Content uploaded by Elena Antonacopoulou
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Elena Antonacopoulou on Jul 13, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
CHAPTER 16
Working Life Learning:
Learning-in-Practise
Professor Elena P. Antonacopoulou
Senior Fellow of the Advanced Institute of Management Research
Professor of Organisational Behaviour and Director of GNOSIS
Management Division
University of Liverpool Management School
Chatham Building
Liverpool
L69 7ZH
UNITED KINGDOM
Phone: +44 (0)151 795 3727
Fax: +44 (0)151 795 3001
Email: E.Antonacopoulou@liverpool.ac.uk
Antonacopoulou, E.P., Jarvis, P., Andersen, V., Elkjaer, B. and Hoeyrup, S. (forthcoming -
2005) (Eds) Learning, Working and Living: Mapping the Terrain of Working Life Learning,
London: Palgrave.
Introduction
If learning is an integral part of living; if working life demands learning as a condition of
survival; if learning is an essential human condition, why is it that we have such difficulty
engaging with the phenomenon? The intimate relationship between learning, working and
living is one that does not easily lend itself to analysis partly because it is embedded in the
dynamics of our human engagement with the challenges of living and working. Learning is
both a process and product, a cause, a consequence and context in which emerging life and
work patterns co-evolve and in turn organise learning. Therefore, learning is immensely rich
and no one perspective is sufficient to capture fully the multiple connections and possibilities
that it creates and from which it emerges. Yet, if we seek to move the learning debate forward
we must learn to work with and live with the complexity of learning in ways that we can
usefully engage and employ it as a driving force helping us address many of the challenges
working and living present us with. Only then can learning become a central feature to our
life’s journey. Only then can working be lived as a learning journey too.
This final chapter explores these complex interconnections and paves the way for a
repositioning of learning, working and living in the context of organisational complexity. This
is intended to provide a coherent framework for summarising the discussion in the previous
chapters and at the same time pave the way forward for future research into learning, working
and living in work organisations. The discussion begins with a brief overview of our current
approaches in engaging with the dynamics of learning, working and living. Attention is drawn
to our tendency to look for outcomes like change as evidence of the ongoing co-evolution of
learning, working and living. The discussion however, shows how these modes of thinking
are limiting our capacity to fully engage with the complexity of learning as an integral part of
living and working. The section, which follows introduces a more dynamic way of engaging
with learning complexity highlighting inter-connectivity, diversity self-organisation and
politics as key neglected dimensions in the learning debate. These dimensions will be
analysed drawing on the main principles of complexity science and a new conceptualisation
of learning as a complex social system will be provided. Based on this re-conceptualisation,
the notion of learning-in-practise will be introduced as a new avenue for future research in
learning. The main principles of practise and practising are discussed in relation to the way
learning is enacted in modes of living and working. The chapter concludes with a review of
the main implications for future research in learning as a mode of living and working in
complex social arrangements such as organisations.
Learning, Living, Working as Change Routines
Learning, working and living demand change. This is a message echoed by several
contributions in this book (see Elmholdt; Laursen; Wärvik & Thång this volume), seeking to
capture the dynamic nature of learning as a way of living in work organisations. The need to
capture the dynamics of learning is a long-standing challenge in learning research. There has
therefore, been a tendency to equate learning with change and to present them as
interdependent (Alderfer & Brown, 1975; Friedlander, 1984). For example, Handy (1989:44)
states that: “if change is another word for learning, then the theories of learning will also be
theories of changing”.
1
In relation to work organisations, the relationship between change and learning, has attracted
a lot of attention particularly with the focus on organisations as learning systems (Nevis et al.,
1995; Ulrich et al., 1993; Shrivastava, 1983) and the efforts to respond to an ever changing
environment by creating ‘learning organisations’ (Senge, 1990; Garvin, 1993). Learning is
perceived to be important for surviving the challenge of change (Handy, 1989; Heywood,
1989; Clark, 1991; Lessem, 1993; Dixon, 1994; Cunningham, 1994). For effective change to
take place organisations and individuals must first learn (Argyris, 1993; Finger and Buergin,
1998; Fiol and Lyles, 1985; Huber, 1991; Srivastva et al., 1995). Commentators presenting
the relationship between change and learning in these terms draw from the laws of ecology
and some refer specifically to Ross Ashby’s law of requisite variety (Lessem, 1993; Dixon,
1994). The law of requisite variety states that for an organism/system to survive its rate of
learning must be equal or greater (L ≥ C) than the rate of change in its environment (Ross
Ashby, 1958).
Very few researchers however, see the relationship, the other way round, i.e. learning as
leading to change, although some of the definitions of learning do incorporate an element of
change (Harris and Schwahn, 1961; Knowles, 1973; McLagan, 1978; Klatt et al., 1985). For
example, Cantor (1961:3) argues that “to learn is to change”, while Crow & Crow (1963:1),
suggest that “learning involves change. It is concerned with the acquisition of habits,
knowledge, and attitudes. It enables the individual to make both personal and social
adjustments”. David King (1964:6), defines learning as “that which enables the person to
adapt to the changing demands of the environment”. However, when reference is made to the
content of change in relation to learning, the tendency is to look for (permanent) modification
in behaviour (Bass and Vaughan, 1969; Argyris, 1982).
Some commentators however, also present a counter argument and suggest that the
relationship between learning and change aims to enhance stability rather than transformation
(Jones, 1995; Cook & Yanow, 1993; Antonacopoulou, 1998; 1999). Empirical studies by
Antonacopoulou (1999; 2004a) confirm this view and show the social, emotional and political
forces at play in the process of learning and changing. Maintaining a degree of stability seems
to be at the core of learning during turbulent conditions. Interestingly, the tendency to limit
learning as a process of preserving than changing the status quo is often dictated by the very
organisational systems, which are meant to encourage learning.
These observations would suggest that we have yet a long way to go before we can more fully
account for the dynamic nature of learning, living and working. Our modes of thinking about
unfolding processes like learning and changing are still restricted in what Ford and Ford
(1994) call a ‘formal logic’. As Ellström (this volume) rightly points out the two dominant
logics of learning (focusing on performance or on development) fundamentally affect the
space for learning at work. We therefore, need to embrace alternative modes of thinking that
permit us to re-conceptualise unfolding processes like learning and changing. We need to
move beyond conceptualisations of learning and changing as stable patterns of routines and
practices. We need to embrace more fully the emergent, self-organising practices that shape
learning as both a product and process of diverse activities, structures, artefacts in the way
these are inter-connected to an equally diverse and disperse group of social actors with
multiple identities and agendas.
