Contextual Factors Influencing

Informal Learning in a Workplace

Setting: The Case of “Reinventing
Itself Company”

Andrea D. Ellinger

Informal learning is one of the most prevalent forms of learning in the

workplace. However, little is known about how such learning is best supported,
encouraged, and developed within organizational settings. While organi-
zational context is considered to be significant in facilitating or inhibiting
informal learning, limited research has been conducted that explores such
factors and how they influence informal learning. Therefore, a qualitative case
study was conducted to explore the contextual factors that influence informal
learning. Findings associated with the organizational contextual factors that
positively and negatively influence informal learning are presented along with
implications for practice and future research.

Interest in workplace learning has intensified in recent years (Billett, 2002;

Boud and Garrick, 1999; Collin, 2002; Ellstrom, 2001; Illeris, 2003; Stern and
Sommerlad, 1999). Although the workplace has always been considered an

Note: Funding for this study was provided by The Kellogg Foundation through the Cyril O.
Houle Scholars in Adult and Continuing Education Fellowship Program administered by the
University of Georgia Department of Adult Education. The author is grateful to have parti-
cipated in the Houle Scholars Program and thankful for the expertise and support provided by
staff members and other Houle scholars throughout this project. Sincere thanks are also
extended to the president of the local chamber of commerce for providing referral to “Rein-
venting Itself Company”; to the senior executives at the company for approving the research
project; to the nominator and participants in the company who shared critical informal
learning incidents and supported this project; to the director and staff members of the Center
for Business and Economic Research for providing office space and administrative support
throughout this fellowship; and to Robert P. Bostrom, Bradley C. Courtenay, Alexander
E. Ellinger, Daniele D. Flannery, and Karen E. Watkins for helpful guidance on various aspects
of the project. The author also thanks the editors and four anonymous reviewers for their
insightful and helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, vol. 16, no. 3, Fall 2005

Copyright © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 389
390 Ellinger

important setting in which adults learn (Boud and Middleton, 2003; Dirkx,
1999; J. H. Matthews and Candy, 1999), the need to integrate work and learn-
ing has become more manifest (Ellstrom, 2001; Torraco, 1999). As Collin
(2002) notes, “Learning is seen as a natural aspect of everyday work, and work
itself is seen as a rich source of learning” (p. 133). Workplace learning can take
many forms, from formal, institutionally sponsored learning including train-
ing and human resource development initiatives to informal and incidental
learning (P. Matthews, 1999; Watkins, 1995). Research, however, has suggested
that informal learning takes precedence over formal learning and comprises
the majority of learning that occurs in the workplace (Day, 1998; Enos,
Kehrhahn, and Bell, 2003; Leslie, Aring, and Brand, 1998; Lohman, 2000;
Marsick and Watkins, 1997; Skule, 2004). Informal learning is often conceived
as learning that is “tacit and integrated with work activities” (Marsick, 2003,
p. 389).
Informal workplace learning has attracted considerable attention in the
literature (Skule, 2004). The trend toward employees’ assuming a more sig-
nificant role in their own learning process, the importance being placed
on learning as a core competency and lifelong process, and the recognition of
learning as a source of sustainable competitive advantage for individuals and
organizations alike have also stimulated tremendous interest in informal learn-
ing (London and Smither, 1999; Westbrook and Veale, 2001). The growing
focus on creating learning-oriented organizations that promote cultures, poli-
cies, and procedures conducive to fostering continuous learning has also influ-
enced the importance of informal learning in the workplace (Dirkx, 1999;
Senge, 1990; Marsick and Watkins, 1999).
Despite the prevalence of informal learning in the workplace, little is
known about “how it can best be supported, encouraged, and developed”
(Marsick and Volpe, 1999, p. 3). Further, some scholars have suggested that
few research studies have examined the extent to which the organization’s envi-
ronment serves to enhance or inhibit such learning (Ashton, 2004; Billett,
2000; Knowles, 1984; Merriam and Caffarella, 1999; Salas and Cannon-
Bowers, 2001; Skule, 2004). In fact, Watkins and Cervero (2000) have sug-
gested that “there is some evidence in the larger field of human resource
development that a focus on the learning of individuals is less significant than
a focus on the organization as a context for learning” (p. 193).
Although the notion of organizational context is considered to be signifi-
cant (Ashton, 2004; Leslie, Aring, and Brand, 1998; Skule, 2004; Watkins and
Cervero, 2000), the interplay between informal learning and the context in
which it occurs has been a largely unexamined area of inquiry (Cseh, 1999;
Lohman, 2000). Because learning is inherently socially constructed and con-
textually embedded, exploring the contextual factors that may shape employ-
ees’ informal learning is critical to advancing our understanding of how
informal learning is facilitated, encouraged, supported, and nurtured within
the workplace (Collin, 2002; Sambrook, 2005; Van der Sluis and Poell, 2002).
Contextual Factors Influencing Informal Learning in a Workplace Setting 391

