Leader knowledge transformation and competence development: becoming-to-know and sensemaking through action learning

Despite the national benefits of smaller businesses (Woeffray, 2022), there is still much to be understood about their individual leader knowledge challenges and processes (Jakubik, 2007). Investigating smaller business leaders as “knowledge gatekeepers” (Querbach et al., 2022, p. 377) and “willful actors” (Abdelnour et al., 2017) – key decision-makers with substantive power and knowledge responsibility – became a focus for this study. The researchers originally engaged in an action learning (AL) participatory action research (PAR) program with nine firms seeking to understand why, despite latent capacity, smaller businesses frequently fail to grow. However, the initial phase of the AL established that consolidation was a higher priority than growth. The AL/PAR – eight sessions over fourteen months – shifted to the immediate needs of six smaller owner-managed/family businesses and enabled us to abductively clarify the overarching research problem:

Building on this overarching research problem and abductive approach, we distill three research questions, which are articulated at the end of the theoretical background.

As identified in our research problem, AL was not only the intervention but the main subject of the research. AL is defined (Zuber-Skerritt, 2002, pp.114–115) as “[…] learning from concrete experience and critical reflection on that experience – through group discussion, trial and error, discovery and learning from and with each other.” Characteristics of AL include use of a team or what is technically called a set (4–8 individuals) with a facilitator or coach depending on the type of intervention and group expertise (Marquardt et al., 2009). It focuses on solving urgent problems, implementing actions using questioning, programmed learning and reflective processes, and positions action as a powerful way to grow knowledge (Higgins & Aspinall, 2011). AL has been popularly applied yet largely anecdotally (Zhang and Hamilton, 2010), and there is a major theoretical need to understand how it works (Leonard and Marquardt, 2010). AL and action research (AR) both involve reflection, action and trial and error (Liinamaa et al., 2016). However, AL emphasizes peer learning and development, while AR focuses on research (Coghlan and Coughlan, 2008). Our research design was based on AR, defined as a method that tackles real-world challenges while advancing theory (Guertler et al., 2020; Hult and Lennung, 1980), and a key variant, PAR, where clients are embedded and directly engaged in the research process (Ragsdell, 2009). Such designs yield timely benefits as knowledge management (KM) is seeking more human-centred interactionist approaches (Jakubik, 2011), aligning with calls for increasingly engaged scholarship (Van de Ven, 2007), research impact and rigor (Guertler et al., 2020; Lüscher and Lewis, 2008). The study also adopted qualitative process methods involving Fachin and Langley’s (2017)process-as-withness, process-as-narrative techniques (Langley, 1999) and realist-inspired contextualized explanation (Welch et al., 2022).

The methodology and design guided us toward theory on knowledge transformation and competence development. This surfaced the concept of stuckedness, defined as when an individual feels trapped in the present and is unable to progress (unstick) their spatial and temporal “lived experience” (Sear, 2024, p. 575). Mezirow’s (2003)disorienting dilemma (see also Calleja, 2014) and transformative learning theory proved useful in addressing stuckedness. Furthermore, Carlile and Rebentisch’s (2003) extension of knowledge transformation as a cycling of knowledge storage, retrieval and transformation became relevant, as did the competence typology of Lindgren et al. (2004). Their typology includes competence in-stock (built on prior experience), competence in-use (applying existing to new contexts) and competence in-the-making (achieving a new development for application at individual or organizational levels). This typology, combined with the cyclical knowledge transformation process, has primarily been applied outside KM, but provided important theoretical framing for our AL intervention and PAR.

Through problematization we recognized a deeper theoretical need to ascertain what enables leader knowledge transformation and competence development. This led to Jakubik’s (2011)becoming-to-know (B2K) research which proposes a framework for dynamic knowledge creation based on learning, knowing and becoming spirals (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Jakubik, 2011). AL as an intervention complements B2K and we posit that it fills a gap in explaining the nature of experiences that lead to knowledge transformation. B2K also incorporates sensemaking, “[…] an important cognitive and action-enabling mechanism” (Molloy et al., 2020, p. 274) for understanding and interpreting unusual and uncertain events (Maitlis et al., 2013). However, few studies have analyzed the AL and sensemaking relationship (Schwandt, 2005). Sandberg and Tsoukas (2020, p. 8) highlight differences between types of sensemaking in a working environment and “primary practice world”: immanent (practical, spontaneous, sensory routines), involved-deliberate (contextually interrupted, deliberate, sensory activity) and detached-deliberate (problem/solution sensory activities with temporal separation). A fourth type, representational sensemaking, refers to a “spectatorial” and “secondary practice world” outside-in perspective (Sandberg and Tsoukas, 2020, p. 8). Our qualitative study incorporates both representational sensemaking through the PAR process (secondary practice) and detached-deliberate sensemaking through the AL process (primary practice). A B2K lens (Jakubik, 2011, p. 391) of “past, present and future” and “actions/interactions” fits neatly within a representational and detached-deliberate domain. Associated and under-researched concepts like sensegiving – impacting the sensemaking of others (Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991) – and sensebreaking – deconstructing and challenging existing meaning (Pratt, 2000) – emerged as unexpectedly important components of the AL process. It also led to an even less studied construct of sensetaking (Huemer, 2012; Sims et al., 2009), where the advice of others is potentially considered.

Our abductive qualitative study contributes to an understanding of how AL, through carefully facilitated peer-to-peer sessions, inspired sensebreaking and meaning making (Schwandt, 2005; Jakubik, 2011), leading to knowledge transformation and competence development. AL’s emphasis on reflection and action together with feeling, thinking and sensing aligns closely to Kolb and Kolb’s (2005)learning spaces and Jakubik’s (2009)knowledge creation spaces. Our PAR approach through representational sensemaking opened a window into how the theoretical B2K framework operates on a granular level when AL is applied as the intervention. Using a theater metaphor (Cornelissen, 2004), we unlock the peer-to-peer, detached-deliberate sensemaking processes in AL that enabled a deeper examination of what turned out to be a problem, not in business capabilities, but individual leader knowledge and competence. Solving this problem in practice has far-reaching consequences for transforming leaders of smaller businesses globally. The primary theoretical contribution of this study is the expansion of Jakubik’s B2K through integration with Sandberg and Tsoukas’ sensemaking typology and other sensemaking theory (i.e. sensegiving, sensetaking, sensebreaking), to explain the value of AL as an intervention and how in this PAR process, it enabled leader knowledge and competence transformation.

As identified in the introduction, the motivation for the research was originally based around how to stimulate growth of Australian owner managed/family firms (Wang et al., 2007). The PAR was framed as a triple helix (industry-university-government) regional initiative (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000). State and federal governments provided expertise and funds, with industry nominating businesses and providing cluster support, and university adding TH insights and PAR/AL expertise (Todtling and Trippl, 2005). Liability of smallness (Wang et al., 2022) and knowledge erosion (Wickert and Herschel, 2001) were challenges known to prohibit growth (Jang et al., 2002). Leaders of participant firms needed training and support with authentic elongated learning rather than quick-fix training (Hwang, 2003; Zhang and Hamilton, 2010). However, a known impediment to smaller firm growth is learning how to learn (Zhang and Hamilton, 2009). Bringing individual learning, knowledge and competence back into the organizational context has mental model challenges (Kim, 1993) with Querbach et al. (2022) highlighting that learning and knowledge in family-led entities is under-researched. A family’s direct influence on decisions and activities (Arzubiaga et al., 2022) in terms of “know-how” and “family attachment” (Scuotto et al., 2024, pp.792–793) is identified as emotive and embedded. Often positive, such family embeddedness nevertheless can also constrain innovation and renewal (Erdogan et al., 2019).