Orlikowski (1996) argues for the need to approach (organizational) change as ongoing
improvisation as people in the organization engage with novel and unexpected situations.
Likewise, Feldman (2000) suggests that the potential for change is always present as long as
2
social agents perform their routines and respond to the outcomes of previous actions.
Therefore, rather than a view of change as a programmatic and punctuated process often to
unfold as a grandiose event, change can be explored as a necessary biological condition of
living which emerges continually and in an unpredictable way out of ongoing interactions
between social agents and their structures.
Tsoukas and Chia (2002), reflect a similar view in relation to organisational change and argue
that rather than viewing change as a property of organization, as something that happens
inside or in relation to it, our analysis of change should start with the assumption that change
is ontologically prior to organization as it is the very condition of possibility for organization
to happen. Hence, as Tsoukas and Chia (2002) point out, organization is a secondary
accomplishment, in a double sense: organization results from attempting to dominate or order
that flux, and is a pattern that comes out of change. As Chia and King (1998: 466 original
emphasis) put it, “reality is change”, there exists a never-ending process of assembling,
dissembling and reassembling, through which ‘entities’ are continually made and re-made.
Therefore, accounting for this ongoing process of emergence and evolution is perhaps where
our attention in learning research needs to be refocusing. For if changing is an integral part of
learning, living and working we need to develop both conceptual and methodological tools
for engaging with these unfolding happenings we call learning and change. This also means
that our attention needs to move beyond concrete evidence of learning and changing which
focus on behaviour or other action outcomes. Instead, we need to find ways of engaging with
changing routines as the emerging patterns of connection between different dimensions of
learning that create the possibility for learning. In this context, one way of repositioning
change in relation to learning is by suggesting that it is in change that changing is possible.
The change process enables us to remain open to the multiplicity of possibilities in change
and in changing. One could say that a similar view could be applied to our re-
conceptualisation of learning.
In pursuing this challenge we need to first carefully reflect on the range of disciplinary
backgrounds which inform the learning debate and take stock of their fundamental
epistemological and ontological assumptions about learning. A multiplicity of disciplinary
perspectives have been documented as informing the learning debate (Easterby-Smith, 1997)
drawing predominantly on traditions of psychology, sociology, philosophy and anthropology.
These different disciplinary perspectives have coloured and represented learning in different
ways drawing attention to different aspects of learning including: behaviour (Pavlov, 1927;
Skinner, 1971), cognition (Ausubel, 1985), motivation (Rogers, 1969; Hilgard & Bower,
1975); experience (Kolb, 1984) and action (Revans, 1982; Marsick, & O’Neil, 1999).
If we are to come closer to capturing and representing the richness of the learning
phenomenon we need to make a concerted effort to integrate these diverse perspectives as
they reveal different aspects of learning. Several chapters in this book show the possibilities
of connecting diverse perspectives (see Elkjaer & Wahlgreen; Miettinen & Virkkunen; this
volume).
If we are to integrate various perspectives of learning and to fully embrace learning
complexity we need to engage with different modes of thinking that enable us to make the
necessary connections. Cooper and Law’s (1995) ‘distal’ and ‘proximal’ thinking modes,
provide a useful means of organising these different perspectives. These modes of thinking
3
explore the implications of emphasizing substance or process and sensitise us to the tensions
embedded in processes that seek to connect potentially opposing dimensions.
‘Distal’ thinking emphasises outcomes of thought and action and assumes the existence of
clear and unambiguous boundaries between perspectives and positions. This logic of
differentiation distinguishes process from outcome, learning from working and assumes a
hierarchy between the separated categories. Being epistemologically realist, this mode of
thinking un-problematically considers that such locatable structures or categories can be
measured and represented, provided the ‘right’ methodologies are used so as to let the facts
‘speak out’ for themselves.
‘Proximal’ thinking, on the other hand, emphasizes integration and connectivity. It focuses on
the unfolding and ‘unfinished’ nature of events and does not seek closure but strives for the
never ending, always partial and precarious process of learning in search of the unknown.
Therefore, instead of boundaries or categories there are different possibilities.
Antonacopoulou et al. (2004) point out that organisational change and renewal conceptualised
using a proximal logic can be conceptualised as a process of interpenetrating, interlocking,
mobile and non-locatable associations. Proximal modes of thinking therefore, encourage us to
explore interconnections and interdependencies rather than tensions, divisions and
differences. Even oppositional dimensions meet in this mode of thinking.
This mode of thinking is consistent with ‘trialectic logic’ (Ichazo, 1976; Horn, 1983; Soja,
1997). Trialectics is an alternative logic beyond formal and dialectic logic, which proposes
that learning occurs through attraction to different possibilities. Learning, therefore, does not
only result from a synthesis of potentially opposing perspectives as suggested in dialectics or
formal logics of change. Instead, learning can also emerge as different connections and
possibilities are explored. Learning therefore, emerges as a space/context where these
possibilities can be contained and it is also a process and product of a multiplicity of
connections (Antonacopoulou, 2000a; 2002; Antonacopoulou & Chiva, 2005). Ford and Ford
(1994) understand that trialectics as a logic is strongly related to the science of complexity.
The science of complexity might provide a new avenue for rethinking learning. We explore
this possibility in the section which follows by identifying the key dimensions of learning as a
complex social system.
Learning as a Complex Social System
Although complexity science has its roots in the physical sciences it is increasingly employed
to understand social phenomena, including organizations (Dooley et al., 2003; Ofori-Dankwa
& Julian, 2001) and their social complexity (Antonacopoulou & Chiva, 2005) as well as
specific management issues such as: strategic management (Stacey, 1993), strategic change
(Stacey, 1995; Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997) innovation management (Cheng & Van de Ven,
1996) and design management (Chiva, 2004). It is also penetrating into adult education
debates (Fenwick, 2003) and more recently organisational learning debates (Antonacopoulou
& Chiva, 2005).
