Learning in an Organisation
Exploring the Nature of Relationships
Karin Dessne
Swedish School of Information and Library Science, University of Borås, Allégatan 1, Borås, Sweden
Keywords: Informal Learning, Formal Learning, Relationships, Organisational Learning.
Abstract: Learning transpires in the relationships that shape an organisation, and the nature of them influences the
characteristics of this learning. To realise learning objectives it is necessary to know how features that
influence relationships may be provided and manipulated. The aim of this paper is to present a model of
preconditions that contributes to the nature of relationships in an organisation. The focus is to explore
preconditions contributing to the informal aspect of relationships. Another aim is to show that these
preconditions also influence the formal aspect of relationships. The contribution is a model for studying
some crucial preconditions related to learning in an organisation.
1 INTRODUCTION
This paper proposes a model for exploring the nature
of relationships in an organisation. This nature of
relationships is reflected in the way people interact
and participate. The model concentrates on
preconditions for the emergence, growth and
existence of informal relationships. This model,
named the Precondition Profile Model, may also
assist an organisation to understand how to create or
alter features shaping the preconditions.
Organisations always provide – intentionally or
unintentionally – such preconditions. This fact
impacts on learning that is accomplished through
participating in social interaction. Based on this
impact claim, an organisation aiming to facilitate
beneficial learning needs to be aware of the nature of
relationships in order to know how it may respond to
various influences provided.
Formality and informality are two concepts often
used to explore relationships as well as learning in
an organisation. Relationships may be expressed as
structures or networks. A common division is to
refer to them as formal and informal structures. The
relationships formally created are designed by the
management of the organisation in order to carry out
work (e.g. Burns and Stalker, 1961, Conway, 2001,
Meyer and Rowan, 1977, Wang and Ahmed, 2002).
The relationships informally created emerge
between people co-participating in the workplace
(Wang and Ahmed, 2002, Brown and Duguid, 1991,
Conway, 2001). In reality, relationships often relate
to and depend on each other. The informal
relationships emerge within formally designed
relationships, and the designed relationships cannot
be designed in such detail to prohibit any kind of
informal emerging characteristics. It is therefore
more useful to address the idea of formal and
informal as aspects of formality and informality in
relationships. Still, they may be viewed as mainly
formal or informal.
An organisation is often seen as a social
construct where people are bound together by
various relationships (e.g. Diefenbach and Sillince,
2011, Ran and Golden, 2011). This means that the
nature of relationships encompasses informality
through emerging relationships as well as it
encompasses formality through designed
relationships. As aspects of formality and
informality in relationships interact with each other,
the preconditions claimed to be vital for informal
relationships are also important to formal
relationships.
Traditionally, much research has – similar to
formal and informal structures – studied learning in
isolation as either formal or informal. Formal
learning refers to designed learning such as for
example education in schools (Marsick and Watkins,
2001). Informal learning refers to the learning
carried out in social relationships (e.g. Wenger,
1998, Eraut, 2004). Nevertheless, no agreed upon
496
Dessne K..
Learning in an Organisation - Exploring the Nature of Relationships.
DOI: 10.5220/0004625604960501
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Information Retrieval and the International Conference on Knowledge
Management and Information Sharing (KMIS-2013), pages 496-501
ISBN: 978-989-8565-75-4
Copyright
c
2013 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
definitions of formal and informal learning are
provided in literature (Malcolm et al., 2003).
Rasmussen and Nielsen (2011) emphasise that
the approaches on learning as formal or informal are
not mutually exclusive but should be combined.
Thus they claim that the approach to learning should
focus on the integrated, and not on the isolated.
Rasmussen and Nielsen further argue that the point
is to achieve innovative performance in a dynamic
environment, and for this purpose, both formal and
informal learning need to be supported. If they are
both supported, the organisation can benefit from
them rather than suffer from a potential tension
between them (Conway, 2001). Malcolm et al.
(2003) argue that formal and informal learning
should not be viewed as separate forms at all, but
rather that all learning involves attributes of
formality and informality. This means that in
designing successful support, it is crucial to consider
characteristics of formality as well as informality.
Designing only for formality may disrupt the
informality (Brown and Duguid, 1998) that requires
a different kind of approach (Gutwin et al., 2008).
Svensson et al. (2004) also emphasise the need
to integrate formal and informal learning in order to
support learning in an organisation. Billett (2001)
argues that it is important to provide inviting
opportunities for engaged participation in order to
facilitate learning, and that it is vital to know the
prerequisites for participation in an organisation.