At present, research on assessing and measuring the organizational factors that

promote or impede informal learning at work is underdeveloped (Skule,
2004). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore the organizational
contextual factors in the workplace setting that may influence employees’ infor-
mal learning and how such factors influence informal learning.

Review of Literature
Informal learning is not a new phenomenon and can be historically traced to
Lindeman (1926) and Dewey (1938), who both emphasized the importance
of learning from experience and the role of reflective thought in learning (Cseh,
Watkins, and Marsick, 1999). Although Knowles (1950) introduced the term
informal learning in his book Informal Adult Education, only in the last thirty
years has the focus moved from “institutionalized education, into recognizing
that learning is ‘lifewide,’ taking place at work and elsewhere” (Skule, 2004,
p. 8; see also Cseh, Watkins, and Marsick, 1999). Watkins and Marsick (1992)
have largely characterized informal learning as learning that is “based on learn-
ing from experience; embedded in the organizational context, oriented to a
focus on action; governed by non-routine conditions; concerned with tacit
dimensions that must be made explicit; delimited by the nature of the task, the
way in which the problems are framed, and the work capacity of the individ-
ual undertaking the task; and, enhanced by proactivity, critical reflectivity and
creativity” (p. 287).
Informal learning can best be described as “learning that is predominantly
unstructured, experiential, and noninstitutionalized” (Marsick and Volpe,
1999, p. 4). It represents one of the most prevalent forms of learning; research
suggests that as much as 70 percent of all workplace learning may be informal
(Leslie, Aring, and Brand, 1998). Even with informal learning so pervasive in
the workplace, only in the past twenty years have scholars embarked on
defining and describing informal learning (Cseh, Watkins, and Marsick, 1999).
One of the most comprehensive models describing informal and incidental
learning was developed by Marsick and Watkins (1990, 1997; Watkins and
Marsick, 1992).
The Marsick and Watkins model of informal and incidental learning
(1990, 1997, 2001) has been empirically tested in numerous studies focusing
on how individuals learn in organizations. More than twenty dissertations have
been conducted that use this model in a variety of settings (Marsick and
Watkins, 1997). Much of this research has been done using qualitative case
study methods, and data have been collected using open-ended interviews,
critical incidents, nonparticipant observation, or document analysis (Marsick,
1999).
According to Marsick and Volpe (1999), several research studies have been
conducted but “to date no attempts have been made to assess their findings”
(p. 3). In their special issue of Advances in Developing Human Resources, Marsick
392 Ellinger