It is beyond the scope of this discussion to provide a review of the main principles of
complexity science (for such reviews see Antonacopoulou & Chiva, 2005; Mitleton-Kelly,
2003; Tsoukas, 1998). It is important to clarify however, that complexity science sets out to
devise mechanisms to create and maintain complexity, and to produce tools for its description
4
and analysis (Simon, 1996). Complexity science covers many fields of scientific research
including chaos theory, the study of fractals and the idea of complex adaptive systems (CAS).
The ideas of CAS enable us to understand system behaviour in relation to simple actions that
may create multiple effects as interacting 'agents' follow rules and influence their local and
global environments (Sherman & Schultz 1998). One of the most important characteristics of
CAS systems is their capacity to learn (Gell-Mann, 1994; Stacey, 1995, 1996). Previous
research also shows that CAS ideas are relevant in identifying the essential factors that
facilitate organisational learning (Chiva, 2003).
Three key principles of complexity science will be employed here to illustrate dimensions of
learning that the current learning debate does not fully account for; Inter-connectivity,
Diversity and Self-organisation. A fourth and equally neglected element in both complexity
and learning debates is politics. The re-conceptualisation of learning as a complex social
system demands that we also pay attention to the socio-political dimension of complexity.
Inter-connectivity
Appreciating the complexity of learning implies a need to understand the inter-connections
among parts of the system that constitute learning (Kauffman, 1995; Axelrod and Cohen,
1999). Inter-connections reflect the fractal nature of learning and demonstrate that a number
of elements combine to create what we understand learning to be. Learning is clearly not only
a cognitive process due to the neural connections it creates as information is connected to
create meaning. By the very process of developing meaning, learning is also a highly
emotional process that influences how we re-act and respond to experiences we encounter.
These very responses generate different psychological states that combined with related
actions in turn are contained within structures and systems defined and negotiated by social
actors. These very social structures by extension provide meaning to social interactions and at
the same time provide an understanding that defines one’s identity in the context of one’s role
in different settings. Therefore, learning as a system is embedded within biological,
psychological, social, cultural, emotional and other viable systems all of which co-exist and
co-evolve in relation to internal and external conditions within an ecosystem.
This point suggests that the institutionalisation of learning processes within any (social)
system are subject to the ongoing institutional transformations which are caused by learning
practices that are instituted by social structures. These very social structures however, are also
constantly negotiated as diverse social forces (agents and structures) interact in embracing the
heterogeneous nature of self-organization. Therefore, if learning is about connecting, inter-
connectivity implies the co-existence of heterogeneous forces (Gell-Mann, 1994).
Diversity
Heterogeneity and diversity are key dimensions of learning. Diversity is what feeds learning
in the way conditions that underpin interactions and connections between systems create
tensions. That multiple dimensions exist in tension is to reflect the multiplicity of possibilities
each dimension can create by being attracted to different possibilities. Tensions dissolve into
the space of possibility and become ex-tensions of current reality. These ex-tensions reflect
the elasticity of processes like learning as multiple possibilities emerge in the way inter-
connections are explored. Inter-connections are reflective of the in-tension to learn which
brings at-tension to some specific possibilities, which are more relevant at different moments
in time. This ultimately suggests that tensions are not only born out of conflict, power and
political differences privileging one mode of reality over another. Instead, tensions are also
attractions to different possibilities. It is the way learning space expands to embrace the new
5
space learning creates. Therefore, learning is “the edge of chaos” in the way the tensions
between competing forces drives the possible connections that can be productively created as
a result of their interaction. Engaged interaction as opposed to instrumental transaction
challenges conditions of power and control in heterogeneous forces. This perspective implies
that the learning space embraces different perspectives and engages actants in a reflective and
reflexive process of learning. In other words, the inherent diversity need not lead to a
synthesis of conflicting perspectives, as per the dialectic logic would suggest. Instead, the
diversity needs to be maintained as this is a source of dynamism driving self-organisation,
which is a basic cause, consequence and context for learning, we frequently refer to as
‘understanding’.
Self-organisation/emergence
That learning connects heterogeneous forces reflects the ultimate quality of learning; surprise.
Learning is not a matter of chance. Learning is part of the stream of practices that constitute
organization. Such practices are reflected in routines (Axelrod and Cohen, 1999; Bechky,
2003); models (Stacey, 1996); strategies (Gell-Mann, 1994); culture (Gell-Mann, 1994); or
the dominant logic (Bettis and Prahalad, 1995). Regularities in practices enables a system to
determine the nature of further experience and make sense of it (Stacey, 1996).
Reconfigurations in practices are a consequence of a process of self-organization and co-
evolution. Learning practice therefore, can be re-conceptualised as a process and product of
the on-going mutations in relation to the governing practices and the way these co-evolve in
time and space in response to endogenous and exogenous forces. Learning does not only arise
as a result of noticeable shifts (formal logic) in practices or re-integration of otherwise
conflicting perspectives (dialectic logic). Learning emerges from multiple possibilities
previously not explored. Such possibilities may be interpreted as surprise or serendipity
depending on whether they are considered relevant or attainable. No single experience
determines learning practice, which is unpredictable and uncontrollable (Goodwin, 1994) due
to its social nature (Elkjaer, 1999).
Learning therefore, emerge as a natural condition of creating new order and self-organization
as diverse elements within a system co-evolve and provide both negative and positive
feedback to support single loop learning (negative feedback) and double loop learning
(positive feedback) (Argyris and Schön, 1978; Stacey, 1996). Essentially, self-organisation is
the process of re-ordering different aspects of learning such that new learning can emerge in a
cyclical process of ongoing evolution. Learning is therefore, not only a mode of connecting, it
is not only an expanse of diverse elements and forces. Learning is also the very foundation of
learning. Learning provides the energy for connections to be made and highlights the gaps
that exist while it also provides the scope for bridging these gaps. Moreover, learning shapes
the emerging models that define the boundaries of action while it also opens up multiple
modes of interaction. Modes of interaction are not only the emerging patterns of thinking and
action, they are also the very social structures that are constantly evolving as social actors
become sensitised to new possibilities for learning. These new possibilities are also central to
self-organization the inherent nature of social systems to renew themselves. This process of
renewal, and on-going transformation is made possible because learning, like change is
endemic to organizing.