The intention with the model presented in this paper
is to explore preconditions contributing to such
learning.
To construct the model, focus was placed on
actual social interaction rather than on artificial
design of interaction, emphasising the informal, but
acknowledging the formal. Wenger, 1998, and Lave
and Wenger, 1991, see learning as inherently social
and propose Communities of Practice (CoP) as an
approach to view learning in organisations. The
concept of CoP is based on participants creating
informal relationships where they engage in social
interaction to achieve joint goals that sometimes are
aligned to organisational goals. Reviewing this
concept was therefore deemed as a suitable starting
point for creating a model that focuses on
relationships as fundamental for learning.
The review focused on core ideas of CoPs, and
on ideas presented in a literature review on CoPs by
Murillo (2010). Articles were collected in order to
establish the basic ideas of CoP and main criticisms.
During analysis, main ideas from the review were
formed into key phrases. These keys were then
analysed by searching for and finding keywords to
form patterns influencing on the emergence, growth
and existence of informal relationships. These
patterns were then formulated into main
preconditions influencing these relationships. These
preconditions were then used to create the
Precondition Profile model.
The paper continues with a section describing
the main preconditions concluded to be valuable for
the suggested model, ending with an illustration of
the model and its constituent parts. Then follow
some concluding remarks.
2 CONSTRUCTING THE MODEL
In the following, the preconditions contributing to
the construction of the Precondition Profile Model
are described as conclusions drawn from the review.
This description ends with presenting the model
including an illustration.
2.1 Participants
A core element of CoP as a social learning theory is
identity. As a person learns s/he (re)forms her/his
own identity (Campbell et al., 2009). Campbell et al.
(2009) suggest that an identity is never entirely
reformed, but that it is formed as overlapping and
composite experiences are made. Experiences are
made through learning and vice versa and thus
learning is closely connected to how people define
themselves based on perceived behaviour.
Behaviour is based on assumptions on what is
considered to be the appropriate way to behave
(Schein, 2003).
Wenger (1998) argues that learning changes who
people are and this means that there is a link
between learning and identity. For example, strong
or weak participants influence the learning in the
practice they belong to through their identities. They
may be strong due to the value that other participants
give them. This value forms their identity and the
perceived identity in the practice. Their interaction
then impacts differently on learning depending on
strength/weakness. Other characteristics of
participants’ identities also influence how the
relationships emerge and continue, for example traits
such as being open or resistant to various kinds of
influences in the form of for example attempts from
participants or leadership to change routines,
information flows or collaboration patterns. The
identity in the practice is influenced by how
participants form their identities as “being” a
specific competence of work, but it is also based on
LearninginanOrganisation-ExploringtheNatureofRelationships
497
personal characteristics. Lave and Wenger (1991)
view identities as “long-term, living relations
between persons and their place and participation in
communities of practice” (p. 53).
The conclusion is that the traits of participants
play a major role in how interactions in relationships
are carried out; that is, the nature of relationships.
Participants may be territorial, bureaucratic,
pragmatic, attentive, negligent, secretive, open-
minded etc. Pragmatic behaviour could result in for
example informal decision-making whereas
bureaucratic behaviour could result in directives
regulating every detail. Further, strong participants
may foster or hamper for example the degree of
liveliness and openness in relationships depending
on personal traits.
2.2 Authority, Status and Attitude
The concept of CoP has been criticised because it
may defer from considering issues of conflict and
power (Murillo, 2010). These issues could gain from
more attention, although Wenger (1998) discusses
marginalisation, positioning and initiatives arising
from personal agendas. A CoP can on the one hand
be creative, open and dedicated to cooperation, and
on the other a CoP can be conservative, introvert and
a venue for all kinds of positioning, abuse of power
and marginalisation (Wenger et al., 2002). Wielding
power by taking or withholding action influences
relationships by for example causing conflict or
consensus. Conflict could be a sign of strong
engagement whereas consensus could be a sign of
passivity or conforming to power. “Disagreement,
challenges, and competition can all be forms of
participation. As a form of participation, rebellion
often reveals a greater commitment than does
passive conformity” (Wenger, 1998, p. 77). Conflict
may also be the result of unresolved issues, and
consensus the result of hard work.
Within a community status and power may be
linked to competence, but the farther away a
community is from the centre of the organisational
power, the lesser the legitimacy acknowledged to the
community and its members (Yanow, 2004). Thus
power and status may be high within a CoP although
the CoP does not have legitimacy with leadership.