To explore how leader knowledge is integrated in organizational settings, we identified Carlile and Rebentisch’s (2003) knowledge transformation cycle as a useful theoretical lens. Their cycle comprises knowledge storage i.e. “accumulation” from “past transformations” (2003, p. 1187), retrieval i.e. “searching for and assessing relevancy” (2003, p. 1189), and transformation i.e. “resolving the consequences and creating solutions” (2003, p. 1189). This knowledge cycling generates institutional memory with additions made by individuals, units or organizations (Carlile and Rebentisch, 2003). How this knowledge is stored, retrieved and transformed in smaller owner managed family firms where powerful leaders are involved is understudied. Creation and/or transformation to overcome past and present knowledge paths links with Jakubik’s (2011) B2K evolutionary process underpinning knowledge development. Jakubik’s (2011) approach is careful to avoid dichotomy, for example between explicit and tacit. B2K, together with Scharmer’s (2001, p. 142) concept of “not yet enacted” and “self-transcending” knowledge helped shape our analysis. So too did the studies of Sandberg and Pinnington (2009) and Sandberg and Tsoukas (2015a) that delved into an ontological perspective that explores competence and knowledge creation, avoids subject-object divisions, and allows for Heidegger’s being-in-the-world and entwinement. This led us to treat knowledge and competence cycles not as objectives but as socially constructed, continuous, individual-leader processes, aligned to Jakubik’s call for more human-oriented and socially constructed dimensions of KM.

Technical, market, organizational and resource uncertainties (O'Connor et al., 2008, p. 88) complicate smaller firm exogenous knowledge processes, as do internal biases like overconfidence (Grant, 2021), success bias (Vermeulen, 2017) and truth aversion traps (Argyris, 2010). Möller (2010) highlights the role generative learning plays in breaking and unsticking such biases, with Garnsey (1998) noting how existing socially constructed mental models and competence in smaller firms invariably need adaptation. Competence is defined as “an underlying characteristic of a person in that it may be a motive, trait, skill, aspect of one’s self-image or social role, or a body of knowledge he or she uses” (Boyatzis 1982 as quoted in Sandberg and Pinnington, 2009, p. 1140). Lindgren et al. (2004), taking a processual understanding of the link between knowledge and competence, used AR to capture knowledge work in action. They highlight (2004) that organizational competence requires a balance with individual interests. In the case of our owner managed/family firms, organizational needs and individual leader interests are the same thing. Lindgren et al. (2004) identify three competence layers: in-stock, in-use and in-the-making. Their integrative and multilevel model together with Carlile and Rebentisch’s (2003) knowledge transformation cycle was adopted for this study in our attempt to analyze how leaders of smaller family-owned businesses create or transform knowledge and develop competence.

AL has been applied in various settings including education (Christie et al., 2015), healthcare (Cotton, 2021), small business development (Clarke et al., 2006) and human resources (Yeo and Gold, 2011). KM’s use of observe, orient, decide and act or the OODA framework (El Sawy and Majchrzak, 2004) in highly dynamic settings provides a less sensory engaged but novel use of AL. As a peer facilitation process (Marquardt et al., 2009) with “short periods of in-depth engagement with a small number of firms” (Brown et al., 2017, p. 432), AL is a known technique for deeply challenging peer assumptions (Raelin, 2006) in interorganizational settings (Zhang and Hamilton, 2009). The current study was an elongated peer-centered process where learning is slowed (Yeo and Gold, 2011), fitting neatly with Reg Revans’ (2011) original AL approach of programmed learning, questioning and action, peer-directed problem-solving, and reflection as a way of enacting real and positive change. Yeo and Gold (2011, p. 517) offer a simplified conceptual AL framework with problem context in the center, action to the left, learning to the right, mental models above and reflections below. Importantly, AL theory has not been comprehensively explored in relation to leader knowledge and competence development.

Reflection in AL contexts and turning this into knowledge (Hwang, 2003) that stimulates social and emotional introspection and change (Raelin, 2006) was important in our study as were trust (Zhang and Hamilton, 2010), honesty and psychological safety (Edmondson, 2018). Creating a safe space for in-depth, focused collective conversations (Morrison et al., 2019) to encourage a learning orientation (e.g. Calantone et al., 2002) among leaders was seen as crucial to a successful study. Kitchenham (2008, p. 107) highlights how adult learning “involves a frame of reference that comprises habits of mind and meaning perspectives, which lead to a perspective transformation […].” Senge (2006, p. 13) referencing learning organizations, adopted the term “metanoia” for “transcendence” which improves when participants are given and exercise agency. Knowles et al. (2020), drawing on neuroscience, highlight how adult learning improves through connecting new to existing knowledge when feelings and emotions are stimulated. The AL context – including practice in real-world settings, higher-order levels of motivation and knowledge transformation – is well suited to adult learning and andragogy, defined by Schwandt (2005, p. 178) as adult “human process as change” occurring through individual-environment interactions and enabling knowledge acquisition.

A key hindrance to adult learning is domain inflexibility and cognitive entrenchment (Dane, 2010) linked to embedded neural paths and associative hurdles (Johansson, 2006). Kegan and Lahey (2016) provide a framework for coaching individuals in tackling reluctance to change or what Wood and Neal (2007, p. 843) describe as locked-in individual habits and “learned dispositions to repeat past responses.” In a review of Mezirow’s transformative learning theory, Calleja (2014) offers insights into the adult learning process and what Mezirow calls a disorienting dilemma that challenges deeply held assumptions of self, others and worldviews. Mezirow’s ten phases of transformative learning detail a deliberate strategy for adult learning including learning through the challenges of others, evaluating options, choosing a way forward, and developing the knowledge, confidence and competence to enact change. These aspects were expected to be central to the effective facilitation of our AL sessions.

The originator of AL, Revans (2011, p. 13), was clear that “there can be no learning without action and no action without learning.” Jakubik (2011) builds on this to link learning, action, sense making and knowing. Within the KM context, Jakubik (2007) outlines four emerging views of knowledge: ontological, epistemological, commodity and community. Our research focuses mainly on epistemological and community. The former, as the study of knowledge, is fundamental here; the latter identifies “knowledge is not static, but rather a dynamic concept […] created in social interactions” (Jakubik, 2007, p. 14). An action-oriented, problem-based approach like AL assists B2K through interactionist social dynamics of peers. The role of peers as participants, trying to collectively solve organizational challenges, is critical as Revans (2011, p. 69) noted: “Whether each participant wipes clean their own mirror, or whether this is done for them by another member of the set, cannot be foretold.”

AL is known as a highly effective tool but is not commonly used in management and KM research. Scharmer (2001, p. 145) highlighted the importance in KM of the pursuit of “self-transcending knowledge creation” through “shared praxis”, “shared reflection” and a “common will.” He acknowledges these types of learning environments are costly and challenging but cognizant of its veracity, we adopted AL as the most appropriate process for a B2K intervention aimed at owner managed/family firm leader change. AL as an intervention had now shifted from a method and design to the focus of our study. Our challenge was to discern the type and quality of AL experience (Jakubik, 2011) that would assist in unsticking entrenched leader knowledge and enabling transformation.

