Rethinking informal workplace learning in times of complexity

Workplace learning has become a central topic in 21st-century discussions on individual, team and organisational performance, as well as personal career growth and sustainability (Lyle et al., 2022). In recent years, human resource development (HRD) has evolved as a dynamic field for creating new knowledge and practices for workforce development, addressing the complexity of workplaces. Yet, at the time we write this article, the world is experiencing numerous turbulences impacting organisations in their ability to anticipate future trends. It is still unclear whether a post-COVID-19 “new normal” is going to be a transient phase of stability preceding the next grand crisis or whether this desired “new normal” never arrives because there is always a new crisis hard on the heels of the previous one. Workplace learning is becoming more critical than ever for both organisations and their members given the growing competing forces that are reshaping workplaces (Anderson et al., 2014).

An important part of learning in organisations comes through “informal learning” which takes place wherever people have the need, motivation and opportunity for learning (Marsick and Watkins, 2018; 2001). Informal workplace learning (IWL) is learning by engaging in ongoing, yet not necessarily sequential, interactive cycles of learning from experience that start with an unfamiliar challenge or problem at work that cannot be solved by known expert practices (Faller et al., 2022). It is common for informal learning to occur in collaboration, often at the behest of other organisational members (Faller et al., 2022), relying on the ability to create and nurture interdependent and mutually beneficial relationships.

One could argue that we have now reached an unprecedented level of complexity, the kind that would require a complete shift in the way of approaching organisational knowledge and learning. According to Watkins and Marsick (2021), a post-COVID-19 environment has magnified inequities and inadequacies and made them glaringly obvious. It also has disrupted routines and habits that do not serve us well now and may not be part of the “next normal” that will emerge, making us rethink how IWL as a facilitator of adaptive challenges can be adopted to virtual or hybrid workplaces.

Thus, engaging in the discussion on the complexity of workplace settings, the goal of this conceptual article is to examine some tensions and rethink tried-and-true IWL to become more adapted to the new environment. Our purpose is to let emerge interesting tensions and argue for new ways to approach IWL in response to recent shifts in the workplace (such as hybrid or virtual work). To do that, we first look at recent changes in the workplace environment, then go back to some key concepts and ideas from the IWL literature. To illustrate ways to approach and adapt IWL, we present two real-life cases that we experimented with as scholar-practitioners, we argue for the importance of overcoming the silo mentality and rethinking IWL in the VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous) world by taking into consideration the importance of a relational learning environment that encompasses virtuality, adaptive challenges and vertical development. The article ends with some recommendations concerning the importance of modifications and the use of existing IWL tools and adoption of new strategies and opportunities for the future.

An important factor increasing complexity in the workplace environment is the shift to virtual or hybrid work – a mix of onsite and remote employees (Shirmohammadi et al., 2022). This shift, which has been further increased as a function of the COVID-19 pandemic, could affect employees’ status positions within the workplace by enabling/constraining the preconditions of practices and their professional development (Yeo and Li, 2022). For example, individuals who joined virtual teams could experience unequal power relations and unfamiliar meanings due to a new nature of work arrangements (Morrison-Smith and Ruiz, 2020; Busher and James, 2015). Such fractured relationships between individuals could reinforce insecurity, which in turn could significantly affect the way in which they navigate through their professional development, especially during unplanned (unexpected) transitions to remote work (Yeo and Li, 2022).

The COVID-19 pandemic affected the learner’s end-to-end experience at workplaces (Kshirsagar et al., 2021). Many organisations responded to this challenge by developing new approaches to the more effective utilisation of organisations’ knowledge-based capital. Examples of such initiatives can be an increased use of virtual collaboration arrangements (Lokhtina et al., 2022) and hybrid teams (Winkler et al., 2022).

