Learning-oriented leadership in hybrid work

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) and related digital technologies, coupled with the COVID-19 pandemic and the green transformation, has significantly reshaped the nature of work, necessitating new approaches to workplace learning (Harlin, 2024; Karlsson et al., 2025; Khatun et al., 2024). One prominent feature of this transformation is hybrid work, a blend of on-site and remote working (Chaudhury and Deng, 2022; Jyoti et al., 2025; Rigolizzo, 2023; Williams and Shaw, 2025). While hybrid work offers flexibility, it reduces physical proximity, potentially disrupting spontaneous learning moments (Derrick et al., 2022; Oppong Peprah, 2024). Derrick et al. (2022) emphasise that informal interactions, which are crucial for problem-solving and knowledge sharing, are challenging to replicate in digital environments. Employees frequently miss impromptu exchanges, such as hallway conversations or quick feedback from colleagues, which impacts learning in hybrid work (Zajac et al., 2022).

In this paper, hybrid work is defined as a working arrangement in which employees alternate between being physically present in a traditional workplace and working remotely, such as from home or other third-party locations, such as coworking spaces or cafés. This arrangement combines aspects of both remote work and office-based work, enabling teams to meet in person while also collaborating digitally (Hopkins and Bardoel, 2023). In traditional, office-based work settings, managers’ leadership is crucial for fostering continuous workplace learning, enabling employees to develop and maintain up-to-date competence (Ellström and Ellström, 2018; Hein and Urban, 2025; Hillberg Jarl, 2025; Lundqvist et al., 2023; Wallo, 2008; Wallo et al., 2022). In this paper, we denote this leadership as learning-oriented leadership (Wallo, 2008). Learning-oriented leadership involves managers facilitating employee learning directly through interactions with employees, and indirectly by cultivating a learning culture and implementing programs, systems and structures that support learning (Wallo et al., 2024).

However, we still know little about how learning-oriented leadership is enacted in hybrid work. Existing research has primarily focused on traditional, co-located environments, leaving a gap in our understanding of how managers adapt their leadership to support employee learning when interactions are increasingly mediated by technology.

In hybrid work, learning-oriented leadership can take different forms. Informal learning processes can become more challenging to foster due to reduced opportunities for spontaneous knowledge exchange and sharing. At the same time, hybrid work may create new conditions for learning, such as increased autonomy, access to diverse knowledge sources and opportunities for digital collaboration across organisational boundaries. These evolving workplace dynamics place greater demands on leaders to actively cultivate environments that support learning. Thus, learning-oriented leadership becomes especially relevant, as it involves leader behaviours that deliberately encourage reflection, feedback and peer learning, while also using digitally mediated learning activities to facilitate meaningful interaction. For example, Mühlenbrock et al. (2023) argue that leaders must create structured opportunities for social exchange, such as virtual mentoring and collaborative problem-solving forums, to sustain and even enhance learning that might otherwise occur more informally in traditional settings.

Considering this background, the paper aims to advance the understanding of how learning-oriented leadership is shaped by the conditions of hybrid work and what this implies for promoting workplace learning. The research questions guiding the paper are as follows:

This paper’s contribution lies in advancing essential knowledge about how learning-oriented leadership unfolds in hybrid work. As hybrid work introduces both new challenges and opportunities for learning, managers must adapt how they promote informal learning, deliver feedback and nurture a supportive learning climate. Without a deeper understanding of how such leadership practices are reshaped in digitally mediated and geographically dispersed work environments, organisations risk neglecting key factors underpinning employee growth and competence development.

While previous studies on leadership in hybrid or digital settings have often focused on performance outcomes, technology adoption, or communication challenges, few have examined how leadership practices evolve specifically to support informal and situated learning. This study addresses that gap by offering a detailed exploration of how managers enact learning-oriented leadership to promote employee development in hybrid work. By focusing on learning rather than operational efficiency, this research makes a distinct contribution to the fields of workplace learning and HRD.