Seeking to understand the type and quality of these AL experiences and impacts for leaders led the researchers to a deeper examination of sensemaking within the B2K framework at a granular level. B2K spirals incorporate a process of engaging that includes the first loop of knowing and sensemaking which then combines with action, interaction and learning to come up with a new level of understanding. Implicit therefore in the model is this concept of sensemaking. Sensemaking is an ongoing iterative challenge where cognition, actions (Molloy et al., 2020) and emotions (Maitlis et al., 2013) are used to explain a range of activities and events. Increasingly, sensemaking is treated as continuous dialogue and actions rather than episodic events (Rerup et al., 2022; Sandberg and Tsoukas, 2020) but it may also involve an epiphany or instantaneous revelation (Dane, 2020). Maitlis et al. (2013, p. 225) highlight that “sensemaking is generally understood as triggered by events or situations for which the meaning is unclear or contrary to expectation” with an understudied aspect being emotion. Schwandt (2005), one of the few linking sensemaking and AL, aligns sensemaking with meaning making or feeling making.

Sandberg and Tsoukas (2020, p. 5) caution against separating the self from actions with “[…] being-in-the-world” an immersion within “sociomaterial practice worlds.” They advocate for a cognitivist and discursive sensemaking both-and approach (2015a) inclusive of relational and socio-technical exchanges (Sandberg and Tsoukas, 2020). As identified in our introduction, sensemaking has been refined to include elements like sensegiving and sensebreaking (Bishop et al., 2020). Interestingly for our research, these constructs are usually applied hierarchically in intraorganizational settings rather than peer-to-peer interactions (Schildt et al., 2020). Sensegiving and sensebreaking also led us to the much less studied construct of sensetaking (Huemer, 2012; Sims et al., 2009) where advice offered is considered. All were important for the detached-deliberate AL peer process (in a primary practice world) and PAR representational sensemaking (in a secondary practice world) (Sandberg and Tsoukas, 2020). Detached-deliberate and resulting cognitive and emotional confusion align well with AL given its focus on problems and deep reflection (Sandberg and Tsoukas, 2020). The intentional detachment from day-to-day routines was a direct attempt through AL set sessions to foster outside-in objective observation (Sandberg and Tsoukas, 2020) and sensemaking for self and others. Like theoretical discussions of knowledge and competence development, sensemaking has a level of individual versus organizational confusion (Maitlis and Christianson, 2014). Adding to the individual/organizational complexity is the knowledge creation socialization, externalization, combination and internalization (SECI) framework of Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995).

Jakubik’s (2011) B2K advances SECI and recognizes the transformative social and organizational benefits of knowledge creation and the importance of context and situation. However, like Jakubik, several authors including Sandberg and Tsoukas (2015b) have challenged the separation in SECI of tacit and explicit. This was the rationale explaining why we avoided separating elements such as cognitive (thinking), sensory (sensations) and affective (feeling). Our AL peer-to-peer intervention (Burke and Morley, 2016) provides a collective dynamic for Jakubik’s (2011) extension of the SECI where sensing, acting, feeling and thinking are joined.

The AL sessions align with Jakubik’s (2011, pp.391–394) “living present” and “knowledge creation spaces” with “engaging” and “becoming” inherent in our detached-deliberate intervention. Action and learning are incorporated in Jakubik’s approach and were explicit in our intervention. Jakubik’s (2011, p. 391) “epistemic chain” (iterative evolutionary cycles) is actioned and observed through our PAR representational sensemaking relating to participants’ “past, present and future…time and context” or what Schatzki (2020) terms timespace (social, spatial and temporal goal-oriented activities). Learning that leads to knowledge assumes an embeddedness and ongoing interaction between individual, context and time (Jakubik, 2011). This process incorporates the B2K elements of know-what (i.e. identity), know-how (i.e. action) and know-why (i.e. sensemaking).

Figure 1 provides a synthesis of the theoretical elements framing our study. It draws on Carlile and Rebentisch’s (2003) knowledge storage, retrieval and transformation cyclical process. We retain creation from Jakubik and Nonaka and Takeuchi who see individual knowledge development as novel additions and transcending from a current state. Figure 1 also draws on Lindgren et al.’s (2004) competence typology. Individual competence is treated in our research as subjective, socially-embedded, processual, human-centered and practice entwined (Lindgren et al., 2001) rather than a distinctive object of attainment. Figure 1 encapsulates our participants’ “temporal, spatial and affective experience” (Sear, 2024, p. 7) of retrospective and prospective sensemaking (Gephart et al., 2010) in an AL detached-deliberate practice world.

The overarching research problem was how does action learning enable smaller owner-managed/family business leaders to transform their knowledge and develop competence? From this problem, the researchers abductively distilled three research questions:

We now outline the methods that informed the research design.

Davison et al. (2012) highlight the benefits in AR of a focal theory – core intellectual theoretical stimulus for action-oriented investigations – as opposed to instrumental theories. In our context, instrumental or applied theory refers to training in HR, finance and marketing, including tools such as the Business Model Canvas (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010). The PAR team’s original focal theory was Garnsey’s (1998) early growth of the firm but shifted to B2K and representational and detached-deliberate sensemaking, and how AL facilitates leader knowledge transformation and competence development. Such a major pivot in the focal theory is not uncommon in AR (Guertler et al., 2020).

Our PAR, anonymized here as the Cluster Leader Program (CLP), adopted contextualized explanation (Welch et al., 2022), recommended for abductive studies where relational understanding is important, and qualitative cause and effect exist and can be explained. An approach supporting contextual explanation is process theory. We utilized process-as-withness which emphasizes “iterative temporally grounded analysis” (Fachin and Langley, 2017, p. 310) and complements our processual narrative (Langley, 1999) and chronological stories of evolving participant journeys (Trabucchi et al., 2022). “Withness thinking” has been described as “a form of collaborative action research” with the sensemaking relationship “enabling the emergence of novel” interpretations of research participants (Fachin and Langley, 2017, p. 320). Rather than adopting coding or categorizing strategies, we employed process and narrative as a connecting strategy (Maxwell and Miller, 2008). Connecting strategies, rather than breaking up data, seek to show linkages and sequences over time and employ thick description (Geertz, 1973) to explain outcomes under specific contextual conditions. Our qualitative approach concurs with recent calls by Mees-Buss et al. (2020) for “non-template” approaches to qualitative analysis, that challenge the dominance of coding strategies, and recognize the value of alternative qualitative approaches, such as narrative. Calls from process theory around more engaged methods linked to a withness perspective accords with Van de Ven’s (2007)engaged scholarship approach. Notably, AR is the most engaged form of intervention for interpreting client problems and required actions. Process theory and PAR have much in common with Maitlis and Christiansen’s (2014, p. 67) sensemaking definition of “a process” involving “bracketing” and “creating intersubjective meaning” via “cycles of interpretation and action.”

At the core of our AR and PAR approach is a framework that specializes in analyzing change projects in action-oriented relational domains. The action innovation management research (AIM-R) framework (Guertler et al., 2020) is ideally suited to knowledge co-creation, allowing for change and pivoting; it fits well with calls for in-depth, embedded and impactful analysis Möller and Parvinen (2015), with capacity for more actionable outcomes (Whitehurst and Richter, 2018; Guertler et al., 2020). We now explain our PAR research design and data collection process in detail, including AIM-R, AL intervention participant companies and leaders, PAR team and PAR group. In doing so, we highlight important links to process theory and sensemaking.