Even though virtual workplaces may provide benefits (Purvanova and Kenda, 2021), without addressing opportunities for equal participation and flexibility in information sharing (Dhawan, 2020), these benefits may not be fully enabled. For example, the feeling of social isolation, work intensity and technostress represent the challenges that remote work may facilitate (Shirmohammadi et al., 2022; Tarafdar and Stich, 2021). Employees acting in the remote/hybrid space of workplaces may experience limited work flexibility and autonomy in their own work (Pensar and Rousi, 2023) that may affect their development and success.

Marques-Quinteiro et al. (2022) observed that although team virtuality improves the sharing of unique information (e.g. information that only certain members possess but that would be important for team performance), it also reduces the quality of team behaviours, affects team information processing that may have an impact on effective communication and coordination (Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2011). In addition, technology dependence often results in mistakes due to misunderstandings and information overload (Presbitero, 2021) and geographic dispersion poses coordination challenges due to time-zone differences (Morrison-Smith and Ruiz, 2020). Thus, traditional models of formal workplace learning may not always be able to respond to the complexity of virtual teamwork (Lokhtina et al., 2022) and consequent adaptive challenges.

In addition to the shift to virtual or hybrid work, organisational members need to constantly adapt their work to an environment always less predictable and more volatile. Heifetz (1994) argued that organisations face adaptive problems for which past solutions will not work because the challenge itself is no longer clearly identified. To adapt and evolve in this new environment requires more than just learning technical skills, as individuals face problems with a narrower range of known solutions. Scharmer (2009) used the term “emerging complexity” for defining the new environment that is characterised by disruptive change, unknown solutions to problems that are still unfolding and lack of clarity about the key stakeholders. Applying this paradigm to modern workplaces, we argue that IWL practices should respond in ways that are closer to the new reality.

Building on Heifetz (1994), Vassolo and Weisz (2022) identified three types of adaptive challenges that organisations currently face (developmental, emergency and structural), and for which there needs to be more exploration and learning about “what’s going on”. Developmental challenges apply when an industry shifts from a development stage to one of maturity. Emergency challenges occur in times of deep crisis/recession. The structural challenge relates to the leadership dilemmas and business opportunities.

Faller (2017) identified that leaders’ recollections of challenging situations included elements of complexity, unfamiliarity and non-technicality, which were adaptive (Heifetz, 1994) in essence. Three themes of adaptive challenges emerged:

1. feeling increasingly limited in one’s ability to rely on one's own expertise or authority;

2. taking more responsibility for defining organisational roles and strategic directions; and

3. working with people inside and outside of the organisations holding different views or values.

The findings of Faller (2017) echoed the key argument of Argyris (1992) who stated that as issues become more complex and non-programmable, both single- and double-loop learning are required in organisations. By engaging only in single-loop learning, leaders can merely detect and correct errors within the current system. However, by engaging into double-loop learning, they can examine and alter the governing variables which guide the “ultimate destiny of the system” (Argyris, 1992, p. 10). Single-loop learning does not fundamentally change the system and the variables under which the organisation operates, and if we focus only on single-loop change, [we] may “unwittingly become servants of the status quo” (Argyris, 1992, p. 11). However, Argyris warned that double-loop learning is not an easy task as leaders need to examine their underlying assumptions and the beliefs that guide their thinking and actions. Vertical development in organisations can be a solution to adaptive challenges as well as a supportive mechanism for enhancing double-loop learning.

Development in organisations may occur in two different ways: horizontal and vertical. Horizontal development takes place as employees learn new skills and acquire knowledge, filling in the gaps and achieving proficiency in the current role. Vertical development implies a more fundamental shift in how employees comprehend the context, think in more strategic ways and respond to ill-structured and ambiguous challenges. Developing individuals vertically is an all-encompassing approach that should include a wide range of learning practices including experience-based learning, coaching, reflection, etc. Jones et al. (2020) argued for the importance of applying vertical development in order to transform traditional leadership development practices to prepare leaders for the VUCA world.