and Volpe examined six case studies and drew conclusions about the nature of
informal learning and how it can be enhanced. Overall, research on informal
learning has suggested that informal learning is integrated with work and daily
routines, often begins with an internal or external jolt or triggering event, is
often haphazard and not highly conscious, is an inductive process of reflection
and action, and is linked to the learning of others (Marsick and Volpe, 1999;
Marsick and Watkins, 1997).
Several studies have examined triggering events or catalysts for informal
learning, which include externally oriented triggers related to the business
environment (Cseh, 1999) and internally oriented triggers (Dechant, 1989;
Ellinger, 2003; Lohman, 2003; Mumford, 1993). The nature of learning, learn-
ing processes, strategies, and techniques have also been studied. Examples are
self-directed learning, social learning, networking, coaching, mentoring, per-
formance planning systems used for developmental purposes, mistakes,
and trial and error (Boud and Middleton, 2003; Collin, 2002; Cseh, 1999;
Doornbos, Bolhuis, and Denessen, 2004; Leslie, Aring, and Brand, 1998;
Marsick and Watkins, 2001). The consequences of informal learning, degree
of awareness and assumptions, and feelings about the learning situation have
also been studied (Marsick, 1999). Outcomes of informal learning have often
included learning practical skills, intrapersonal and interpersonal learning, and
learning about the culture of the organization (Leslie, Aring, and Brand, 1998).
Although the notion of context is implicit in the Marsick and Watkins
model (1990, 1997), its pervasive influence on the learning process was not
that evident until Cseh’s 1998 study. Cseh’s findings suggested that “Context
permeates every phase of the learning process—from how the learner will
understand the situation, to what is being learned, what solutions are available
and how the existing resources will be used” (Cseh, Watkins, and Marsick,
1999, p. 352). From Cseh’s findings, the Marsick and Watkins (1990, 1997)
model of informal and incidental learning was refined to capture the notion of
context (Cseh, Watkins, and Marsick, 1999).

Research on Organizational Contextual Factors

A comprehensive study of informal learning, The Teaching Firm Project, was ini-
tiated by the Education Development Center (EDC) in 1996 (Leslie, Aring, and
Brand, 1998). Findings suggested that contextual factors played an enormous
role in informal learning. In this study, contextual factors included organiza-
tional culture; industry factors; and company factors such as “incentives, pro-
motion criteria, and job security” (Leslie, Aring, and Brand, 1998, p. 15).
Researchers determined that organizational culture had a strong impact on
informal learning and further divided cultural variables into two categories:
organizational practices and social norms and values. The research identified
numerous cultural variables essential for informal learning, but it was not
apparent how contextual factors were defined or identified; nor did the
Contextual Factors Influencing Informal Learning in a Workplace Setting 393

research appear to distinguish between how those variables promoted and

inhibited informal learning.
Sambrook and Stewart (2000) conducted a study using qualitative meth-
ods that examined factors influencing learning at work, which included both
formal and informal learning, from the perspectives of senior managers, HRD
professionals, and other employees. They identified factors at the organiza-
tional, functional and personal levels: motivation, HRD, culture, and prag-
matics. Factors deemed to enhance learning were development of a learning
culture and senior management support. They also acknowledged that changes
in organizational structure or job design supported development of a learning
culture, along with access to resources that support learning. In their study, it
was not apparent how influencing factors were defined and if specific factors
had a differential impact on formal learning or informal learning. Other schol-
ars have suggested that making time and space available for learning, furnish-
ing work tools and resources, building a climate of collaboration and trust and
communities of practice, task variation, structures, and incentives for knowl-
edge sharing can enhance informal learning (Ashton, 2004; Dennen and Wang,
2002; Marsick and Volpe, 1999; Marsick and Watkins, 1999; Tikkanen, 2002).
More recently, other scholars have begun to focus on structural factors that
may influence workplace learning and skill formation (Ashton, 2004; Billett,
2001). Ashton sought to understand how organizational structure affected
learning at work, yet it was not apparent how organizational structure was
defined; nor was the emphasis solely on informal learning. Ashton’s qualita-
tive study illustrates “the ways in which the learning process is embedded in
the workplace and shaped by organizational decisions and practices” (p. 51).
His study suggested that provision and access to knowledge and information,
opportunities to practice skills, and support for learning and feedback affect
learning and skill acquisition. Finally, Skule (2004) specifically focused on the
factors that are most conducive to learning at work and identified seven learn-
ing conditions that promote informal learning: a high degree of exposure to
changes, a high degree of exposure to demands, managerial responsibilities,
extensive professional contacts, superior feedback, management support for
learning, and rewarding of proficiency. Although this research underscores
the conditions that promote informal learning, it is unclear if and how the
converse of these conditions may inhibit learning.
Less research has focused on the factors that inhibit learning. Sambrook
and Stewart (2000) have acknowledged that the converse of their findings
about management support and learning culture is true: leaders and managers
who do not support learning inhibit it, as do an insufficient learning culture
and lack of time and resources. Lohman’s study on environmental inhibitors
to workplace learning among teachers (2000) identified lack of time for learn-
ing, lack of proximity to learning resources, lack of meaningful rewards for
learning, and limited decision-making power as inhibitors to informal learn-
ing (Lohman, 2000).
394 Ellinger