The five phases of Guertler et al. (2020) AIM-R framework were central to our PAR design. The bullet points below describe the phases and identify where they are reported in this study:

1. Phase 1: analysis and framing (identifying problem and approach; outlined in introduction, literature review, methods and Figure 1).

2. Phase 2: project planning [research question(s) and project design; outlined in literature review, Table 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3].

3. Phase 3: executing on action (project implementation; outlined in methods and reported in the analysis and results).

4. Phase 4: reflecting and learning (review of key project elements; outlined in discussion and Figure 4).

5. Phase 5: communicating and pivoting (communicating to audiences and adjusting; outlined throughout the paper).

The AIM-R and PAR process included an interorganizational AL peer intervention (eight sessions over fourteen months), crafted to maximize interaction and questioning and limit “formal instruction” (Marsick and O’Neil, 1999). Aligned with O’Neil and Marsick (2014), we tackled participant leaders’ in situ problems with the PAR group interpreting and analyzing peer-to-peer interactions (El Sawy and Majchrzak, 2004). The CEO of a formalized regional industry cluster helped identify participants based on PAR team criteria: place-based attachment to cluster and region (Diener and Hagen, 2022), willingness to seek growth and regularly participate, and capacity to act on AL insights. The potential participants were contacted via email and screened through interviews for eligibility, and then selected. Nine companies (A to I) were originally recruited for the CLP. As highlighted in the Introduction, when the focus shifted from growth to consolidation, six of the nine leaders chose to continue in the program as core firms (A-F). Leaders of companies G, H and I maintained involvement in the CLP but as supportive, experienced contributors rather than subjects of the intervention. The leaders (Paula, David, Bruce, Barry, Jimmy, Linda) of the six cross-sector companies (A to F) are detailed in Table 1.

Figure 2 features an activity and process development (Liinamaa et al., 2016) summary of the PAR and representational sensemaking process. This incorporated multiple data sources including site visits, in-depth leader interviews, company case analyses, recordings of sessions, notes from pre- and postsession briefings, monitoring surveys and observations. A synthesis of set sessions (1–8) is detailed through a comprehensive processual narrative in the PAR analysis section (4.1–4.8). The action researchers witnessed and observed all sessions with participant voices captured in our rich descriptive analysis. University researchers are denoted by UV, industry as IN and government as IG. The PAR team included UV1, UV2, UV3, UV4, UV5 and IG1. A subset of this PAR team, termed here the in-theater PAR group and comprised of UV1, UV2, UV3 and IG1, was present in all action learning sessions.

UV1 designed the AL intervention and was set advisor, with UV2 assuming project management responsibility. UV1 and UV2 were responsible for facilitation, guiding, questioning and prompting while avoiding being too interventionist (O’Neil and Marsick, 2014). UV2 and UV3 recorded sessions, took notes and conducted presession interviews with the six leader participants. UV3 was a qualified accountant and analyzed financials for each business. UV4 provided intermittent observational feedback and along with UV5 reviewed research materials and assisted with analysis and findings. IG1 represented a government program and was central to the PAR as coinvestigator. IN1, cluster CEO, attended all AL sessions and provided industry specific advice. Participant peers, together with UV1 to UV3, IG1 and IN1, combined as a diverse and experienced triple helix community of practice (Dove, 1999). Triangulation of perspectives (before, during and after sessions) was a priority for the PAR team.

Figure 3 provides an overview of the eight CLP detached-deliberate sensemaking set sessions (SS1-SS8) indicating alignment with the five phases of the AIM-R framework. Each set session was its own iteration of AIM-R and informed subsequent sessions. Each of these sessions is classified as an AR cycle itself, with its own phases that were reviewed before moving on to the next session. B2K spirals align perfectly with multiple sessions and this method. The curved arrows between each session denote the embedded nature of the total program and its component parts, and reflect ongoing, recursive iterations. The inclination of the line under the set sessions indicates the AL process of increasing learning, knowledge transformation and competence development.

Observations, feedback and debriefs informed our reflexive approach to sessions (Hibbert, 2021). The PAR team was aware that peer contributions (Zhang and Hamilton, 2009) supporting knowledge transformation and competence development (Abel, 2008) were contingent on collective and interactive input (Revans, 2011) and social learning (De Felice et al., 2023). Revans’ (2011) peer familiar or unfamiliar problems acted as stimuli for learning and reflection. The PAR team used evidence-based training and facilitation practices (Lacerenza et al., 2017) including spacing sessions, seeking and responding to participant insights, encouraging individual voice with clarification loops, and reviewing and reflecting to capture know-what, know-how and know-why learning.

Maxwell’s (2009) validity criteria were applied in our PAR abductive, qualitative research process:

• Descriptive validity: processual narratives with rich, thick description; our five-phased AIM-R process; PAR group observations, in situ accounts and reflexivity; company analyses, including business history and financial details.

• Interpretive validity: PAR team and PAR group facilitator interviews and discussions; eight sessions over fourteen months, plus additional follow-up interviews and surveys; engagement with additional individuals from senior organizational levels; debriefs providing clarity where perspectives varied; and multiple facilitators.

• Theoretical validity: the paper incorporates a comprehensive framework (Figure 4) for interpreting inputs, processes and outputs that lead to knowledge transformation and competence development. Like any qualitative piece, there are limitations to generalizability, but our findings and this development are anticipated to apply to similar contexts.

The next section presents an analysis of the eight set sessions with a PAR post session analysis presented in section 4.9.

The data collected through the eight set sessions is analyzed in this section using a process narrative style.

SS1 afforded the initial group of nine companies an opportunity to introduce themselves, start developing peer trust and voice potential objectives. Company selection avoided competitors, with UV1 identifying “If you have direct competitors, [the chance of] vulnerability goes out the door, it spooks people into not being as honest.” Although companies were briefed prior to SS1, there was participant trepidation. The PAR team explained that accelerating growth was a focus, but participant needs were critical. Participants promptly voiced a desire for practical rather than theoretical learning. In a surprising assertion, Company I’s leader suggested the group “cut to the chase” – believing most were in “survival” not growth mode. IG1 later reflected that the PAR team had to pivot from a “journey about the latest and greatest thinking” to helping participant consolidation and survival. UV1 noted, “We realized this was not going to be a [growth] masterclass [but] a peer-driven curation.” At this point, companies G, H and I nominated that they were keen to stay as mentors for the benefit of the CLP rather than direct participants. Session 1 helped the PAR team clarify commitment levels and the final mix of companies. It assisted companies A to F to surface initial thoughts about their needs and objectives and offered a pathway for the structure of future sessions. The PAR team noted that companies A to F lacked codified strategies and business plans. Paula offered to be the first business reviewed and subsequently met with UV2 and UV3 to undertake a presession case analysis.

Company A exhibited a history of steady growth in a niche market. However, UV3’s financial analysis revealed static sales; CLP discussions subsequently focused on marketing and rekindling growth. A company colleague accompanied Paula for this on-site session, adding operational and financial insights. UV2 facilitated programmed learning focused on culture and change management to build knowledge and group cohesion. After the session, Paula and her colleague disclosed privately that they found the session unexpectedly challenging. Their perception that peers seemed overzealous and too direct led to a separate meeting between UV1, UV2, Paula and her colleague. This productive follow-up surfaced additional company insights, revealed a potential need for external expertise, and provided a lens on the underlying causes holding the business back. At this early stage, the PAR team wondered whether Paula’s leadership was the issue. Given Paula and her colleague’s perception of SS2, UV1 assumed a moderator role to monitor and manage potential CLP tension.