The paper is structured as follows: First, we present the key concepts and theoretical background that underpin the study. Next, the methodology section outlines the research approach, including the methods used for data collection and analysis. This section is followed by the findings section, where the results of the analysis are presented. Finally, the paper concludes with a discussion that includes practical implications and suggestions for future research.

The introduction of hybrid work has changed the conditions for workplace learning, particularly informal learning, which relies heavily on spontaneous social interactions. Informal learning, responsible for most workplace development, has been disrupted by the reduced physical proximity inherent in hybrid work (Derrick et al., 2022; Gerards et al., 2021; Zajac et al., 2022). The absence of hallway conversations or quick feedback moments affects knowledge-sharing and problem-solving (Derrick et al., 2022). Rather than viewing hybrid work as a flawed imitation of the office, Busboom and Boulus-Rodje (2024) conceptualise it as a third space. They introduce the term compensation work to describe the additional effort involved in recreating familiar aspects of physical collaboration. However, this approach risks overlooking the unique opportunities and dynamics of hybrid work. Leaders play a critical role in mitigating this by organising structured social exchanges, such as virtual mentoring and collaborative problem-solving (Mühlenbrock et al., 2023). Moreover, access to flexible, AI-driven platforms can enhance informal learning by offering tailored, on-demand training opportunities (Gerards et al., 2021; Rigolizzo, 2023).

Technology plays a crucial role in enabling creativity and collaboration in hybrid work environments. Chaudhury and Deng (2022) emphasise the significance of trust and digital platforms in promoting group cohesion and driving creative outcomes. However, poorly designed tools risk isolating employees and hindering collaboration. Suravi (2024) notes that hybrid work reshapes personalised learning by promoting microlearning and flexible, digitally based platforms. This shift underscores the importance of empowering employees to take ownership of their learning within digitally supported environments, which are embedded in a broader learning culture.

Organisations can optimise learning outcomes by balancing synchronous (e.g. virtual meetings) and asynchronous (e.g. collaborative documents) interactions (Chaudhury and Deng, 2022; Zajac et al., 2022). Maintaining a culture of informal learning remains essential; virtual “water cooler” moments can create space for spontaneous connection and knowledge sharing (Mühlenbrock et al., 2023). Leaders can further support learning by embedding reflection and feedback into daily workflows, helping learning behaviours flourish in hybrid settings (Derrick et al., 2022).

Alves and Thiebaut (2024) describe how working conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic gave rise to a “learning biotope”, that is an environment rich in digital learning resources and opportunities for autonomy. While this encouraged self-directed learning, it lacked the structures needed to support informal and peer-based learning. The authors argue that sustaining a learning culture requires both organisational support and individual initiative.

Yet, hybrid work can also present challenges. Oppong Peprah (2024) highlights how it can disrupt team learning by weakening group cohesion, limiting knowledge exchange and complicating onboarding processes through asynchronous workflows. Wiatr (2025) identifies “managerial presence” as a key enabler for hybrid teams, defined by availability, attentiveness, flexibility and proactivity. These behaviours enable managers to meet individual needs, provide timely support and promote engagement and motivation in hybrid environments.

The paper draws on theories about workplace learning, a broad concept encompassing both formal and informal processes through which employees develop their competence while engaged in work activities (Billett, 2001; Billett and Choy, 2013; Ellström, 2001). Learning in the workplace is not a separate activity from work; rather, it is embedded in daily tasks and interactions with colleagues, supervisors and organisational structures (Billett, 2001).

Ellström (2001) distinguishes between two primary modes of learning: adaptive learning and developmental learning. Adaptive learning focuses on identifying and resolving problems through incremental adjustments rather than radical change. It is commonly associated with continuous improvement efforts, where gradual refinement of products, services, or work practices is key. This type of learning supports employees in recognising issues and making targeted improvements.

In contrast, developmental learning involves a more critical examination of the underlying assumptions and core values that may give rise to problems. It reflects a deeper level of learning that can lead to significant shifts in how individuals understand and perform their work. Such transformative learning often lays the foundation for innovative approaches, products, or services (Ellström, 2001, 2006; Martin et al., 2018).

