer contributions can be found in Chapters 14 and 15 of this volume.