Excited by the previous session, David was enthusiastic and asked to skip his site visit and move straight to his challenges. The site visits were informative and provided an ice breaker before each session’s more intense probing, but the PAR team acquiesced to David’s request. Both Paula (SS2) and David (SS3) acknowledged the value of presession case appraisals, with none of the companies previously experiencing in-depth reviews. The peers noted how quickly case appraisals enabled shared understanding of issues and comparisons to their own company. UV3, in reviewing Company B’s financials, highlighted that growth was slowing due to specific industry turbulence. As part of the AL programmed content, UV1 had previously introduced the notion of ambidexterity (capacity to explore and exploit). This became a dominant theme in SS3. David admitted that he and his business partner (a family member) had been weak in exploration but outlined a range of options he had considered. The set peers thought these options were beyond Company B’s core competence, and instead suggested David move from original equipment manufacturing to investing in R&D to create a point of difference. David appeared eager but the PAR group detected something holding him back. He enjoyed sharing Company B’s story but appeared over-confident in his own knowledge. David spoke proudly of his operational training practices and expressed satisfaction with the status quo. IG1 and UV1 provided follow-up advice to Company B, enabling David to access a government R&D program encouraging supply chain exploration.

Company C’s sales exhibited a high yet volatile growth trajectory, driven by Bruce’s entrepreneurial flair. Investment in R&D, internationalization and highly qualified employees were strengths, with Company C recently winning a major innovation award. Bruce was vocal in seeking new ideas from the set and peers openly offered thoughts and opinions. However, Bruce’s description of the company seemed to be too polished. Bruce was also accompanied by an external marketing consultant who similarly put a positive spin on the company’s performance. However, in response to UV3’s financial appraisal and peer prompting, Bruce acknowledged that there was a cash flow issue caused by highly customized projects. Simultaneously he had a pet project where Company C was trying to commercialize in-house developed software. UV1 noted an emerging trend of company under-capitalization. Bruce listened to peers but regularly countered with his own solutions. UV1, knowing Bruce liked sporting analogies, suggested he may need to move from “captain” to “coach.” The PAR group, detecting anomalies in Bruce’s statements, viewed SS4 as lacking depth. Bruce subsequently met with UV1 who encouraged him to engage more deeply in ideas generated from SS4. Bruce acknowledged a need for greater input from his senior staff and expressed regret at his lack of leadership training and development. It dawned on Bruce that the company needed to build on his entrepreneurial strengths and recruit in areas of organizational weakness.

In SS5 Barry openly detailed Company D’s major challenges in what the PAR group observed as the most frank, honest and intense discussion so far. Barry’s relative youth and openness led peers, particularly the more experienced, to be forthright in offering support. Barry explained he was managing the business on behalf of his father-in-law. Reflecting to peers that “it was a bit of a steep learning curve” Barry acknowledged he had consolidated cash-flow and improved processes. However, UV3 confirmed that Company D’s stretched finances made it extremely vulnerable in a competitive industry with low margins. UV1 and UV2 had decided to incorporate a Business Model Canvas exercise for this session based on Company D’s case notes. This assisted peer analysis with the PAR group observing benefits for all participants. Cash flow stabilization and scoping new markets became the key theme with IN1 and UV2 adding additional commercial insights from their senior multinational experience. As the discussion continued, it became apparent the family tie between Barry and his father-in-law presented the biggest challenge. More experienced peers suggested the nature of this relationship was a recipe for failure with Paula acknowledging that in family business “it is hard to separate the emotion.” On further probing about Company D’s ownership arrangement, it became evident Barry had no financial commitment in the business. Barry was reluctant to invest cash resources beyond sweat equity because of the owner’s cavalier risks. The PAR group observed the impact of peers listening to peers in this session. SS5 highlighted the importance of creating the right situation, tools and timing for frank discussion. Barry’s youth, vulnerability, and financial and familial circumstances generated honesty from others not previously witnessed. Barry subsequently acknowledged this session as a personal and professional tipping point. The PAR team noted that SS5 was a major CLP turning point and a catalyst for peer trust, honesty, openness and support.

Company E operated in a hypercompetitive industry and used strategies like buy-local and vertical integration as competitive advantages. Peers could see substantial growth potential in this financially liquid operation. Jimmy was the owner’s son, responsible for business and marketing development and key to Company E’s future growth. Jimmy’s father attended this session and UV1, UV2 and IG1 quickly detected defensiveness. Through respectful and tactful discussion, Jimmy’s father relaxed and revealed critical issues pertaining to governance, structure and ownership. He reflected, “It’s tough, it is really tough working with family, I don’t think that everyone can do it.” However, Jimmy identified that “family members that are in a business, we all want the same […] we are tight knit […]have [you] seen how close we look [like] each other?” At this point, peers erupted with laughter. This discussion exposed Company E’s core problem – an inability to expand given the extended family ownership structure with both silent and active family members. UV1 suggested it might be time for a candid conversation, noting that family members often think they are in the “same bed” but are having “different dreams.” Jimmy agreed that the current approach of “it’ll be right, it will fall into place” was not working, and that “the mentality has sort of shifted.” Peers prompted: the ultimate question is commitment and whether other family members have “skin in the game.” The PAR team observed an ah-ha moment as Jimmy and his father’s expressions lit up. Company H had extensive family negotiation experience and offered important suggestions. UV1 and UV2 added a timely clarification of the scope of set responsibilities, limited to providing ideas and insights. In closing SS6, the group encouraged Company E to seek legal advice around resolving ownership challenges.

The PAR team observed that set discussions were becoming increasingly open, empathic and insightful and witnessed enhanced peer ability to accurately interpret fellow leaders’ behaviors and offer feedback. This was evident in SS7 with peers showing a deep understanding of Linda and her leadership style. Linda was determined to expand through franchising. The peers challenged this, questioning its appropriateness given Company F’s perceived deep reliance on Linda’s operational dominance. It was clear that Linda liked being in charge, despite her own belief that staff had autonomy. Linda pushed back, driven by the psychological capital she had invested in the franchising concept. Peers suggested she would find it challenging to share responsibility and empower others, making franchising problematic. Linda was a successful businessperson in the region and clearly had strong self-efficacy, so her next steps for development seemed at a crossroad. The PAR team believed Linda’s leadership problems, like all others, were deeply personal with change needing to come from within.

There was consensus among the PAR team before SS8 that for our six peer participants, it was individual not organizational challenges holding companies back with set objectives nominated in SS1 seen as symptoms of underlying leader issues. Accordingly, UV1 and UV2 met to plan SS8, knowing they would confront difficult intrapersonal realities. Unfortunately, the timing of SS8 meant two peer participants could not attend. Bruce (Company C) was absent due to an unavoidable commitment, so the PAR group arranged a separate follow-up. While Jimmy and his father were similarly unavailable, they had already contracted a family business specialist and resolved the ownership conundrum. This was communicated to the group in SS8 and was welcomed as a serious win.