Revans (2014) had anticipated this when he posited that for organisations to survive, the rate of learning had to be greater than the rate of change. As leaders can no longer rely on conventional problem-solving methodologies, they need to operate from a new perspective that requires a shift in how they approach knowledge and leadership. They need to lead by seeing outside of the normal boundaries of their own experiences and of the organisation to allow new possibilities to emerge (Croft et al., 2022; Scharmer, 2009; Senge, 1990). For that kind of development to occur, leaders must understand how to provide the right kind of learning challenges as well as support for each employee. This varies when mindset is differentially governed by meaning making dominated by:

• rules;

• relationships with respected others;

• self-created understanding of the “best way” for the whole system to work well; or

• openness to negotiating pathways across different views of what that “best way” might look like (Faller, 2017).

The findings of Faller (2017) trigger a question of what IWL looks like in an environment where people have less chances to have interactions outside of formal meetings and how it can be supported.

Workplace learning has been used as an umbrella concept for formal and informal learning that takes place in the workplace (Kyndt and Baert, 2013) but different to training (Raelin, 2000; Scheeres et al., 2010) because it is acquired in action and “dedicated to the task at hand” through “conscious reflection on actual experience”. The historical development of the term “workplace learning” can be traced back to the first half of the 20th century, where discussion about the significant role of experience, inquiry and reflection emerged (Dewey, 1938). Later, the notion of “learning by doing” (Kolb, 2015) started to become popular. In the 1990s, the understanding of workplace learning developed rapidly, focusing on the complexity of learning derived from its “situatedness” in activities and was considered as a fundamental aspect of social practice (Lave and Wenger, 1991). Continuing research on workplace learning, Engeström (2004) and Billett (2004) highlighted the ways in which systems and complex relationships between individuals, objects and the society have an impact on their activities. Hodkinson and Hodkinson (2003) applied Bourdieu’s (2002) concepts of habitus, field and cultural capital for exploring the conjunction between the individual, workplace and the world, and how wider cultural, social, political and economic factors influence workplace learning.

Informal learning occurs through interaction with and participation within context (Lave and Wenger, 1991), which can empower employees to learn or hinder mutual involvement in shared practices that can impinge on their further development (James and Lokhtina, 2018). Informal learning includes incidental learning (which may occur in institutions); it is not classroom-based or highly structured but typically learner-centred (Marsick and Watkins, 1990), involving both intentional (self-directed) and unintentional (incidental) learning experiences (Schugurensky, 2000). Informal learning (Eraut, 2011) involves “at least some intent for development, growth, learning, or improvement (i.e. it is not simply incidental learning); […] some action and doing, and is not purely educational (e.g. not reading or training); [it] does not occur in a formal learning setting” (Tannenbaum et al., 2010, p. 306). Some examples of IWL may include social media interaction, participation in meetings, reflection, mentoring and impromptu discussions.

The above approaches of IWL allow individuals to take control over the learning content based on their interests and depending on the extent of awareness and intention. In addition, IWL may happen in the process of completing tasks through observation and problem-solving, taking the form of incidental learning (Caruso, 2017; Wagnon et al., 2019). For instance, Tannenbaum et al. (2010) initially presented a model to IWL that consists of four components describing a complete dynamic nature of the informal learning process, including experience/action (actively doing something); feedback, reflection and intent to learn. The model was developed specifically for the corporate context and recognises that the learning process can start at any point, and the learner can experience one or more of these dimensions, one or more times (Annen, 2023). More recently Tannenbaum and Wolfson (2022) introduced a new CAM-OS framework that highlights the importance of recognising that learners are different and should have the flexibility to use different learning strategies depending on their styles, readiness to learn, opportunities and the work situation (exploring the five personal and situational readiness factors for enabling constructive learning: capability, awareness, motivation, opportunity and support).