Importantly, developmental learning is inherently more difficult to promote than adaptive learning, regardless of work context. Prior research indicates that while managers may succeed in supporting incremental, adaptive improvements, they often encounter substantial constraints when attempting to foster critical reflection and innovation. For instance, first-line managers frequently report being overwhelmed by administrative duties, performance demands and short-term efficiency pressures, which limit the space for encouraging more reflective and exploratory forms of learning (Wallo et al., 2013).

Adaptive and developmental learning are, therefore, interrelated but unevenly realised in practice. Their relevance and application vary depending on situational demands, yet both contribute uniquely to organisational learning and improvement (Ellström, 2011). For managers, the challenge lies in balancing these logics, that is, maintaining performance while also creating opportunities for developmental learning that enables long-term innovation.

Research suggests that the workplace affordances, that is, opportunities and constraints for learning, are central to shaping workplace learning outcomes (Billett, 2001). These affordances include access to meaningful tasks, collaborative environments and guidance from managers and peers. At the same time, workplace learning is highly dependent on employees’ engagement and willingness to participate actively in learning opportunities (Billett, 2001).

Workplace learning can also be conceptualised as occurring at different levels: individual, group and organisational learning (Crossan et al., 1999). Individual learning concerns the acquisition of skills and knowledge development among employees. Group learning refers to shared cognitive processes and problem-solving efforts within teams, while organisational learning involves changes in routines, structures and cultures to enhance collective competence (Martin et al., 2024).

Given the central importance of workplace learning for individual development and organisational competence supply (Harlin et al., 2022), learning-oriented leadership plays a key role in modern organisations (Döös et al., 2015; Hillberg Jarl, 2024; Wallo, 2008).

The concept of learning-oriented leadership emerged in the late 1990s and early 2000s through research in human resource development (HRD) and work-life pedagogy. It began with Ellinger’s (1997) study of how managers perceive and support learning in organisations. Subsequent contributions by Beattie (2002), Amy (2005), Coetzer (2005) and Wallo (2008) further developed the concept.

In this paper, we draw on a definition by Wallo et al. (2024). According to this definition, learning-oriented leadership refers to how managers support employee learning directly and indirectly. Directly, it involves manager-employee interaction in which managers take on roles as supporters, educators, confronters and role models. As a supporter, the manager encourages employees to take on new challenges. As an educator, the manager instructs or facilitates reflection. As a confronter, the manager pushes employees outside their comfort zones. As a role model, the manager leads by example, for instance, by engaging in learning activities themselves.

In addition, learning-oriented leadership encompasses indirect efforts to promote learning by fostering a culture that values learning, ensuring access to developmental resources, and implementing systems, programs and structures that support learning (Coetzer et al., 2019; Lundqvist et al., 2023; Wallo et al., 2024).

Learning-oriented leadership shares conceptual ground with transformational leadership in the Full Range of Leadership Theory (FRLT) (Bass, 1985; Bass and Riggio, 2006), particularly the intellectual stimulation dimension, where leaders encourage critical thinking, problem-solving and knowledge-sharing (Lundqvist et al., 2023). However, it also extends beyond transformational leadership by emphasising the confronter role as essential for promoting learning. This role is more similar to transactional leadership, which is typically not associated with learning in Bass’s FRLT (Bass, 2000).

In addition, learning-oriented leadership differs from the FRLT by accentuating situational adaptability, that is, leadership is shaped by contextual factors (Coetzer et al., 2023; Drago-Severson, 2012; Ellinger et al., 1999; Ellinger and Bostrom, 2002; Hillberg Jarl, 2025; Wallo et al., 2022; Warhurst, 2013) and by the types of learning activities used in the organisation (Wallo et al., 2024).

Leaders adapt their behaviours based on internal and external conditions, such as employees’ attitudes towards learning, their own competence and available organisational resources. For instance, leaders are more likely to act as supporters or confronters depending on whether employees are eager, hesitant or indifferent to learning (Coetzer and Perry, 2008; Wallo et al., 2022). Leaders’ knowledge of the organisation also influences their ability to identify and create meaningful learning opportunities, such as through job rotation or collaborative work (Ellinger et al., 1999). Other influencing factors include top management support, time and financial constraints, administrative workload and the design of work organisation (e.g. shift work), as well as broader changes such as digitalisation or organisational restructuring (Csillag et al., 2019; Wallo et al., 2022).