In summary, it has been suggested that context permeates all facets of the
learning process. A limited number of studies have begun to examine the influ-
ence of organizational contextual factors on workplace learning (Ashton, 2004;
Sambrook and Stewart, 2000) and informal learning (Leslie, Aring, and Brand,
1998; Lohman, 2000; Skule, 2004). Of these studies, only two organizational
settings appear to represent teaching-oriented or learning-oriented organiza-
tions. Several scholars have suggested that learning-oriented organizations rep-
resent a new frontier for adult learning occurring in the workplace (Marsick
and Watkins, 1999; Merriam and Caffarella, 1999). Yet, despite the acknowl-
edged importance of organizational context in informal learning and the lim-
ited research that has examined factors that support or hinder workplace
learning and skill formation more generally, there is not a thorough under-
standing of how contextual factors within learning-oriented organizations
influence informal learning in the workplace (Boud, Freeland, Hawke, and
McDonald, 1998; Boud and Middleton, 2003; Collin, 2002; Doornbos,
Bolhuis, and Denessen, 2004; Karakowsky and McBey, 1999; Lohman, 2000;
Marsick and Watkins, 1997; Sambrook, 2005). There remains a compelling
need to comprehensively examine the organizational contextual factors that
promote or inhibit informal workplace learning and how such factors influ-
ence it in learning-oriented organization.

Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework constituting the foundation for this study was a
reconceptualized version of the Marsick and Watkins (1990, 1997) and
Watkins and Marsick (1992) models of informal and incidental learning. The
Marsick and Watkins model (1990, 1997, 2001) was based on the action sci-
ence perspectives of Argyris and Schön, whose work in turn was largely
informed by Dewey’s theories of learning from experience and Lewin’s
approaches to understanding the interaction of individuals and their environ-
ment (Marsick and Watkins, 1997).
Marsick and Watkins characterize their model of informal and incidental
learning as a problem-solving approach that is not straightforward or pre-
scriptive. They contend that the cycle is embedded with subsurface beliefs, val-
ues, and assumptions that guide action at every stage. In this model, informal
and incidental learning are influenced by how people frame a situation as a
problem that is typically nonroutine. As they frame it within their context
according to their beliefs and assumptions, which are often unconscious, they
consider strategies for solving the problem. Throughout this process, there is
a presence of action and reflection. Additionally, there are often intended and
unintended consequences as a result of the learning process. The language
describing the components of the Marsick and Watkins (1990, 1997, 2001)
and Watkins and Marsick (1992) models has been slightly modified over the
years.
Contextual Factors Influencing Informal Learning in a Workplace Setting 395

Figure 1. A Reconceptualized Informal and Incidental Learning Model

CONTEXT

Frame the Interpret

Triggers
context experience
CONTEXT

CONTEXT
Examine
Evaluate
Work alternative
lessons learned
solutions

Assess intended Produce the Choose

and unintended proposed learning
consequences solutions strategies

CONTEXT

Source: Cseh, Watkins, and Marsick, 1999, p. 70.