The relational context also plays a critical role. Studies led by the Center on Creative Leadership (CCL) have well documented the critical role of “learning from other people” in a leader’s journey (Yip and Wilson, 2010; McCall and Hollenbeck, 2002). According to CCL, around one-third of the significant experiences that lead to individual growth or development come from the opportunity to learn from someone else in the organisation. At a broad level, developmental relationships are relationships that motivate individuals to learn and grow, expose them to learning opportunities and provide support (Ghosh and Hutchins, 2022; McCauley and Young, 1993). These relationships can develop organically but often are fostered by organisational initiatives that pair up individuals to promote learning and development. Mentors or coaches may or may not be part of the collaboration, but IWL interactions might well include peer-to-peer engagement (Faller et al., 2022). Through relational learning, organisational members bond with each other over shared values, forming positive mentoring relationships characterised by authenticity and engage into collaborative explorations of complex questions for the organisation.

Academics and HRD professionals alike increasingly acknowledge the importance of supporting IWL for continuously developing and deepening knowledge and capabilities at the workplace (Crans et al., 2021). Informal learning relies on the ability to create and nurture interdependent and mutually beneficial relationships. But how to do that in fast-changing and unpredictable environments? Watkins and Marsick (2021) argued that the COVID-19 pandemic made even more crucial the need to acknowledge that there is an interconnectedness to everything – we are connected globally and transparently in ways as never before. Papanagnou et al. (2022) showed how health-care teams fostered interconnectedness to act quickly amidst chaos created by the pandemic. By transgressing boundaries, bringing together experts from different specialisations and co-creating new relationships across the system, teams were able to generate knowledge that helped navigate uncertainty and complexity.

Faller et al. (2022) looked at how developmental relationships can also be pivotal for dealing with complexity. They explained how peer-to-peer coaching helped organisational members from diverse backgrounds and functions who participated in a leadership programme to support individual/team learning as they were asked to work together on a complex question for the future of their organisation. Peer-to-peer coaching enabled them to discover their shared values, created a common language to communicate and built connections so they could easily call upon one another with confidence. Peer-to-peer coaching conversations also enabled them to take faster, more effective action at the strategic level, because they had already worked and learned together on tough, real, systemic action learning (AL) challenges.

When people engage in collaborative work, their interpretation of a situation and consequent actions will be highly influenced by social and cultural norms of others. Bradbury-Huang et al. (2010, p. 137) looked at what made collaboration among senior managers more effective and found that the perception of a sustainable “relational space” as “an ecology of high-quality interactions that precedes action projects” was at the heart of the collaborative process. Nicolaides and Scully-Russ (2018) also recommended that organisations intentionally create relational spaces where multiple relationships (self and system) can subsequently grow into greater entanglements embedded throughout subsystems interacting with each other. More recently, Fiaz and Qureshi (2023) looked at the influence of relational learning in the new post-COVID environment and found that systems that pre-actively foster deep connections among organisational members have an effect on performance and well-being.

Lynam et al. (2022) developed an “I/WE” framework for leadership development in complex and demanding contexts that fully recognises the interpenetration of individuals and collective transformation. The framework is built on the principle that individuals grow and develop in the context of relationships and groups and vice versa. By integrating intrapersonal, interpersonal and collective development, all can be reciprocally deepened. Lynam et al. (2022) accounted for transformative changes as phenomena in which multiple perspectives and methods are continuously revealing (and enacting) aspects of complex and potentially multiple objects. There are different phases in their leadership development program, but the phase of enactment is the one that has the individuals and collectives “engaging and directing their identity and energy in the world, through an authentic impulse toward a future that is calling” (p. 691). Through willingness and surrender into a deeper source or ground of being, the collective can perceive a sense of the future that wants to emerge.