UV2 first invited Paula to update the group on Company A’s progress. UV1 prompted Paula: “So who is in charge now, you?” Paula replied “Yes”, and the participants broke into celebration with Paula laughing and UV1 responding “Yay, the owner is in charge!” Paula, in tears, acknowledged “I knew it. I just didn’t want to admit it.” Paula articulated her understanding that she was Company A’s problem and solution: “I didn’t want to take charge […] we were adrift.” UV2 praised Paula, “You are a lot more assertive and a lot more confident in where the business is going.”

UV2 then turned to David and asked how he was progressing. Due to improved industry conditions, David was positive about Company B’s trajectory, highlighting that cash flow was healthy. UV1 asked David whether this was temporary. David asserted that hard work and effort are what count and reinforced that his success was due to internal excellence. The leader of Company H, perceiving potential underlying issues for Company B, chimed in: “I would be cautious about one key aspect of driving up from internals […] fresh expertise from externals is […] valuable.” David, pushing back, suggested a good business is about “earn[ing] your stripes”, and “success isn’t overnight.” Seeing David’s defensive stance, UV1 and UV2 purposefully moved the discussion on. It was clear to the PAR team that David was still uncomfortable opening up to the group.

The discussion then moved to Linda. To the CLP’s surprise, Linda had accepted their advice and reconsidered her notion of franchising. Linda admitted that her “inability to find the right people [she] could trust” was her biggest problem. She expressed a strong intention to hire a business development manager (BDM) and seek HR and external support. The CLP peers were relieved, realizing that a BDM would be a great first step. UV1 and UV2 were pleased that candid discussions, closer to double loop learning, were surfacing causal issues. It was also clear to the PAR group that bonding and disclosure between peers had deepened.

Barry’s update was next. He announced that he had made a major decision to withdraw from his full-time commitment to Company D. The peer discussion in SS5 had helped him reconcile that his efforts were marginal: Company D was treading water and at high risk. Barry had boldly opted to invest in himself and pursue a university degree. This was met with smiles around the room. Barry added, “I am at uni full-time now so that has been a bit of a journey […] somewhere I thought I would never be.” The group was unanimous in its congratulations, knowing this was Barry’s chance for his own growth. Barry was still loyal and keen to help his father-in-law but not at the expense of himself and his own family.

UV2 proceeded to a final wrap-up. He synthesized the SS8 discussion and overall CLP: “One of the things we talked about was the importance of self-awareness, and the extent that self-awareness is probably going to be the greatest […]catalyst for change.” He continued: “ […] enormous talents and skills have got your business to a certain level […] yet those same skills and talents potentially could be undoing you […]” Peers then nominated what they would like to see in a next stage, with personal development and leadership training identified as priorities. UV1 and UV2 suggested that an organizational psychologist be contacted for specialist personal development. What had started as a PAR and AL high growth business challenge ended up exposing deeply personal leader constraints.

Our abductive qualitative approach altered our initial research direction, as discussed in the introduction and methodology sections. This is common in AR as highlighted by Guertler et al. (2020) who note that results can differ considerably from the initial project focus and anticipated trajectory, with the finish line visible only in hindsight. B2K and representational and detached-deliberate sensemaking provided the lens to deepen understanding of individual knowledge transformations and competence shifts.

The initial SS1 objectives of the six focal companies are illustrated in column two of Table 2. The table displays the identifiable sensegiving prompts (column 3) and related sensetaking and sensebreaking impacts (column 4). Knowledge and competence implications are identified in column 5 with a postscript in column 6. We now discuss how the AL B2K and sensemaking intervention impacted each of our six peer leaders.

Paula’s initial objective was advancing Company A’s HR and marketing operations. Through the sensegiving process it became evident that Paula was reluctant to embrace the CEO role in what was her parents’ business. Her colleague’s involvement in SS2 was an indication of her reluctance to assume full leadership. Grieving, often part of sensebreaking, was witnessed when the tears fell during Paula’s epiphany in SS8 in what appeared to be a culmination of sensetaking post SS2. Paula recognized she potentially had stored leadership knowledge that could be retrieved but was reluctant to step up. The PAR group reflected that the obligation to her parents created an emotional stuckedness for Paula, whose B2K transformation as part of her leader competence in-the-making eventually enabled her to restructure the business.

A counter case is David (Company B) who entered the AL with the ambition of minimizing market development risks. Suggestions (sensegiving) were offered but David rejected options offered (SS3 and SS8). David’s unwavering belief that Company B could not benefit from the AL B2K and sensemaking process could not be disrupted. Retrieving stored knowledge was his default position, and this cognitive pattern was entrenched and could not be unstuck. Competence in-stock and in-use was satisfying his current position. David’s example highlighted the importance of sensetaking through the AL process. Ironically, it was noted that David was very generous in sensegiving to peers.

Bruce, despite suggesting he was encouraging others to take the lead, was slow to understand (sensetaking) that he could not be both captain and coach (sensegiving). It took additional sessions for Bruce to benefit from SS4. The PAR group and peers perceived a real excitement for Bruce in entrepreneurial exploration compared to administration. The explanation that he may lack the ability to fully execute on his exploratory efforts (sensegiving) finally triggered a transformative B2K change: he realized his stored knowledge and leadership competence in-stock was insufficiently developed. Bruce acknowledged he needed leadership training. As identified in Table 2, Bruce reconfigured company routines, increased his own leader competence (in-the-making), and hired specialists. Company C is now performing exceptionally well.

Stabilization was Barry’s initial SS1 objective. He was hungry for peer sensegiving to fill a void he was experiencing. SS5 sparked an important development in the AL in honesty and helped break the performative behavior some peers exhibited. Through this more open sensegiving and sensetaking process, Barry was able to sensebreak a major personal and family business stuckedness leading to an important B2K transformation and career change. Barry realized that retrieving his stored knowledge was no longer relevant to his future orientations. This eventually resulted in Barry’s attendance at university and the establishment of a successful new venture. The knowledge transformation led to Barry remaking his leader competence for a new context.

Company E initially wanted to improve manufacturing and develop new markets. For Jimmy and his father, the sensegiving stimulus was specific, catalyzed by a peer prompt around “skin in the game.” This provoked a wake-up call (SS6 - sensetaking) that the family company structure was inequitable and the B2K realization (sensebreaking) that after many years, definitive action was necessary. Both Jimmy and his father lacked stored knowledge to shape the governance structure of the family business. This knowledge transformation was enabled by employing specialists. Jimmy eventually became the CEO of Company E (leader competence in-the-making), with the AL process clearly increasing Jimmy’s father’s confidence in his son.

Linda’s ambition was to scale the business through franchising. Company F was performing successfully but Linda struggled to build broader leadership capability. When her dream of franchising was seriously questioned in SS7 Linda was reluctant to take the advice (sensetaking). However, Linda’s trust in her peers had grown and she did not reject the sensegiving outright. Her emotional revelation in SS8 that she was seeking a more fulfilling role, giving away the franchising idea, and instead adding to stored knowledge by hiring a business development specialist, was a major B2K sensetaking and sensebreaking moment. This was significant personal and business knowledge development and competence in-the-making.

This section distills responses to the overall research problem and research questions. Individual habits and actions are deeply embedded and hard to “unlearn” (Adler, 2022; Pedler, 2017) with individual “immunities to change”, “blind spots” and “big assumptions” (Kegan and Lahey, 2016, p. 258) difficult to unstick. Our AL approach supported adult transformative learning through “critical reflection of assumptions that may occur either in group interaction or independently” (Mezirow, 2003, p. 61). This study has revealed that disorienting dilemmas (Mezirow, 2003) can be stimulated and immunities to change unstuck (Kegan and Lahey, 2016), through careful facilitation of an AL intervention – a process that we have shown can lead to breaking individual leader truth aversion traps (Argyris, 2010), and develop competence in-the-making and -remaking (Lindgren et al., 2004).