Moreover, learning is central to the systemic nature of social evolution because, it highlights
the complex (symplegma – fusion) of connecting forces and the conditions that support their
interaction. This perspective not only captures the fluidity that is so central to social systems,
it also challenges us to explore learning as an integral part of what it means to be a viable
6
system (see Beer, 1972). In other words, self-organization is an inherent mechanism for
reaching internal consistency in relation to external forces. This point is critical as it reaffirms
the political nature of learning.
Politics and Power
The political nature of learning remains one of the biggest challenges in learning research.
Researchers who focus on the political nature of learning (Coopey, 1995; Antonacopoulou,
2000b 2001; Lawrence et al., 2005) highlight mainly the inequalities of power and control,
the tensions between individual and organisational priorities in learning or the different
perspectives and motives underlying learning and knowledge. The politics of learning clearly
illustrate that learning does not take place in a vacuum. Learning is a connection of
possibilities stimulated by the signals received within the context in which learning takes
place. These signals however, are subject to multiple interpretations which define the actions
one takes to make life and work more meaningful. This point however, reveals a key
dimension of the political nature of learning that we have so far neglected partly because we
have paid insufficient attention to the power of learning. The power of learning is at the core
of what makes knowing political, hence the common phrase ‘I know enough to be
dangerous’1. Learning entails responsibility and accountability. It is rather common that
social actors tend to negate the responsibility learning entails by proposing sad excuses about
their inability to learn. These defensive routines as Argyris (2004a) clearly demonstrates in
his research reflect the tendency to be reluctant to learn even when the need to learn is
obvious. This learning state is what Antonacopoulou (1998) describes as ‘mathophobia’,
which is reflective of the power of learning to steer a whole host of emotions. It is also the
powerful connection between learning and what people do in the name of learning.
To learn therefore, is to make viable connections between a diverse set of emerging
dimensions that affect action and interaction with others. To be accountable for one’s actions
is one of the defining characteristics of those who chose to lead a life of learning
(Antonacopoulou & Bento, 2003; Antonacopoulou, 2004b). Responsible action reinforces
that learning only gains meaning in the process of interacting with others. This point reasserts
the social and political significance of learning which reminds us that learning is not a
controllable entity. Rather, learning is better understood as a dynamic complex process,
which is embedded in the ways social forces within systems define the conditions of their
interaction. Therefore, to say learning is social and political is to appreciate the multiple ways
in which learning is manifested in action. How and why people act in relation to their work is
defined by their learning and in turn defines their understanding that subsequently guides
their actions. In short, political learning is reflective of the emerging tensions as different
learning opportunities in life are explored.
All these aspects illustrate the complexity of learning and reinforce the need to explore
learning as a complex social system. It is also these dimensions of learning that we can
usefully draw from as we develop further our understanding of the patterns, practices and
routines that give life to learning-in-practise.
1 My thanks are due to Mr Neil Paterson, Divisional General Manager at Hay Management Consulting Group for
reminding me of this powerful point.
7
Learning-in-practise
The characteristics of learning as a complex social system renew the importance of
embeddedness and situatedness of learning. This is consistent with a growing shift towards a
practice-based view which has been marked in recent years in many different parts of social
science (Schatzki, et al. 2001). In management, this has been reflected in an increasing
concern with what do people actually do as a necessary pre-amble to theorise about
organisations and organising (Barley & Kunda, 2001; Whittington, 2003; Nicolini et al.
2003).
The practice-based view, has been particularly prominent in the organizational learning and
strategy debates where the focus tends to be on the set of actions or activities (praxis of
practitioners) and the mediating objects that constitute part of a practice (Gherardi, 1999;
2000; Johnson et al. 2003). It also emphasises the importance of communities of practitioners
as the space where the social dynamics of learning are negotiated, thus reinforcing principles
of interconnectedness and interdependence between agency and structure, a point which is
central both in structuration theory (Giddens, 1984) and in actor network theory (Law, 1999).
This is also of course consistent with much thinking underpinning the pragmatist framework
that Dewey (see Elkjaer, 2004) introduced in the way he has helped us understand
participation and experience as integral aspects in the learning process. Therefore, these
perspectives encourage us to explore ‘learning-as-practice’ engaging not only actions and
activities in relation to learning, but also the role of language and other cultural and material
artifacts, the nature of social interactions and not least the tacit, situated and almost instinctive
responses of actors in the socially networked worlds in which they live. Conceptualizing
learning as practice (Nicolini et al., 2003), reminds us that practices are influenced by forces
that are both inside and outside of the organisation (Beckhy, 2003; Gherardi & Nicolini,
2002). The co-existence of multiple adjoining and interlocking practices forms the heart of
their evolution. The normal, everyday execution of practice thus, becomes the context of
tensions amongst different practices and the groups that embody them. Learning in relation to
practice is therefore, conceptualised as an activity but also as a flow, a flexible, ever-changing
structure that connects actors, systems and artefacts together. It is from these actions that
routines, processes and practices emerge, and thus, it is important to understand the actions
themselves if we are to understand learning.
A practice focus is also consistent with (and extending) recent contributions which have
stressed that routines (intended as repeated application of a specific practice) can be a source
of change and adaptation (Feldman, 2000; Zollo & Winter, 2002; Feldman & Pentland, 2003).
This of course adds to their established character as creators of stable order and
representations of social truce between different coalitions in the organisation (Nelson &
Winter, 1982; Hannan & Freeman, 1984). This clearly only goes to reinforce the socio-
political dynamics surrounding these repeated enactments. Modifications of routines have
been ascribed to “slippage” or simple adaptation to new and different situations. While both
of these rationales are valid, the actual dynamics of change, with the implied renegotiation of
practice, has not been shown.
By focusing on self-organization we can become more in tune with the tensions amongst
different practices and the groups that embody them. This interlocking of different practices
provides scope for engaging with the fluidity of learning as practice and action becomes
difficult to separate. This opens the possibility that practices behave fractally.