In addition to contextual adaptation, leadership behaviours are linked to the learning activities leaders initiate or facilitate. These range from planned activities, such as formal training and performance reviews, to spontaneous activities embedded in daily work, including impromptu reflection and informal feedback (Wallo, 2017; Warhurst, 2013). Some activities fall in between, being partially planned but still flexible, for example, assigning new tasks, organising peer learning moments, or using staff meetings for reflection (Coetzer et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2021). Importantly, these types of activities often occur in parallel, with spontaneous learning being most frequent due to its integration into daily work and the limited resource demands it entails.

Together, these insights point to a situated understanding of learning-oriented leadership, where leadership practices evolve in response to workplace conditions, the nature of the learning opportunities provided and the learning outcomes.

In sum, this study draws on two interconnected theoretical strands: workplace learning and learning-oriented leadership. Ellström’s (2001, 2006) distinction between adaptive and developmental learning highlights different depths and outcomes of workplace learning, while research on learning-oriented leadership (e.g. Lundqvist et al., 2023; Wallo, 2008; Wallo et al., 2024) shows how managers can support learning both directly and indirectly. In hybrid work, the prevailing type of learning depends on the conditions created, while leadership effectiveness depends on how managers enact their roles to facilitate this type of learning.

Building on these concepts, the study design, as outlined in the following section, was developed to capture how managers describe and enact leadership practices that foster learning under hybrid conditions.

The empirical material for this paper stems from a research project that explores leadership behaviours in hybrid work. This paper draws specifically on data from the project’s first qualitative sub-study. Given the exploratory nature of this study and its focus on the contextual dynamics of leadership, a methodology was required that could move beyond standardised, questionnaire-based approaches (Yukl, 2009).

To this end, we employed a convenience sampling strategy, selecting participants based on their accessibility and relevance to the research focus. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 27 managers from 14 different organisations, spanning the private and public sectors as well as trade unions. This approach was deemed appropriate given the exploratory nature of the study and the aim of capturing insights from managers actively engaged in organisational practice. Among the participants, 17 were women and 10 were men. Most held a university degree (n = 24), while the remaining three had completed upper secondary school.

A common feature observed in the workplaces of our interview participants was a hybrid model that combined office-based and remote work, primarily from home. The degree of hybridisation varied among organisations: some required employees to work in the office on fixed days, while others allowed managers to decide their own work locations and schedules. This arrangement facilitated regular in-person meetings while ensuring continuous digital collaboration.

The interviews followed a semi-structured interview guide designed to explore key themes related to leadership, workplace learning and hybrid work. The questions were broad and open-ended, allowing participants to share their own experiences rather than being led by predefined theoretical categories. For example, managers were asked: “Can you describe a typical workday in hybrid work?”, “How do you see the balance between showing trust in employees and following up on their work?” and “What opportunities or challenges do you see for learning and development in hybrid work?”.

The guide also included introductory background questions about role, tenure and work experience, as well as follow-ups on health, well-being and performance in hybrid work. Probing questions such as “Could you tell me more about […] ?” were used to encourage elaboration, clarification and new insights (Brinkmann and Kvale, 2015; Miles et al., 2014). In this way, the guide was developed to align with the purpose and research questions of the study, while maintaining a flexible and inductive approach that allowed new themes to emerge from the participants’ accounts.

All interviews were conducted via Microsoft Teams during working hours and lasted between 40 and 50 min. With informed consent, the interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim.

This study was approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority. The study adhered to ethical principles of voluntary participation, confidentiality and secure data handling. Participants received written and oral information about the study in advance, emphasising their right to withdraw at any time without consequences.

To protect the respondents’ privacy, personal data was pseudonymised and interview transcripts were stored on encrypted servers. Only the research team had access to the data. All responses were aggregated in the final analysis to ensure that individual identities could not be discerned.