Theater as a series of acts fits appropriately with AL’s elongated iterative sets and is used in this discussion section as a metaphor. Our PAR group’s process-as-withness view (Fachin and Langley, 2017) of eight AL acts resonates well with this metaphor (Cornelissen, 2004), shining the spotlight on peer performers in each session. UV1 and UV2 produced and directed the program, including choosing each session’s main act, deciding props, prompts, pacing and duration, and adjusting based on reflections and feedback. Unscripted dialogue, a key strength of AL, enabled UV1 and UV2 to become alert to what was and was not being said, and inconsistent espousals (Argyris, 2010).

The PAR team (UV1, UV2, UV3, UV4, UV5, IG1) sought to explain the AL through the spectatorial lens of representational sensemaking in a secondary practice world (Sandberg and Tsoukas, 2020). Having an in-theater PAR group (UV1, UV2, UV3, IG1) attending every session enabled observation, verification and reflexivity. They realized early that peer participants (main actors) were initially masking thoughts (SS1 to SS4) but as the AL process developed, vulnerability, psychological safety and trust increased (Edmondson, 2018). Peers were in detached-deliberate sensemaking mode in an AL primary practice world. Separating “sense” and “action” allowed for intended “distanciation” (Sandberg and Tsoukas, 2020, p. 14) leading to instantaneous revelations, or at the more extreme, disorienting dilemmas (Mezirow, 2003). The focus of detached-deliberate sensemaking is on reviewing (Sandberg and Tsoukas, 2020) challenges encountered in the day-to-day practice world. Our focus was consistent with notions of timespace past, present and future with participants able to look back and better understand to move forward (Sandberg and Tsoukas, 2020).

The theater in its entirety featured sensegiving and sensebreaking (Maitlis and Christianson, 2014). Sensebreaking is conceived as creating a meaning void (Mantere et al., 2012), with sensegiving potentially filling this void. Our AL fostered what Schildt et al. (2020) describe as reformative style sensemaking: the peer participants had no hierarchical power dynamic; rather the AL encouraged peers to ruminate over evidence and collaboratively resolve problems. The nature of sensegiving and sensebreaking aligns with Schildt et al. (2020) framing of provisional processing to expand thinking, provoke doubts, encourage creative ideas, challenge embedded routines and encourage critical reflection. Our AL theater was a platform for peers to engage in sensegiving and sensebreaking activity with our study revealing that there are no guarantees of sensetaking. David (Company B) was a case of continuous rejection. Linda is a counter example indicating the conditions (safety, time, trust, reflection) that foster sensetaking. The AL process and climax in SS8 revealed what Goffman in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life called “our back regions” and unearthed individual stuckedness through “mutual enquiry” (Raelin, 2006, p. 161).

This study provides a PAR (representational) and AL (detached-deliberate) lens on the sensemaking “logic of organizing” (Sandberg and Tsoukas, 2020, p. 23). As Figure 4 illustrates (top right), the full PAR team was responsible for the overarching representational sensemaking process. The in-theater PAR group witnessed and participated in the AL B2K and detached-deliberate sensemaking of peers (bottom right). The cycling of dialogue, prompting and reflection gave the PAR group a unique view of AL real-time sensemaking (Maitlis and Christianson, 2014). This section of Figure 4 focuses on the AL problem-based collaborative peer-centered approach (Yeo and Gold, 2011; Zhang and Hamilton, 2009), linking sensemaking and what we observed as peer sensegiving encouraging sensetaking and ultimately (in most cases) sensebreaking. The AIM-R elongated AL intervention built trust and psychological safety and created an environment where sensemaking flourished. Our participants were most active in the know-what and know-how domain with the in-theater PAR group more deeply engaged in the know-how and know-why. These nuances conform with single, double and triple loop thinking and learning (Kriz et al., 2021).

The CLP was a horizontal peer-to-peer interorganizational AL set characterized by “open-endedness”, “low control” and multisources of “cues” (Robert and Ola, 2021, p. 476). It is important to note the role of emotion in AL and sensemaking. While feeling and emotion are not emphasized in Jakubik’s B2K framework, they were detailed in her reframing of Kolb and Kolb’s (2005) experiential learning and Nonaka and Kono’s Ba and SECI approach (Jakubik, 2009). Kolb and Kolb (2005, p. 194) proposed that “all learning is relearning”, a process that “requires resolution of conflicts”, “adaptation” and “the total person – thinking, feeling, perceiving and behaving.” Maitlis et al. (2013, p. 226) identify “that sensemaking is an effortful, sometimes difficult and potentially unpleasant process” with Eskreis-Winkler and Fishbach (2019, p. 1733) noting that instead of individuals learning from their failures which “is ego threatening”, people learn “from other people’s failure” because personal egos and pride mean we see flaws in others more readily than in ourselves.

The PAR team originally thought the AL would deal with business technical objectives, but the CLP progressed to participants’ thinking, feeling and sensing. Participant willingness to sensemake fits well with the theory of stuckedness and psychological unsticking (Pack, 2015). Figure 4 highlights that AL B2K and sensemaking helped five of the six leaders unstick a personal stuckedness that was hindering them and their potential for knowledge transformation and leader competence development. Schatzki’s (2020) timespace and Jakubik’s (2011) B2K past (retrospective), present and future (prospective) are relevant here, remembering AL detached-deliberate sensemaking is taking place in participants’ primary practice world. Figure 4 references Paula as an example of overcoming stuckedness through the AL B2K and sensemaking process and her eventual meaning making epiphany (Dane, 2020).

Our AL sessions encouraged discussion of cognitive and sensory and brought us to the affective (Jakubik, 2009; Kolb and Kolb, 2005) as indicated in the top left of Figure 4. Of the three aspects of thinking, sensing and feeling, it appeared that feeling or what we term affective dissonance was fundamental to individuals being able to sensebreak and unstick deeply held positions. However, our depiction of the meaning making triangle avoids overt distinctions between thinking, sensing and feeling (Sandberg and Tsoukas, 2015b). The PAR highlights that not all leaders can disrupt existing frames (Möller, 2010), particularly where deeper cognitive, sensory and affective assumptions exist (Kegan and Lahey, 2016). Building on Dane (2020, p. 39) we agree that a readiness among participants is essential; they need to be “open to the possibility of being transformed.” We therefore adopt the construct of knowledge transformation (Carlile and Rebentisch, 2003) rather than creation, to more accurately reflect knowledge development witnessed in our AL B2K process.

In addition, we recognize a transformative domain shift of competence in-the-remaking for some peer leaders as a subtle extension to competence in-the-making of Lindgren et al. (2004). Dane highlighted epiphanies are rare, yet we found AL fostered the sensebreaking and unsticking of assumptions that had created barriers “preventing personal transformation from occurring” (Dane, 2020, p. 51). Without meaning making and its implications for retrieving stored knowledge and transforming such knowledge, leader competence in-stock and in-use could not be made or remade (Lindgren et al., 2004), reemphasizing that leader competence development is a process (Sandberg and Pinnington, 2009). Where less dramatic knowledge creation and competence in-the-making is involved, Figure 1 could be substituted into the upper left of Figure 4. Our approach adds a unique empirical AL perspective to Jakubik’s (2011) request for a greater use and understanding of action-oriented and experiential approaches in how knowledge evolves.