Yet, people often do not deeply question their own or others’ views. Power dynamics may distort the way in which they understand events creating spaces for collaborative inquiry. Nicolaides and Poell (2020) also observe that organisations are not always comfortable supporting and encouraging critical thinking that might disrupt the status quo. They call for organisations to create “safe to fail” environments where members can challenge taken-for-granted assumptions and engage in critical reflection to rethink traditional approaches to work. Complex, adaptive changes, they argue, require far more than changes in performance. Conditions for “failing safe” are critical to invite deeper learning and create cultures where error or failure in pursuit of learning is embraced, encouraged and rewarded. Nicolaides (2022) argues that more is needed to address knowing and learning through uncertainty. She advocates for “generative knowing: ways of being and becoming activating potential creativity…[that] activates “a door in every moment”…when we accompany inquiry in ways that bring forth a multiplicity of ways of being and becoming” (Nicolaides, 2022, pp. 237–254).

From our review of the recent literature discussing IWL in post-COVID-19 complex environments, it is evident that more research is needed to foster practices and systems that allow the growth of the “relational space” where important relationships and conversations between members of an organisation can flourish and lead to the discovery of new insights. To pave the way forward, we are presenting two recent examples using processes for collaborative learning, one in the educational sector and one in the health-care sector. Both examples are situated in contexts where challenges faced by the participants were complex and adaptive and where processes to enhance virtual peer-to-peer learning and coaching were identified as core components to help generate individual and collective knowledge.

The first example is situated in the context of a virtual collaborative project led by nine academics at different career stages and from various countries whose goal was to generate deeper insights on how to develop and facilitate collective leadership (Croft et al., 2022). The project was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic and included several dimensions of complexity such as time-zone discrepancies, the absence of face-to-face interaction, dynamic leadership, interdependence of tasks and technology issues.

To conduct their collaborative inquiry, the group opted for two modes of communication: synchronous (Zoom) and asynchronous (email correspondence). Ongoing email exchanges aimed at having continuous discussion about the content of the project, ensuring that everyone is on the same page by sharing/identifying research-based insights that could better inform participants’ virtual collaboration.

During the project, participants moved through a series of tasks of varying complexity (e.g. conducting literature searches and analysis concerning virtual collaboration/communication, (re)negotiating the purpose of the project). Given the number of researchers involved as well as multiple time zones and limited opportunities to meet virtually all together, the group decided to enhance their learning by relying on a process which they called collective journaling and which became a critical way for the group to support negotiations, prevent conflicts and build trust (see Morrison-Smith and Ruiz, 2020). Collective journaling became the primary way to account for the members’ thoughts as the project unfolded and created a healthy outlet for finding effective ways to work through intense emotions towards existing affordances and constraints of virtual collaboration.

The process of journaling and sharing with one another as an active learning technique (Blake, 2005) proved to be a valuable reflective tool for virtual collective work. The journal functioned as a means of both looking backwards and thinking forward. It provided the opportunity to assess collaborative processes from within, as informal learning among the participants unfolded naturally and spontaneously. Openness about challenges, common tasks/purposes, a sense of inclusion and satisfaction all emerged within journal entries. As researchers shared their entries to one another, it also helped them structure the team, supporting negotiation and discussion processes, especially often hidden processes.

Collective journaling allowed introspection into other people’s accounts of events and shared comprehension of tasks, while also facilitating descriptions of emotional responses. Participants could see where, when and how they could contribute to the process that led to the development of a shared sense of purpose that had a positive impact on their engagement. It also helped to conduct discussions about leadership potentials of each member as journal entries included observations and reflections about the group dynamics based on the impact and contributions of each member (Wu, 2021). In fact, leadership within the group changed depending on the phase of the collaboration process, as the evolving experiences of trust shared by team members played an important role in shaping the team's spirit (Zakaria and Yusof, 2020).

As a result, relationships evolved naturally to “developmental” relationships where team members were enriched by and learned from the experience of one another acknowledging the extent to which they were on the “same page”. A sense of collective leadership also emerged as team members were enriching their collaborative experience and taking turns sharing the leader’s role based on tasks (Mihhailova, 2017). Collective leadership could also be a contributing factor to the development of trust and a consequence of a sufficient level of mutual respect.