8
Therefore, if we are to understand this self-organizing process in the way agents and their
practices are interconnected, two issues need to be further developed. One is the definition of
practice, which needs to become more ‘elastic’ and multi-faceted. The existing literature,
provides a number of different perspectives on practice as action (Bourdieu, 1980); practice
as structure – language, symbols, tools (Turner, 1994); practice as activity system
(Engeström, Miettinen & Punamäki, 1999); practice as social context (Lave & Wenger,
1991); practice as knowing (Nicolini et al., 2003). The literature on organizational routines, as
a special kind of practice, becomes relevant here, with their conceptions of routines as sources
of efficiency, memory and social order (Nelson & Winter, 1982), flexibility (Adler, Goldoftas
& Levine, 1997; Pentland & Rueter, 1994), connections (Feldman & Rafaeli, 2002), change
(Feldman & Pentland, 2003) and the creation of resources (Feldman, 2004). A full description
of the processes of emergence and self-organization needs simultaneous consideration of
many aspects of practice at the same time.
The second issue that needs theoretical development is the dynamics of the practice. Because
of the multifaceted nature of practice, the existing conceptualization of institutionalizations
(Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Selznick, 1957) are potentially reductive, when talking about
practice. Studies of institutionalization processes in fact tend to emphasize the end result, the
institutionalized practice. More in keeping with the complex social systems view of learning
introduced in the previous section we need to appreciate that there is no end result to this
process, only a continuous flow of what could be referred to as practising. A trivial but
important distinction between practice and practise needs to be made. Whilst practice and
practicing refer to the institutionalization of activities and routines, practise and practising
focus on the holistic and emergent nature of practice.
Therefore, practice conceptualized as a dynamic social process that emerges over time entails
at its core practising attempts which seek to accommodate endogenous and exogenous forces,
brought about by ecological, economic, social and political dynamics. Connections between
practices form the core of learning-in-practise as it describes how practices evolve and how
learning unfolds through the repeated enactments which configure multiple arenas for
negotiations of order, thus involving multiple interdependent stakeholders whose interactions
are supported by the degree of learning collaborations they seek to explore (Antonacopoulou
& Meric, 2005). By focusing on practise and its emergence, it is possible to map the social
network that impacts on the way practices are orchestrated, through practising attempts. By
placing learning practise at the centre of the investigation, it is possible to more fully account
for the (diverse interests) political forces underpinning learning in time and space. A practise-
centred perspective as a new dimension in future learning research can help us potentially
develop methodologies for studying fluidity and interconnectivity.
There is a critical need therefore, to refocus attention in future learning research not only on
the changes resulting from learning practices, but the practising attempts behind those
practices and the changes they entail. This view would call for not only a different mode of
thinking but a different set of epistemological and ontological positions to engage with such
fluidity. Epistemologically this would encourage us to explore the practice of learning and
organizing in different working contexts, to pay attention to the dynamics between individual
agency, social structures and systems embedded in social systems and the complexity of tasks
that shape the focus and orientation of learning and experiences of living in such organized
arrangements. Ontologically, in extending process research (Pettigrew, 1989; Langley, 1999;
Lewis & Grimes, 1999; Scandura & Williams, 2000), instead of studying processes as objects
located in time and space we can embrace the challenge of using the process itself as a
9
foundation for studying the same process. This could be described as a cosmological
approach to studying learning (see Antonacopoulou, 2002).
Therefore, in capturing the dynamic nature in which practices, like learning, emerge, we need
to also explore how a practice is practised i.e. performed, if we are to more fully account for
how learning is the condition for learning in the same way as change is a condition for
changing. The underlying ethos of practise (i.e. the values, beliefs and interpretations
surrounding a practice) is just as critical as understanding the behaviours, activities and
actions that constitute a practice. This view implies that learning one’s practice is not enough,
practising one’s practice is more important (Antonacopoulou, 2004b). One cannot really
master one’s practice unless one is prepared to practise it. In other words, by practising one’s
practice one refines, improves, changes elements of this practice, elements of one’s praxis and
ultimately elements of one’s self (e.g. identity).
In the context of this analysis, practice is not only what one does, what actions they take, but
also how one learns to discover the intricate aspects and meanings of one’s practice, with the
socialisation aspects that are implicit in that. Therefore, learning like practice is a constant
flow of action, that never reaches the stability and rigidity implicit in some of the
institutionally oriented interpretations of practice (e.g. Gherardi, 2000). Instead, as the
analysis in this chapter has sought to suggest, learning-in-practise reflects learning as a
foundation for learning because at the core of practice is practise. This only goes to reinforce
the power of learning as part of living and working and as an extension of learning so that
living is purposeful and working can be meaningful.
Conclusions
This chapter outlined the unfinished and ever evolving relationship between learning, living
and working. As the concluding chapter to this book the objective was to both provide a
summary and integration of the main themes of this edited collection, but more important
through this integration to provide a platform for creating new connections and possibilities
for linking learning with living and working. This latter point set the foundation for re-
conceptualising learning extending the view of learning as practice to embrace the co-
existence of multiple adjoining and interlocking practices which forms the heart of learning as
part of a co-evolving process of living and working. Learning is therefore, conceptualised as a
complex social system where multiple and heterogeneous actants attract each other and create
inter-connections that define the emerging purpose of learning in different contexts as self-
organising attempts expose different political agendas. Therefore, learning is not only a
practice. It is also a practise; a flow, a flexible ever-changing mode of connecting different
practices in ways that enrich learning practice.
This view has several implications for future learning research. For one, the study of learning
needs to advance by recognizing the value of viewing and researching the phenomenon as a
connecting force between people, systems and other processes that define social complexity it
seeks to engage with and represent. Therefore, learning is not only the institutionalisation of
practices but also a reflection of the self-organizing nature of learning routines, processes and
practices. These issues raise a number of methodological implications for future research in
learning, particularly in relation to capturing and social complexity underpinning learning. As
others (Argyris, 2004b; Easterby-Smith et al., 2004) have recently pointed out in outlining
future research directions in learning research, learning needs to describe the universe as
10
completely as possible. For that it is critical that learning scholars reflect on their learning
scholarship and constantly renew their learning practices as they practise with their emerging
ideas about learning. Unless, learning scholars learn how to learn, learning research will not
progress. Hopefully, this edited collection signals the enormity of the task ahead as learning
research is driven by its own efforts to support learning about learning.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the support of the ESRC/EPSRC Advanced Institute of
Management Research under grant number RES-331-25-0024 for this research. Thanks are
also due to Susanne Broekhuizen, Nicola Dragonnetti and Ketu Patnaik at GNOSIS with who
I have been practising some of the ideas presented in this chapter.