The interviews were analysed thematically (Braun and Clarke, 2006), focusing on the interplay between leadership practices, employee learning and digital technology in hybrid work. The analysis used an inductive approach, enabling continuous refinement of themes throughout the study.

The data-driven analysis process involved three phases, corresponding to the six steps outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006):

1. The researchers read and re-read transcripts to develop a deep understanding of the data.

2. The interview data were imported into QSR NVivo for structured analysis. In NVivo, descriptive nodes based on interview themes were used to get a first overall picture of each interview: “Learning activities”, “Why/purpose”, “How”, “Actions to promote learning”.

3. The codes were synthesised into broader themes: “View on learning”, “Learning activities and strategies”, “Lead to promote learning”. These themes are presented in the results section (Table 1).

Throughout the analysis, we prioritised dominant themes and alternative perspectives, ensuring a balanced representation of respondents’ experiences. Direct quotes are included in the findings to provide detailed descriptions of key insights.

This section presents the findings from the interviews, beginning with the managers’ views on learning. It then examines the activities they use to promote employee learning and concludes with findings related to how managers lead, i.e. their learning-oriented leadership behaviours.

The interviews revealed that the managers viewed learning as important and actively sought to strengthen and promote employee learning. They also emphasised the value of building what they termed “collective competence” in the workplace, which is an asset that goes beyond the sum of individual employees’ skills. Supporting employees in using each other’s strengths, working as a team and creating something together was described as a key managerial responsibility. Another aim of learning and competence development was to foster greater employee independence and self-reliance, recognising that a manager cannot oversee everything.

Most managers agreed that digital solutions supported development and learning, offering more opportunities for participation. In addition, some observed that specific individuals appeared more comfortable in digital meetings and more willing to showcase their work or present their achievements than in traditional in-person meetings in a conference room.

The interviews indicated that learning could take various forms, including formal, planned courses and training, as well as informal learning between colleagues in the workplace.

Regarding formal learning, the managers noted that the number of courses and training sessions had increased recently, mainly due to the shift from on-site to online formats. Online courses were seen as time- and cost-efficient, requiring less planning and organisation. They were also described as being more focused, often covering a single topic at a time, which led to shorter and more concise sessions. Courses that worked well in an online format typically addressed “hard facts,” such as new regulations or directives.

The respondents also emphasised that learning and competence development could be effectively supported through a combination of online and on-site methods:

One manager also described that even though the course was online, those who wanted could sit together at the workplace. Pre-recorded lectures were also mentioned as beneficial for learning, as employees could attend when it suited them:

Some managers considered that employees learned more if the course was online. They attended from home, in peace and absorbed new knowledge more effectively. Although most managers found advantages in online courses, one manager also mentioned some negative consequences of online courses for employees’ learning:

The transition from traditional in-person sessions to digital formats applies not only to external, formal courses and training but also to internal, more informal meetings and seminars. One manager mentioned the concept of “microlearning,” describing it as a need-based approach. For instance, if some employees wanted to learn a specific skill, such as a function in an IT system, a digital meeting would be scheduled to review the requested topic. This way of sharing knowledge had now spread throughout the organisation:

To avoid becoming too involved in the details and day-to-day leadership, one manager created various forums where employees could support and help each other. Collaborative competence development was also encouraged during internal meetings, where employees were invited to share their assignments and work tasks as part of an ongoing learning process. Another example of how managers could promote learning was by arranging short-term exchanges of employees between departments within the organisation or by organising visits to other organisations:

Another strategy was to let an employee shadow a more experienced colleague, learn from their experience and apply that knowledge in their own work. One manager noted that competence development and learning had received “a boost” thanks to the new opportunities offered by online courses and that many employees were now regularly participating in courses and conferences:

When new employees were introduced, various learning activities were mentioned. Several managers organised internal online meetings or training sessions, where a senior or more experienced employee would walk through specific work steps. This could also include recorded lectures or short videos posted on the intranet for newly hired or junior employees.