The second example accounts for a leadership program designed for physician leaders in a regional non-profit health care system in the USA. At the time of the program, the organisation was embarking on a major restructuring requiring physician leaders to rethink their roles and leadership and explore new ways for virtual collaboration and effective work across multiple hospitals.

The program included AL as a key component. Grounded in the theories of experiential learning (Kolb, 2015), reflective practice (Schön, 1991) and transformative learning (Mezirow, 1991), AL aims to support perspective transformation through different stages involving questioning, assumption sharing and reframing. AL develops “questioners” rather than question “answerers”, organic risk takers rather than functional experts and leaders rather than specialists. O’Neil and Marsick (2014; 2009) developed a structured protocol of steps that build on one another to support deeper thinking about a complex, often systemic question that is not easily solved without learning (Marsick and Maltbia, 2009). The process takes the participants sequentially through recurring cycles of questioning and sharing information to unlock mental models that often make one blind to other points of view to enable more informed decision and action. The process is facilitated by an AL coach.

In the context of this leadership program, four teams of five to eight physician leaders met virtually on a weekly basis over a five-month period and in-person once a month with an AL coach. Each team was responsible for exploring together an important question about the organisation’s future for which there is no obvious solution, and more learning is needed. The teams worked on various questions such as “how do we align incentives between independents and the system?”, “how do we reduce leakage?”, “how do we enhance innovation and clinical excellence?” or “how do we get physicians communicating in an effective manner?”

An important aspect of the process led by the AL coach was to help the team recognise the underlying complexity of the question they were asked to explore and the need to learn more before examining possible options. The emphasis therefore was on problem framing rather than problem-solving. Through dialogic and reflective activities, AL coaches helped their team members step back, share, examine and challenge different assumptions about what the problem might be. AL coaches also invited team members to test their assumptions by collecting information across the organisation. They were particularly encouraged to meet with internal stakeholders and gather as many organisational perspectives as possible. This phase often led teams to revisit many of their initial assumptions and reframe their understanding of the problem. Each team was invited to present their exploration and recommendations to ten senior administrators (including CEO and COO) who are invited to react, question and dialogue with the teams. At the end of the programme, data collected found that AL had a positive impact on networking and interpersonal relationships, and improved trust and collaboration among team members. Critical incident interviews showed impact on the physician’s self-awareness and ability to develop multiple views and perspectives. In addition, programme teams continued to work together to advance their projects into the broader organisational system.

Learning during times of complexity is a lot like whitewater rafting (Pendleton-Jullian and Brown, 2018). The new environment offers the opportunity to rethink mechanisms for IWL and how to support it. The two examples we provided demonstrate possible paths to adapting IWL to environments where virtuality and interactions across organisational members who are eager to explore complex issues collaboratively are compatible and can produce significant learning.

In the first example, collaborative journaling in addition to virtual meetings proved to be a powerful reflective practice that contributed to the development of new skills, changes of behaviour and enhancement of well-being (Di Stefano et al., 2016) leading to creativity and progression. The process helped to shed some light on the contextual affordances and constraints through which developmental relationships emerged (see Lokhtina et al., 2022). The second example shows that even in virtual environments, teams can tackle complexity when supported by an AL-facilitated process and the help of an AL coach who has the capacity to challenge the teams in their thinking through questioning, critical reflection on assumptions and data gathering.

In a fluid, fast-changing and uncertain environment, collaborations, connections and more broadly a culture of knowledge will be even more critical for organisational success. The IWL examples we presented show that virtual interactions when combined with a supportive relational space promoting exploration and exchange of ideas can generate deep learning for complex challenges.