11
References
Adler, P.S., Goldoftas, B. & Levine, D. I. (1997) ‘Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study
of model changeovers in the Toyota production system’. Organization Science, 10(1):
43-68
Alderfer, C.P. & Brown L.D. (1975) Learning from Changing: Organisational Diagnosis and
Development, USA: Sage.
Antonacopoulou, E.P. (1998) Developing Learning Managers within Learning Organizations,
in M. Easterby-Smith, L. Araujo and J. Burgoyne (Eds.) Organizational Learning and
the Learning Organization: Developments in Theory and Practice, 214-242, Sage, UK.
Antonacopoulou, E.P. (1999) Individuals’ Responses to Change: The Relationship between
Learning and Knowledge, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol.8, No. 2, 130-
139.
Antonacopoulou, E.P. (2000a) ‘Reconnecting Education, Training and Development through
Learning: A Holographic Perspective’, Education + Training, Special Issue on
‘Vocational Education and Training in SMEs’, 42(4/5): 255-263.
Antonacopoulou, E.P. (2000b) ‘Employee Development through Self-development in three
Retail Banks’, Personnel Review, Special Issue on ‘New Employee Development:
Successful Innovations or Token Gestures?’ 29(4): 491-508.
Antonacopoulou, E.P. (2001) ‘The paradoxical nature of the relationship between training and
learning’, Journal of Management Studies, 38(3): 327-350.
Antonacopoulou, E.P. (2002), Learning as Space: Implications for Organisational Learning,
Manchester Business School Research Paper series, No. 443.
Antonacopoulou, E.P. (2004a) The Dynamics of Reflexive Practice: The Relationship
between Learning and Changing, in M. Reynolds and R. Vince (Eds) Organizing
Reflection, 47- 64, Ashgate: London.
Antonacopoulou, E.P. (2004b) The Virtues of Practising Scholarship: A Tribute to Chris
Argyris a ‘Timeless Learner’. Special Issue ‘From Chris Argyris and Beyond in
Organizational Learning Research’, Management Learning, 35(4): 381-395.
Antonacopoulou, E.P. and Bento R. (2003) ‘Methods of ‘Learning Leadership’: Taught and
Experiential’, in J. Storey Current Issues in Leadership and Management Development,
81-102, Blackwell, Oxford.
Antonacopoulou, E.P, Graça, M., Ferdinand, J. and Easterby-Smith, M. (2004) Dynamic
Capabilities and Organizational Learning: Socio-Political Tensions in Organizational
Renewal, Paper presented at the Annual International Conference of the British
Academy of Management, St. Andrews, Scotland, September.
Antonacopoulou, E.P. & Chiva, R. (2005) ‘Social Complex Evolving Systems: Implications
for Organizational Learning’, Paper presented at the 6th International Organizational
Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities Conference, Boston.
Antonacopoulou, E.P. & Méric, J. (2005) ‘From Power to Knowledge Relationships:
Stakeholder Interactions as Learning Partnerships’, in M. Bonnafous-Boucher & Y.
Pesqueux (Eds) Stakeholders and Corporate Social Responsibility - European
Perspectives, London: Palgrave.
12
Argyris, C. & Schön, D.A. (1978) Organisational Learning: A Theory in Action Perspective,
Addisson Wesley, Cambridge, MA.
Argyris, C. (1982) Reasoning, Learning and Action, USA: Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C. (1993) On Organisational Learning, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Argyris C. (2004a) Reasons and Rationalizations: The Limits to Organizational Knowledge,
Oxford: Oxford University Press
Argyris, C. (2004b) ‘Reflecting and Beyond in Research on Organizational Learning’, Special
Issue ‘From Chris Argyris and Beyond in Organizational Learning Research’,
Management Learning, 35(4):
Ausubell, D. (1985), ‘Learning as Constructing Meanings’, in N. Entwistle, (Ed.), New
Directions in Educational Psychology 1: Learning and Teaching, London: The Falmer
Press.
Axelrod, R. and Cohen, M.D. (1999) Harnessing complexity; New York: The Free
Press.Barley, S.R. & Kunda, G. (2001) “Bringing work back in”; Organization Science,
12 (1): 76-95
Bass, B.M. & Vaughan, J.A. (1969) Training in Industry: The management of learning, 2nd
Edition, London: Tavinstock.
Bechky, B. (2003) ‘Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of
understanding on a production floor’. Organization Science, 14(3): 312-330.
Beckhard, R. & Pritchard, W. (1992) Changing the essence: The art of creating and leading
fundamental change in organisations, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Beer, S. (1972) Brain of the Firm, London: Penguin.
Berger, P.L. & Luckmann, T. (1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the
Sociology of Knowledge; Penguin, London.
Bettis, R.A. and Prahalad, C.K. (1995) ‘The dominant logic: Retrospective and extension’,
Strategic Management Journal, 16: 5-14.
Bourdieu, P. (1980. The Logic of Practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Brown, S.L. and Eisenhardt, K.M. (1997) ‘The art of continuous change: Linking complexity
theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations’, Administrative
Science Quarterly, 42: 1-34.
Cantor, J. A. (1961) Delivering instruction to adult learners. Toronto: Wall & Emerson.
Cappon, A. (1994) ‘A life-cycle view of banking’, Journal of Retail Banking, 16(1), 33-37.
Cheng, Y.T. and Van de Ven, A.H. (1996) ‘Learning the innovation journey: Order out of
chaos?’, Organization Science, 7 (6): 593-614.
Chia, R. and King, I. (1998) ‘The organizational structuring of novelty’, Organization, 5(4):
461-478.
Chiva, R. (2003) ‘The Facilitating Factors for organizational Learning: bringing ideas from
Complex Adaptive Systems’, Knowledge and Process Management, 10 (2): 99-114.
Chiva, R. (2004) ‘Repercussions of complex adaptive systems on product design
management’ Technovation, 24: 707-711.
Clark, N. (1991) Managing personal learning and change: A trainers guide, London:
McGraw-Hill.