Competence development also occurred through external networking, either with colleagues from other departments or from different organisations. One manager described how employees could book dedicated sessions to discuss systematic work environment management and how to handle various workplace issues with peers from other organisations. By planning and setting aside time for these exchanges, employees were able to benefit from one another’s experiences and offer mutual support. Since these meetings often occurred online, it was easy to explain and demonstrate things by sharing screens.

Another approach to learning and development at work was through planned workshops. One manager described this as a “double win” where employees shared new knowledge and gave each other advice. In this way, networking contributed to the collegial learning process.

Moreover, hybrid work generally improved collaboration. One manager noted that cooperation with different support functions, such as HR, had become more effective as a result. Shared processes were now discussed more frequently, leading to greater efficiency in everyday work:

Some managers also noted an increase in spontaneous learning. Many employees took the initiative to develop their competence independently, for example, by reading literature on their own. This may be partly explained by employees feeling they had more time when working from home. Furthermore, the knowledge they acquired was often shared among colleagues, who recommended books, articles, seminars, or conferences to one another:

However, one manager described collegial learning as “a bit tricky.” When team members are familiar with each other, it is usually clear who to approach with specific questions. For newly hired employees, however, it can be challenging to know whom to turn to for support. One solution was to introduce new employees at the office and encourage other team members to be present during these introductions. Another manager shared a similar challenge related to hybrid work:

Competence development occurs in various ways, highlighting that individuals learn in different ways. This diversity is also evident in how managers lead to promote learning. According to several managers, the most effective way to encourage learning is to allow employees to experiment and learn through hands-on experience. Supporting employee development may involve assigning tasks or responsibilities that are slightly more challenging than what they have previously managed.

Some managers believed that digitalisation and new technology had contributed to new opportunities for promoting learning, as well as spreading and sharing knowledge. One common strategy to promote learning was to support various collaborations among employees to ensure there were opportunities in different contexts where experiences and knowledge could be shared. One manager even reflected critically on their own approach, questioning what aspects were truly most important for supporting learning:

One manager emphasised the importance of being encouraging, particularly in motivating employees to pursue various courses. However, they also made it clear that the employees are responsible for planning their learning, ensuring that it does not disrupt ongoing operations:

Another strategy mentioned was the importance of managers setting a good example by attending courses themselves. This sent a strong message that competence development and lifelong learning were valued. One manager emphasised that this commitment was shared across the entire organisation:

Creating a “safe workplace” where employees feel comfortable asking questions and seeking help when they don’t know something was also highlighted as essential:

Finally, managers agreed that allocating time and budget for competence development sends a clear message: learning is vital to the organisation’s success.

Taken together, these findings show that managers both adapt existing leadership behaviours and develop new practices to foster learning in hybrid settings. In the discussion, we relate these practices more explicitly to theories of workplace learning and learning-oriented leadership.

This study set out to explore learning-oriented leadership in hybrid work. The findings demonstrate that while many of the core principles of learning-oriented leadership remain relevant, such as encouraging learning, enabling experimentation and fostering a safe climate, these practices are reshaped by the specific conditions of hybrid work. This aligns with Derrick et al. (2022), who highlight how hybrid work alters the informal foundations that traditionally support workplace learning.

Furthermore, this study adds nuance to Ellström’s (2001, 2011) distinction between adaptive and developmental learning by illustrating how hybrid work environments skew leadership practices towards the adaptive mode. Many managers in this study adopted structured digital learning formats, such as microlearning, online courses and virtual knowledge exchanges, that facilitate incremental competence development. These findings align with Suravi’s (2024) observation that hybrid work has accelerated the adoption of microlearning and flexible, digitally based learning platforms. While effective for supporting task-specific competence, these approaches often lacked the reflective depth and critical examination of assumptions characterising developmental learning. Although hybrid environments promote autonomy, they often lack the peer-based structures needed to support deeper, collaborative learning (Alves and Thiebaut, 2024). This suggests a potential underutilisation of hybrid work’s affordances for transformative learning, raising questions about how leaders might more deliberately cultivate spaces for critical dialogue, co-creation and experimentation in dispersed settings.