However, we are also aware that creating those types of environments will require intentionality and that each organisation will need to think about the right type of IWL strategies depending on their culture. Organisational leaders including those leading HRD and L&D initiatives will have a lot to consider when selecting IWL interventions that can best support their members. For example, limited resources and time can make it difficult to overcome the silo mentality, recognise the high level of interconnectedness among functions or organisational initiatives and identify how IWL can support these. In fact, it is often a challenge for leaders to look at their own organisation as a dynamic system “composed of sets of interconnected elements…that change and evolve over time as they interact with each other” (Coleman et al., 2017, p. 182).

An important dimension to consider for IWL particularly in virtual settings is how to create a relational space that will support high-quality interactions, collaborations and cross-pollination of ideas across organisational members as suggested by Bradbury-Huang et al. (2010). Navigating VUCA conditions in a post-COVID-19 working context can bring a sense of confusion and insecurity in individuals’ experiences. Bonding with each other over shared values, forming positive mentoring relationships will be more important than ever. This however cannot happen without the perception of aspirational trust, a dialogical process allowing mutual learning and peer support.

In a complex environment where there is no one right or best solution to any challenge or opportunity, IWL should be seen as an opportunity to help organisational members see the bigger picture, develop a more comprehensive understanding of complex issues, uncover novel opportunities and mitigate potential risks when approaching adaptive challenges. To do that, organisations will need to rely on leaders who can become role models and show others how to engage into collaborative reflections, generate alternatives, experiment in small ways, monitor outcomes of changes introduced or identified and to learn quickly from what does or does not work. The role of those who influence working climate, values and norms (e.g. leaders, HRD practitioners, coaches) will have a considerable impact on how everyone engages in developmental conversations and increase their capacity to reflect on complexity. As Watkins and Marsick (2021) noted, the learning culture is a proxy measure for learning-rich environments, enhances performance and goal achievement because interdependencies support both development and accomplishment.

Promoting collective leadership (Croft et al., 2022; Eva et al., 2021) as an alternative to traditional leadership can also encourage leaders to further engage in IWL, as being a collective leader implies the realisation that organisations are complex systems composed of many interconnected pieces and that solving complex problems depends on the capacity to collaboratively engage with different perspectives and sets of expertise (Watkins and Marsick, 2021). However, getting to this awareness is not always easy. Often leaders can be embedded in rigid or bureaucratic structures or find it challenging to venture beyond their functional area where their expertise is understood and valued.

Working across time and space using technology to communicate and collaborate will only continue to grow in the future. There is an opportunity for organisations to create and experiment with a range of virtual collaborative tools facilitated by technology that builds trust and engagement without face-to-face interactions. The example of journaling we presented as one of the IWL tools is one approach to be considered within the current complex work environments as it provides team members with the collaborative space to reflect on their development, to keep track of progress, optimise communication between them and achieve a higher level of transparency when dealing with adaptive challenges. Our other example shows that conversations helping team members to critically reflect, challenge and revisit assumptions can contribute to breaking down the silo mentality and develop system thinking.

More research is needed to better understand how to rethink and support tried-and-true IWL for virtual and fluid environments. Recognising the importance of creating a deep level of interconnectedness across individuals and systems and embracing learning and meaning making as a truly co-emergent process through mutual and ever-changing interactions will be more important than ever (Faller et al., 2022). Creating a culture where IWL is being valued and embraced, developing the kinds of learning that will make a strategic impact on the organisation: these are among the challenges HRD practitioners need to embrace to encourage and support IWL as one of several ways to capture the power of embedded developmental relationships.

Undoubtedly, more research and conversations will also be needed to examine how IWL approaches can match the complexity of the new environment. One cannot simply take training and put it online and think this is adequate. We have to imagine and create new paradigms of how people might learn differently in a digital and artificial-intelligence-dominated landscape. We should acknowledge there is an interconnectedness now to everything; we are connected globally and transparently in ways never seen before. Thus, we need to learn in a relationship with others. Whatever comes our way, we believe informal learning will adapt to meet it.