Yanow (2004) discusses marginalisation of an entire
CoP. Wenger (1998) however, addresses
marginalisation of members within a CoP that
occurs when contributions of members are ignored –
which may result in a feeling of non-belonging, and
when certain experience is not considered
competence (Wenger, 1998). The joint engagement
in relationships of a setting reflects the status of how
legitimised its work is. For example, engagement
may be devoted to open and elaborate activities if
work is highly esteemed and delivering results is
required.
There are many ways power may be wielded and
expressed. Tasks may for example be delegated
without being accompanied by empowerment to
conduct them. An example given by Yanow (2004)
shows how an organisation, despite having decided
that design should be developed from local needs,
continued to design without consulting the locally
competent employees. Yanow further describes that
employees were annoyed when leadership called
upon external consultants rather than calling upon
the competence of the employees. Another way to
wield power is to discourage communication.
Woerkum (2002) suggests that communication may
be discouraged by making it difficult to interact by
for example letting experts draft and present while
referring heavily on official documents, and by
letting the experts present in a vocabulary unfamiliar
and odd to the audience.
The above examples illustrate how power may
be exercised for different purposes. Power is likely
to influence relationships and thus learning. People
may form attitudes resisting change perceived as
forced upon them. Loyalty may be strengthened
locally in a practice as the participants close ranks
toward exterior pressure. An excessive use of power
may also be a sign of lacking trust between
leadership and employees. Lacking trust may result
in information staying local as it may be perceived
as risky to share it. A perceived need to secure
confidentiality may lead to self-censorship, which in
turn may be resolved by people by sending e-mails
to specific individuals, making phone calls and
linking to personal homepages (Ardichvili et al.,
2003). This kind of interaction to avoid control may
contribute to informality in relationships.
Much attention, feedback and support from the
leadership could be signs of what kind of status a
setting and its relationships hold. The engagement
and activity of senior managers is a crucial asset to a
CoP, and managers assuming the roles as champions
are needed (Wenger et al., 2002). Settings may
however be highly valued by leadership but not by
employees, and vice versa. Feedback and support
build on trust in relationships between colleagues
and between employees and leadership, and so do
confidence and commitment (Eraut, 2004). Without
feedback people do not know and are left to
speculate (Cramton, 2001).
KMIS2013-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeManagementandInformationSharing
498
Usually, management is about emphasising
motivation, productivity and rewards, while focus
alternatively could be on supporting learning by
allocating and organising work, and creating a
culture promoting informal learning (Eraut, 2004).
How leadership acts, or is perceived as to act, is thus
essential for how informality in relationships is
employed, and whether informality is aligned to
organisational goals.
The conclusion is that status and authority
influence relationships. For example, participants
may have strong informal as well as formal positions
in relationships. Through this power they may keep
interaction in relationships within a local setting
hidden or open to the rest of the organisation. All
participants hold attitudes as responses to exercised
power, status and trust. These attitudes influence
relationships as well. A high degree of seclusion
could relate to low status of the work being done in
the specific setting as there may seem to be no
reason to be open about something that there is little
interest in. Conflict or cooperation between
individuals may colour relationships and possibly
the organisation.
2.3 Resources
It is in the informal networks and not through policy
texts, that new ideas will be approved or
disapproved (Woerkum, 2002). However, it may be
problematic for ideas to emerge as people face
problems in learning from each other, for example
by not being able to access information due to lack
of resources for sharing this information. Tools as
well as a shared repertoire may be lacking.
According to Wenger et al. (2002) there are some
possibly helpful tools for members of a CoP, such as
an online space for conversation and discussions, a
repository to store documents, a search engine and a
directory with information on members. Digital
habitats are enabled by technology providing a place
for interacting (Wenger et al., 2009) and these tools
are some examples of such technology.
However, although resources to interact are
available, they may be little used which may weaken
participation and stifle relationships. According to
Ardichvili et al. (2003), people may fear losing in
trustworthiness and respect if contributing
something that is not entirely correct or adequate.
They argue further that people may fear being
critiqued or ridiculed, and that there is also an
uncertainty regarding expectations and
appropriateness of contributions. One possible
obstacle is that people may not know how to express
and describe what they know in a form suitable for
storage in a database (Verburg and Andriessen,
2011). Eraut (2004) reasons that an individual, who
perceives that s/he know things that no longer are
perceived as valid, may feel a loss of control over
the own participation in a practice. That individual
turns into a novice again at the same time as s/he is
not considered by others to be a novice.