Furthermore, the findings enrich the framework of learning-oriented leadership (Wallo et al., 2024) by demonstrating how hybrid work necessitates a shift in enactment of the leadership roles of supporter, educator, confronter and role model. In digital contexts, leaders become more reliant on indirect mechanisms, like designing learning systems or legitimising time for peer learning, rather than face-to-face interaction. For instance, the “educator” role is often mediated through digital content or delegated to peer forums. In contrast, the “confronter” role appears muted in remote settings where challenging employees in real time is more difficult. These shifts point to a reconceptualization of learning-oriented leadership in hybrid work, emphasising distributed agency, infrastructure-building and contextual sensitivity as core leadership practices (cf. Wiatr, 2025). This extends existing theory by foregrounding how digital mediation reshapes the enactment and visibility of leadership itself.

In traditional office settings, learning-oriented leadership is often enacted through spontaneous interactions, hands-on guidance and informal knowledge-sharing (Lundqvist et al., 2023; Wallo et al., 2024). However, hybrid work introduces new complexities. Managers in our study emphasised the need to create structured formats, such as microlearning sessions, online courses and digital peer exchange forums, to compensate for the lack of everyday proximity. This supports Busboom and Boulus-Rodje (2024) notion of “compensation work”, i.e. the deliberate efforts required to replicate the informal learning affordances of physical offices in digital settings. It also echoes Mühlenbrock et al.’s (2023) argument that leadership in hybrid work requires intentional efforts to recreate social affordances for informal learning.

The managers’ strategies, including virtual mentoring, recorded lectures and facilitated workshops, indicate a shift towards more planned and technology-supported learning. While these approaches often increased accessibility and flexibility (Rigolizzo, 2023), some managers noted a lack of balance between online and in-person formats, suggesting that the pendulum had swung too far in favour of digital learning. This underscores the need for synchronised, blended learning strategies that combine the best of both worlds.

Our findings suggest that formal learning (Billett, 2001) has become increasingly prominent in hybrid work environments, driven by the efficiency and scalability of digital tools. However, the study also points to a paradox: while digital formats increase participation, they may simultaneously erode the social fabric that supports informal learning. Managers noted that informal exchanges, which are essential for building collective competence, are harder to sustain when teams are distributed.

The distinction between adaptive and developmental learning (Ellström, 2001) is valid here. Many of the described learning activities focused on adaptive learning, such as acquiring new knowledge or improving technical skills through online courses. Fewer examples involved developmental learning, i.e. challenging assumptions, co-creating new practices, or learning through shared reflection. This suggests that the transformative potential of hybrid learning environments remains underutilised, particularly in relation to critical, collaborative learning processes. It is important to note, however, that the relative scarcity of developmental learning is not unique to hybrid work. Prior research indicates that managers, even in traditional on-site settings, frequently struggle to create conditions for critical reflection and innovation, as administrative demands and short-term performance pressures often dominate their agendas (Wallo et al., 2013). This highlights that developmental learning is inherently more challenging to facilitate than adaptive learning, though hybrid work further accentuates these difficulties by reducing informal structures for collaboration.

Another important finding is the uneven distribution of learning opportunities. While some employees flourished in digital environments, feeling more confident and engaged, others struggled to connect or access support. Managers also noted that newcomers were particularly disadvantaged in hybrid work, which aligns with Zajac et al.’s (2022) findings about the importance of proximity for orientation and integration. As Alves and Thiebaut (2024) warn, the absence of social and organisational scaffolding can lead to fragmented learning experiences in hybrid contexts.

This raises concerns about fragmentation and the risk of learning asymmetries in hybrid organisations. When informal learning becomes personalised and dependent on individual initiative or digital fluency, it may reinforce existing inequalities. Leaders must therefore actively synchronise learning practices across the organisation and foster shared routines for learning, such as regular reflection meetings or structured onboarding processes.