Three research questions were posed at the end of our theoretical background. Firstly, we asked: How does B2K explain AL as an intervention and its impact on knowledge transformation? The paper has shown that B2K and its elements (learning, knowing, becoming) were well founded as a proposed theoretical framework (Jakubik, 2011) and that AL and its spiraling sessions are an ideal intervention for knowledge creation and transformation. The second question was: How does the application of a sensemaking lens assist our theoretical understanding of the AL and PAR process? We have explained and illustrated the value and use of representational and detached deliberate sensemaking (Sandberg and Tsoukas, 2020) in a PAR and AL context. We have further developed this theory to explain the role of sensegiving, sensetaking and sensebreaking and to explore impacts on meaning making in a peer-to-peer AL setting. Finally, we asked: How does AL facilitate a participant leader’s knowledge transformation and competence development? The PAR research demonstrates that a well-constructed AL process and context – incorporating appropriate peer selection, skilled facilitation, balance of programmed learning and action, multiple well-spaced sessions, questioning and reflection – is an effective tool for sensemaking and meaning making (Schwandt, 2005) that enable leaders to unstick existing knowledge and recognize existing leadership competence limitations. The knowledge transformation (Carlile and Rebentisch, 2003) and competence development (Lindgren et al., 2004) results were life changing for most participants.

Our PAR and AL intervention sheds light on process-as-withness and explaining knowledge transformation in smaller owner-managed/family firm leaders struggling to sensebreak (thinking-feeling-sensing) stuckedness. Like any qualitative research, there are limitations to this study in terms of generalizability. However, we believe AL B2K and sensemaking (including sensegiving, sensetaking and sensebreaking) interventions offer robust and credible results with theory as well as practice and policy implications.

Integration of Jakubik’s B2K, Carlile and Rebentisch’s knowledge cycle, and Lindgren et al.’s competence typology, facilitated through PAR representational and AL detached-deliberate sensemaking, helped the researchers analyze and understand meaning making and what it takes to transform smaller owner managed/family firm leaders. In doing so, the CLP facilitated real-time exposition of a leader’s capacity to give, take and break to learn, build knowledge and transform. Through use of contextual explanation, we drilled down to the “situated action” (Araujo and Easton, 2012) and evaluated the peer leader journey of “becoming” (McKinlay et al., 2022), while dealing with changing praxis and dynamics (Sandberg and Tsoukas, 2020).

Our AIM-R approach avoided abstract delivery and engaged instrumental theory with emphasis on participants as “active cocreators of knowledge, rather than simply consumers” (Spencer et al., 2022, p. 424). This inclusion of theory in a carefully crafted way recognized participant expertise and the importance of customizing for individual and collective learning journeys (Raelin, 2006). One understudied aspect of AL is the depth and speed of trust, which had important implications for the efficacy of the PAR. AL enabled causal leader problems to surface in a way that few other techniques could achieve and reinforces our suggestion that AL is underutilized in KM. However, there is a vast range of topics in the area of AL that warrant research (Marquardt, 2009). Given the findings in this study, these are worth investigating more deeply from a research perspective, noting that AL in practice is widely used and has many guises. If like AR, it gives us capacity to get closer to the truth, such rigor is crucial. Furthermore, this study has shown how AIM-R (Guertler et al., 2020) can be used to assist in reporting such AL outcomes.

The current study was interorganizational, with participants being the leaders who controlled decision-making in their business (wilful actors). The question of whether the study is replicable beyond this context (i.e. intraorganizational, in large enterprises or in cross-cultural settings) would be interesting to address in future studies. In addition, this study was focused on understanding participants in the room, rather than the facilitators and their role in determining outcomes by creating conditions that catalyzed transformation and competence development. Further research into ingredients of an AL transformation process, like a disorienting dilemma (Mezirow, 2003) and challenging immunities to change (Kegan and Lahey, 2016) that assist in unsticking leader traps (Argyris, 2010) and advancing competency (Lindgren et al., 2004), is required for consistent success.

In this study the impact of the AL intervention had a significant effect on stuckedness. Given its logical relevance to management, stuckedness (Sear, 2024) warrants further research beyond the sociological domain. We would recommend that this needs to include triggers like sensegiving, sensetaking, sensebreaking (Maitlis and Christianson, 2014) and their associated impacts on feeling, sensing and thinking (Jakubik, 2009; Kolb and Kolb, 2005). Damasio (2015) highlights how important feelings and emotions are in all aspects of behavior and social cognition. Damasio’s work could be a valuable starting point for further research into B2K and unsticking assumptions. For example, we could open up exploration into the role of “feeling dissonance”, in comparison to Festinger’s (1962) well-cited concept of cognitive dissonance, and how the interrelationships between feeling, sensing and thinking work. Future research needs to answer why the feeling, thinking, sensing of peers, including AL and reflection, transforms leader knowledge and competence, which is potentially also a behavioral (Milkman, 2021) and neuroscience challenge.

Finally, from a process-as-withness theory perspective (Langley, 2021), the role of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly agentic AI as a complement to the human-led AL and PAR facilitation process, is likely to have research, methods and resource benefits in terms of mapping, recording and analyzing. The implications of agentic AI operating in the participants’ primary practice worlds and diarizing what is happening after an AL detached-deliberate session has future research potential for all sensemaking elements that Sandberg and Tsoukas (2020) have identified.

Our study highlights that real change is not easy but is possible for leaders of smaller owner-managed/family firms. What started as a firm challenge unlocked why Australian regional smaller firms often struggle to grow: leaders’ lack of competence and knowledge. AL interventions are a powerful way to uncover participant truths and facilitate sensemaking and a meaning making journey. Sensemaking, sensegiving, sensetaking and sensebreaking, in an AL program, offer a way forward for practitioners and policy makers wanting to grow smaller businesses, with an important contribution being detailed insight into the interpersonal aspects in less hierarchical environments. The socio-interpersonal and intrapersonal knowledge and competence for our leaders turned out to be more critical than technical challenges. This is an important lesson moving forward regarding the future of smaller enterprises and AI. The application of PAR/AL responds to calls by Araujo and Easton (2012, p. 317) that “we need to hone our theoretical and methodological approaches to capture the messiness, uncertainty and situatedness of action[…].” To this effect, Figure 4 captures the theoretical and practical nature of AL and PAR inputs, the consequent process of individual and collective sensemaking and meaning making, and the resultant knowledge transformation and competence development.

Aristotle wrote that “knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.” This reminds us of the film America’s Sweethearts. The movie introduces the viewer to the “behind the scenes” creation of Director Hal Weidemann (Christopher Walken). The critics, production team and actors are in shock as they watch what the hidden camera reveals of the “stink” of real life. Our PAR and AL similarly enabled us to see behind the performative to reality, glimpsing a rare view of what it takes to transform knowledge and develop competence. We as PAR researchers were privileged to bear witness to such real-life action and what Senge (2006) refers to as metanoia, a fundamental shift, change, transcendence. The participant peers did the heavy lifting. In coming to know themselves more deeply, our leaders increased their capability to grow others and their businesses. For their efforts, honesty and vulnerability, we are extremely grateful.

The authors would like to thank the Australian Federal and State Governments for their assistance in resourcing the study.