Issues of power, status and trust may also be
seen as resources for relationships in the way they
influence participants. Leaders that participate in
informal relationships may be seen as a resource that
influences positively or negatively. The informal
role of a manager has considerable impact on
learning at work and is expressed as the personality,
interpersonal skills and learning orientation of the
manager (Eraut, 2004). Another crucial resource is
time allotted, which could be expressed in terms of
personnel allocated. If time is scarce, a participant in
one setting may prioritise other matters in line with
what the organisation appreciates. Conversely, a
participant may continue to act in relationships
within a setting of own prioritisations despite what
the organisation favours.
The conclusion is that resources influence how
relationships are shaped and carried out. A setting
may be enabled, and thus its relationships, by
resources. It could also be disabled by inappropriate
or insufficient resources.
2.4 The Precondition Profile Model
The core issues presented in the previous section
resulted in the model depicted in Figure 1, the
Precondition Profile Model. The model shows some
main preconditions for informal relationships to
emerge, grow and exist through interaction. The
issues are represented in five preconditions:
1) Attitude – how open interaction is to new
influences and to sharing within a setting
and outwards.
2) Status – how legitimised interaction is and
by whom.
3) Participants – how likely interacting
participants are characterised viewed in
terms like personal traits, activity and
engagement.
4) Authority – how power and trust influence
interaction.
5) Resources – how availability and
characteristics of resources influence
interaction.
LearninginanOrganisation-ExploringtheNatureofRelationships
499
Figure 1: A Precondition Profile Model to show
preconditions for informal relationships.
Together, the preconditions in Figure 1 form a
“precondition profile” that supplies an organisation
with a profile depicting predominantly informality
aspects in the nature of relationships. The five parts
representing the preconditions in the model
influence each other and therefore they need to be
considered together. Then, when implications for
learning in the current nature of relationships have
been analysed, it may be possible to manipulate
variables of the preconditions.
The preconditions of the model have been
applied when studying learning in the Swedish
Armed Forces (SwAF) (Dessne, 2013). Each
precondition proved useful for understanding the
nature of relationships in the SwAF. As each
precondition may consist of various factors it was
possible to see how a factor for example enabled or
disabled learning in the studied setting.
3 CONCLUDING REMARKS
The Precondition Profile Model focuses on the
aspect of informality in the nature of relationships.
As informal relationships emerge within designed
relationships, the formality aspect is applicable as
well. Human relationships always contain aspects of
informality, more or less obvious. Focusing on
informality but acknowledging formality contributes
to an approach of combination rather than
separation, as suggested by Rasmussen and Nielsen
(2011), Svensson et al. (2004) and Malcolm et al.
(2003). Compared to for example CoPs the
Precondition Profile Model also offers a way to
approach all informal relationships in an
organisation, not just in the form of CoPs.
The Precondition Profile Model may be used as a
framework to understand preconditions for the
nature of relationships in a defined setting. A setting
may be defined by for example work tasks or
organisational objectives. The preconditions should
preferably be explored together as they influence
each other making features valid through various
perspectives.
Learning is, as stated in the beginning of this
paper, a consequence of social interaction and
interpretation and thus the nature of relationships
impacts on learning. Therefore it is necessary to be
aware of and understand this nature in order to be
able to manipulate it for learning purposes. To
facilitate preconditions could involve matters of
design, thereby interfering with formality on
informality. To impose formality on informality has
been claimed in research as recommendable (e.g.
McDermott and Archibald, 2010, Lesser and Storck,
2001, Wenger et al., 2002). Ardichvili et al. (2003)
suggest however that supporting and enriching
participation in practice and hence facilitating
learning is what matters, rather than attempting to
direct. Whatever measures are taken, they are likely
to change the preconditions both in intended and
unintended ways. Interfering with one precondition
may impede on another in an unpredicted way. It
may therefore be advisable to be careful and
moderate when manipulating the preconditions.
To facilitate learning is to provide preconditions
that enable participants to learn by being nourished
with information gained from each other. Providing
preconditions for a suitable and healthy nature of
relationships is a way to nourish and encourage
learning. Such a suitable and healthy nature ought to
provide desired information accessed by
participating in relationships. The constructed model
may be a point of departure for this facilitation of
learning, both for organisations and for continued
research. The model depicts how participants,
authority, attitudes, status, and resources are
connected through for example the way participants
form attitudes toward sharing information. They
engage in relationships influenced by themselves
and issues of status, authority and resources. Their
relationships emerge informally, influenced by for
example a leadership that exercises power in both
formal and informal ways. The availability,
characteristics and use of resources influence and
contribute to informal as well as formal interaction.