Finally, the study illustrates how hybrid work reshapes the identity and practice of leadership itself. Managers reported a shift from being present and hands-on to becoming coordinators of learning and development. They relied more on peer learning, structured learning formats and digital infrastructures to support employee development. At the same time, they emphasised the importance of role modelling and protecting time and resources for learning. This suggests that learning-oriented leadership in hybrid work is less about direct influence and more about cultivating enabling structures and legitimising learning as a shared responsibility. As such, it overlaps with indirect leadership behaviours (Wallo et al., 2024) and highlights the need for a distributed leadership model where learning is co-constructed across formal and informal domains.

While these insights highlight the evolving nature of leadership, they also carry implications for practice, which we outline in the following section.

This study offers several practical implications for the fields of workplace learning and HRD, particularly concerning leadership and learning in hybrid work environments. For HRD practitioners and organisational managers, the findings underscore the need to redesign learning strategies to align with the realities of hybrid work. Managers must actively facilitate both formal and informal learning opportunities, recognising that spontaneous, serendipitous learning moments are less likely to occur in dispersed work settings. Structured interventions, such as microlearning modules, digital peer forums and hybrid workshops, should be embedded into daily workflows and tailored to the diverse needs of employees.

Moreover, HR departments are encouraged to invest in robust digital learning infrastructures that not only ensure accessibility but also foster social interaction, reflection and collaboration. Learning-oriented leadership in hybrid contexts requires coordinated practices that promote equitable access to development opportunities across roles, departments and geographical locations. This includes inclusive onboarding processes, support for managers in modelling learning behaviours and allocating time and resources for continuous development.

An additional practical benefit of research within this area is its potential to inform leadership development programs by identifying the competence most critical for leading in hybrid work. It also provides HR with evidence-based insights to evaluate and adapt existing leadership models to reflect better the distributed, digitally mediated nature of contemporary work. Finally, by highlighting the importance of synchronised leadership and learning strategies, the study supports broader organisational efforts to build resilient, adaptive and learning-oriented cultures.

This study theoretically advances our understanding of learning-oriented leadership by extending it into the hybrid work domain. It calls for revisiting existing leadership models to incorporate the affordances and constraints of digital environments and to account for the increasingly indirect and distributed nature of leadership in hybrid work.

This study acknowledges several limitations that open avenues for future research. First, the findings are based on qualitative data collected in a specific national context, Sweden, which may limit their generalisability. While the identified themes are likely relevant beyond this setting, further research is needed to explore how cultural, sectoral and organisational differences shape learning-oriented leadership in hybrid work.

Second, although the study provides a rich account of leadership practices, it does not evaluate their effectiveness in terms of concrete learning outcomes. Future research employing longitudinal or mixed-method designs could yield more robust evidence on how specific leadership behaviours impact employee learning and performance over time.

Third, while the study enhances our understanding of learning-oriented leadership in hybrid contexts, it does not address how managers develop the competence to lead in such environments. This represents a significant gap in the literature. Future studies could investigate how managerial learning unfolds in response to the evolving demands, routines and expectations of hybrid work.

Fourth, the study focuses exclusively on managerial perspectives. Including employee viewpoints would offer a more holistic understanding of how leadership practices either facilitate or hinder learning in hybrid settings.

Finally, further research is necessary to explore the integration of digital tools, including AI-driven learning platforms, virtual reality and collaborative applications, into leadership practices. In particular, future studies could examine how these technologies support the balance between synchronous and asynchronous learning opportunities.

This study contributes to the growing body of research on workplace learning and leadership in the evolving world of hybrid work. By exploring how managers enact learning-oriented leadership, we offer new insights into how learning is organised, supported and experienced in the hybrid workplace.

The findings suggest that while hybrid work presents new challenges for informal learning and knowledge sharing, it also provides managers with opportunities to create innovative learning activities that are flexible, scalable and more tailored to individual and group needs. Managers should ensure that there are opportunities for reflection and discussion to spread new knowledge and experiences, without reducing their leadership role to that of a mere administrator of learning. However, leadership practices must be recalibrated to ensure alignment, inclusion and integration of learning across physical and digital workspaces.

As organisations continue to adapt to hybrid work as the new normal, the development of learning-oriented leadership that is both intentional and flexible will be critical for sustaining employee competence, engagement and innovation.