Cook, S.D.N. & Yanow, D. (1993) ‘Culture and Organisational Learning’, Journal of
Management Inquiry, December, 2(4): 373-390.
13
Cooper, R. and Law, J. (1995) ‘Organization: distal and proximal views’, in S. Bacharach, P.
Gagliardi and B. Mundell (eds.) Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Volume
13. Hampton Hill: JAI Press: 237-274.
Coopey, J. (1995). The learning organisation: power, politics and ideology. Management
Learning, 26(2): 193-213.
Crow, L.A. & Crow, A. (1963) Readings in Human Learning, New York: McKay.
Cunningham, I. (1994) The wisdom of strategic learning: The self-managed learning solution,
London: McGraw-Hill.
Dixon, N. (1994) The organisational learning cycle: How can we learn collectively, London:
McGraw-Hill.
Dooley, K.J, Corman, S.R., McPhee, R.D. and Kuhn, T. (2003) ‘Modeling high resolution
broadband discourse in complex adaptive systems’. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology,
and Life Sciences, 7 (1): 61-85.
Easterby-Smith, M., Antonacopoulou, E.P. Lyles, M. and Simms, D. (2004) “Constructing
Contributions to Organizational Learning: Argyris and the New Generation”, Special
Issue ‘From Chris Argyris and Beyond in Organizational Learning Research’,
Management Learning, 35(4): 371-380.
Easterby-Smith, M. (1997) ‘Disciplines of organizational learning: Contributions and
critiques’, Human Relations, 50(9): 1085-1113.
Elkjaer, B. (1999) ‘In search of a social learning theory’. In Easterby-Smith, M.; Burgoyne, J.
and Araujo, L. (Eds.) Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization, pp.75-
91. London: Sage Publications.
Elkjaer, B. (2004) ‘Organizational Learning: The Third Way’, Special Issue ‘From Chris
Argyris and Beyond in Organizational Learning Research’, Management Learning,
35(4):
Elkjaer, B. & Wahlgreen, B. (2005) ‘Organizational Learning and Workplace Learning:
Similarities and Differences’. In Antonacopoulou, E.P., Jarvis, P., Andersen, V.,
Elkjaer, B. and Hoeyrup, S. (Eds) Learning, Working and Living: Mapping the Terrain
of Working Life Learning, Palgrave: London.
Elmholdt, C. (2005) ‘Innovative Learning is not enough’. In Antonacopoulou, E.P., Jarvis, P.,
Andersen, V., Elkjaer, B. and Hoeyrup, S. (Eds) Learning, Working and Living:
Mapping the Terrain of Working Life Learning, Palgrave: London.
Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R. & Punamäki, R.-L. (1999) Perspectives on Activity Theory.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Feldman, M. S. (2000) ‘Organizational routines as a source of continuous change’
Organization Science, 11(6): 611-629.
Feldman, M. S. (2004) ‘Resources in emerging structures and processes of change’.
Organization Science, 15(3): 295-309.
Feldman, M. S. & Rafaeli, A. (2002) ‘Organizational routines as sources of connection and
understanding’. Journal of Management Studies, 39(3): 309-331.
Feldman, M. S. and Pentland, B. T. (2003) ‘Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a
source of flexibility and change’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 48 (March): 94-
118.
Fenwick, T. (2003). Reclaiming and re-embodying experiential learning through complexity
science. Studies in the Education of Adults, 35 (2): 123-141.
14
Finger, M. and Buergin, S. (1998) ‘The concept of the ‘Learning Organisation’ applied to the
transformation of the Public Sector: Conceptual contributions for theory development,
in M. Easterby-Smith, L. Araujo and J. Burgoyne (Eds) Organisational Learning:
Developments in Theory and Practice, London: Sage.
Fiol, C.M. & Lyles, M.A. (1985) ‘Organisational learning’, Academy of Management Review,
10(4), 803-813.
Ford J. and Ford L.W. (1994) ‘Logics of Identity, contradiction, and attraction in change’,
Academy of Management Review, 19 (4): 756-785.
Friedlander, F. (1984) ‘Patterns of individual and organisational learning’, in P. Shrivastava,
(Ed), The Executive Mind, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Garvin, D.A. (1993) Building a Learning Organisation, Harvard Business Review, July-
August, 78-91.
Gell-Mann, M. (1994)The quark and the Jaguar. Adventures in the simple and the complex.
New York: WH Freeman.
Gherardi, S. (1999) ‘Learning as problem-driven or learning in the face of mystery?’.
Organization Studies, 20 (1), 101-24.
Gherardi, S. (2000) ‘Practice-based theorizing on learning and knowing in organizations’,
Organization, 7 (2), 211-223.
Gherardi, S. & Nicolini, D. (2002) ‘Learning in a constellation of interconnected practices:
Canon or dissonance?’ Journal of Management Studies, 39(4): 419-436.
Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goodwin, B. (1994) How the leopard changed its spots: the evolution of complexity. London:
Weidenfeld and Nicholson.
Handy, C. (1989) The age of unreason, London: Arrow.
Hannan, M.T. & Freeman J. (1984) “Structural inertia and organizational change”; American
Sociological Review, 49 (April): 149-164.
Harris, T.L. & Schwahn, W.E. (1961) Selected readings on the learning process, New York:
University Press.
Heywood, J. (1989) Learning adaptability and change: The challenge for education and
industry, London: Paul Chapman.
Hilgard, E.R. & Bower, G.H. (1975) Theories of Learning, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Huber, G. (1991) ‘Organisational Learning: The contributing processes and literature’,
Organisation Science, 2(1), 88-115.
Ichazo, O. (1976) The human process for enlightenment and freedom. NY: Arica Institute
Press.
Johnson, G., Melin, L. & Whittington, R. (2003) ‘Guest editors' introduction: Micro strategy
and strategizing: Towards an activity-based view’. Journal of Management Studies,
40(1): 3-22.
Kauffman, S.A. (1995) At home in the Universe, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
King, D. (1964) Training within the organisation, London: Tavistock.
Klatt, L.A., Murdick, R.G. & Schuster, F.E. (1985) Human Resource Management, Florida:
Bell & Howell.
Knowles, M.S. (1973) The adult learner: A neglected species, Houston: Gulf Publishing.
Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experimental Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
15
Langley A. (1999) "Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data" Academy of Management
Review, 24: 691-710.
Laursen, E. (2005) ‘Knowledge, Progression and the Understanding of Workplace Learning’.
In Antonacopoulou, E.P., Jarvis, P., Andersen, V., Elkjaer, B. and Hoeyrup, S. (Eds)
Learning, Working and Living: Mapping the Terrain of Working Life Learning,
Palgrave: London.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Law, J. (1999) ‘After ANT: complexity, naming and topology’, in J. Law and J. Hassard
(eds.) Actor Network Theory and After. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers: 1-14.
Lawrence, T.B., Mauws, M.K., Dyck, B. and Kleysen, R.F. (2005) ‘The politics of
organizational learning: integrating power into the 4I framework’, Academy of
Management Review, 30(1): 180-191.
Lessem, R. (1993) Business as a learning community, London: McGraw-Hill.
Lewis M.W. and Grimes A.J. (1999) "Meta-triangulation: Building Theory from Multiple
Paradigms" Academy of Management Review, 24: 672-690.
Marsick, V.J., & O’Neil, J. (1999) ‘The Many Faces of Action Learning’, Management
Learning, 30(2): 159-176.
McLagan, P.A. (1978) Helping others learn: Designing programmes for adults, USA:
Addison Wesley.
Miettinen, R. & Virkkunen, J. (2005) ‘Learning in and for Work, and the Joined Construction
of Mediational Artifacts: An Activity Theoretical View. In Antonacopoulou, E.P.,
Jarvis, P., Andersen, V., Elkjaer, B. and Hoeyrup, S. (Eds) Learning, Working and
Living: Mapping the Terrain of Working Life Learning, Palgrave: London.
Mitleton-Kelly, E. (2003) Complex systems and evolutionary perspectives on organizations:
the application of complexity theory to organizations. London: Elsevier.
Nelson, R. R. & Winter, S. G. (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change.
Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
Nevis, E.C., DiBella, A.J. & Gould, J.M. (1995) ‘Organisations as learning systems’, Sloan
Management Review, Winter, 73-85.
Nicolini, D., Gherardi, S. and Yanow, D. (2003) ‘Introduction: towards a practice-based view
of knowing and learning in organizations’, in D. Nicolini, S. Gherardi and D. Yanow
(eds.) Knowing in Organizations: A Practice-Based Approach. 3-31 London:
M.E.Sharpe.
Ofori-Dankwa J. and Julian S. D. (2001) "Complexifying Organizational Theory: Illustrations
using time research" Academy of Management Review, 26: 415-430.
Orlikowski, W. (1996) ‘Improving organizational transformation over time: a situated change
perspective’, Information Systems Research, 7: 63-92.
Pavlov, I.P. (1927) Conditional Reflexes, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pentland, B. T. & Rueter, H. H. (1994) ‘Organizational routines as grammars of action’.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3): 484-510.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1989) "Longitudinal Methods to Study Change: Theory and Practice" in
Mansfield R. (ed) Frontiers of Management Research and Practice, Routledge,
London.
Revans, R.W. (1982) The Origins and Growths of Action Learning, Sweden: Chartwell-Bratt.
16
Rogers, C.R. (1969) Freedom to Learn, Columbus: Merrill.
Ross Ashby, W. (1958) ‘Requisite variety and its implications for the control of complex
systems’, Cybernetica, 1(2), 83-99
Scandura T.A. and Williams E.A. (2000) ‘Research Methodology in Management: Current
Practices, Trends and Implications for Future Research’. Academy of Management
Journal, 43: 1248-1264.
Schatzki, T. R., Knorr Cetina, K. & Von Savigny, E. (2001) The practice turn in
contemporary theory. London: Routledge.
Selznick, P. (1957) Leadership in Administration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Senge, P.M. (1990) ‘The leaders’ new work: Building learning organisations’, Sloan
Management Review, Fall, 7-23.
Sherman, H. and Schultz, R. (1998) Open Boundaries. New York: Perseus Books.
Shrivastava, P. (1983) ‘A typology of organisational learning systems’, Journal of
Management Studies, 20(1), 7-28.
Simon, H.A. (1996)The sciences of the artificial. Mass.: Institute of Technology.
Skinner, B.F. (1971) Beyond Freedom and Dignity, New York: Knopf.
Soja, E.W. (1997) Thirdspace, Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-And–Imagined
Places. Oxford: Blackwell.
Srivastva, S. Bilimoria, D, Cooperrider, D.C. and Fry, R.E. (1995) ‘Management and
Organisational Learning for Positive Global Change’, Management Learning, 26(1), 37-
54.
Stacey, R.D. (1993) ‘Strategy as order emerging from chaos’, Long Range Planning, 26 (1),
10-17.
Stacey, R.D. (1995) ‘The science of complexity: an alternative perspective for strategic
change processes’, Strategic Management Journal, 16: 477-495.
Stacey, R.D. (1996) Complexity and creativity in organizations. San Francisco: Berret-
Koehler publishers.
Tsoukas, H. and Chia, R. (2002) ‘On organizational becoming: rethinking organizational
change’, Organization Science, 13(5): 567-582.
Tsoukas, H. (1998) ‘Introduction: chaos, complexity and organization theory’, Organization,
5 (3): 291-313.
Turner, S. (1994) The Social Theory of Practices: Tradition, Tacit Knowledge and
Presuppositions. Cambridge: Polity.
Ulrich, D, Jick, T. and Van Clinow, M.A. (1993) ‘High impact learning: Building and
diffusing learning capability’, Organisational Dynamics, Autumn, 52-66.
Wärvik, G. & Thång, P. (2005) ‘Conditions for Learning during a Period of Change.
Dilemmas and Disturbances on the Production Floor’. In Antonacopoulou, E.P., Jarvis,
P., Andersen, V., Elkjaer, B. and Hoeyrup, S. (Eds) Learning, Working and Living:
Mapping the Terrain of Working Life Learning, Palgrave: London.
Whittington, R.E. (2003) ‘The work of strategizing and organizing: For a practice
perspective’; Strategic Organization, 1 (1), pp. 117-125.
Zollo, M. & Winter, S. G. (2002) ‘Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic
capabilities’. Organization Science, 13(3): 339-351.
17