The need for an integrated approach to learning in an
organisation is based on this kind of intertwined
KMIS2013-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeManagementandInformationSharing
500
features and connections. The Precondition Profile
Model aims to contribute to such an approach.
REFERENCES
Ardichvili, A., Page, V. & Wentling, T. 2003. Motivation
and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge-
sharing communities of practice. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 7, 64-77.
Billett, S. 2001. Learning through work: workplace
affordances and individual engagement. Journal of
Workplace Learning, 13, 209-214.
Brown, J. S. & Duguid, P. 1991. Organizational learning
and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view
of working, learning, and innovation. Organization
Science, 2, 40-57.
Brown, J. S. & Duguid, P. 1998. Organizing Knowledge.
California Management Review, 40, 90-111.
Burns, T. & Stalker, G. M. 1961. The Management of
Innovation, London, Tavistock Publications.
Campbell, M., Verenikina, I. & Herrington, A. 2009.
Intersection of trajectories: a newcomer in a
community of practice. Journal of Workplace
Learning, 21, 647-657.
Conway, S. 2001. Employing Social Network Mapping to
Reveal Tensions Between Informal and Formal
Organisation. In: Jones, O., Conway, S. & Stewart, F.
(eds.) Social Interaction and Organisational Change:
Aston Perspectives on Innovation Networks. London:
Imperial College Press.
Cramton, C. D. 2001. The Mutual Knowledge Problem
and Its Consequences for Dispersed Collaboration.
Organization Science, 12, 346-371.
Dessne, K. 2013. Formality and Informality: Learning in
Relationships in an Organisation (Manuscript
submitted for publication).
Diefenbach, T. & Sillince, J. A. A. 2011. Formal and
Informal Hierarchy in Different Types of
Organization. Organization Studies, 32, 1515-1537.
Eraut, M. 2004. Informal Learning in the workplace.
Studies in Continuing Education, 26, 247-273.
Gutwin, C., Greenberg, S., Blum, R., Dyck, J., Tee, K. &
McEwan, G. 2008. Supporting Informal Collaboration
in Shared-Workspace Groupware. Journal of
Universal Computer Science, 14, 1411-1434.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. 1991. Situated Learning:
Legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Lesser, E. & Storck, J. 2001. Communities of practice and
organizational performance. IBM System Journal, 40,
831-841.
Malcolm, J., Hodkinson, P. & Colley, H. 2003. The
interrelationships between informal and formal
learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15, 313-318.
Marsick, V. & Watkins, K. E. 2001. Informal and
Incidental Learning. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, 25-34.
McDermott, R. & Archibald, D. 2010. Harnessing Your
Staff’s Informal Networks. Harvard Business Review,
1-7.
Meyer, J. W. & Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized
Organisations: Formal Structure as Myth and
Ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology, 83,
340-363.
Murillo, E. 2010. Communities of Practice in the business
and organization studies literature. Forthcoming in
Information Research, 1-48.
Ran, B. & Golden, T. J. 2011. Who Are We? The Social
Construction of Organizational Identity Through
Sense-Exchanging. Administration & Society, 43, 417-
445.
Rasmussen, P. & Nielsen, P. 2011. Knowledge
management in the firm: concepts and issues.
International Journal of Manpower, 32, 479-493.
Schein, E. H. 2003. On Dialogue, Culture, and
Organizational Learning. Reflections reprinted from
Organizational Dynamics, vol. 22, 1993, 4, 27-38.
Svensson, L., Ellström, P.-E. & Åberg, C. 2004.
Integrating formal and informal learning at work. The
Journal of Workplace Learning, 16, 479-491.
Wang, C. L. & Ahmed, P. K. 2002. The Informal
Structure: hidden energies within the organisation.
University of Wolverhampton Working Paper Series
2002, 13.
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning,
Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. & Snyder, W. M. 2002. A
guide to managing knowledge: Cultivating
Communities of Practice, Boston, Harvard Business
School Press.
Wenger, E., White, N. & Smith, J. D. 2009. Digital
Habitats: stewarding technology for communities,
Portland, CPsquare.
Verburg, R. M. & Andriessen, E. J. H. 2011. A Typology
of Knowledge Sharing Networks in Practice.
Knowledge and Process Management, 18, 34-44.
Woerkum, C. v. 2002. Orality in environmental planning.
European Environment, 12, 160-172.
Yanow, D. 2004. Translating Local Knowledge at
Organizational Peripheries. British Journal of
Management, 15, S9-S25.
LearninginanOrganisation-ExploringtheNatureofRelationships
501