The notion of context is implicit in their model. However, Cseh’s research

(1998) suggested that “its pervasive influence on every phase of the learning
process” was not that evident (Marsick, Volpe, and Watkins, 1999, p. 87).
Therefore, Cseh, Watkins, and Marsick (1999) refined the model to incorpo-
rate the importance of context. Figure 1 represents the refined model that
guided this study. The model was not tested here but was used as a foundation
to further explicate the contextual factors that influence the process of infor-
mal learning. For the purposes of this study, informal learning was defined as
learning resulting from the natural opportunities that occur in a person’s work-
ing life when the person controls his or her own learning (Cseh, Watkins, and
Marsick, 1999). In the absence of a formal definition from other scholars, orga-
nizational contextual factors were defined broadly in this study to include any
aspect of the organizational environment that influenced the process of infor-
mal learning.

Research Questions
The study was designed to address two research questions: (1) What are the
organizational contextual factors that influence employees’ informal learning?
(2) How do organizational contextual factors influence employees’ informal
learning in the workplace?
396 Ellinger

Research Design, Data Collection, and Analysis

A qualitative case study design was selected for this study because it allows an
intensive holistic description and analysis of the contextual factors that influ-
ence the phenomenon of employees’ informal learning within a specific work-
place setting (Merriam, 1998; Merriam and Simpson, 1995). Case study
method was considered most appropriate because “case studies help us to
understand the processes of events, projects, and programs and to discover
context characteristics that will shed light on an issue or object” (Sanders,
1981, cited in Merriam, 1998, p. 33). As Yin (2003) notes, “You would use the
case study method because you deliberately wanted to cover contextual
conditions—believing that they might be highly pertinent to your phenome-
non of study” (p. 13).
Selection of Case and Participants. Two levels of sampling were required
for this qualitative case study to identify the case and the participants within the
case. To identify an appropriate organization as a setting for the research,
the researcher established two selection criteria. First, the organization must
espouse a philosophy and a commitment to employee development and
attempt to foster individual, team, and organizational learning by implement-
ing strategies consistent with the literature on learning-oriented organizations.
Substantial indication of these philosophies must be apparent from the pub-
lished mission statement, core values, and popular press articles reflecting this
commitment to employee development and an overall organizational learning
orientation. Second, the organization must be geographically located in the
eastern region of the United States to permit accessibility for data collection.
From the site selection criterion, the researcher solicited input from a chamber
of commerce executive and obtained referrals to five organizations deemed to
meet this criterion. The researcher met with executives from three of the five
organizations. Using a purposeful intensity sampling strategy, the researcher
ultimately selected “Reinventing Itself Company” as the setting for the research
after an additional review of company documents and articles written about the
organization. (Reinventing Itself Company, or RIC, is the pseudonym that
emerged from the data analysis process. The researcher would like to acknowl-
edge that the location and size of the organization have been masked to preserve
the identity of the company and the participants.)
RIC is a consumer-focused manufacturer located in the eastern region of the
United States. This organization has been in business for more than seventy-five
years and has approximately thirty-five hundred employees working at its mul-
tiple locations. The corporate headquarters has more than three hundred
employees and represented the primary location for data collection. The organi-
zation is a well-respected and reputable company with a rich history of invention
and innovation. However, as with other companies experiencing the turbu-
lence of the global marketplace, RIC was, at the time of data collection, in the
midst of implementing several changes designed to reposition the organization
Contextual Factors Influencing Informal Learning in a Workplace Setting 397

for longer-term growth and viability. A relatively new CEO had initiated a struc-
tural change from a functionally oriented to a process-oriented organization.
After finalizing the selection of the case, at the suggestion of the senior vice
president of HR the researcher met with the HR manager to discuss the selec-
tion criteria for participants. Because the researcher’s intent was to explore the
organizational contextual factors as they influence employees’ informal learn-
ing, the researcher used an intensity-purposeful stratified sampling strategy to
identify information-rich cases that manifest the phenomenon of interest.
Specifically, the researcher asked the HR manager to nominate employees
across three levels (lower, middle, and senior) who (1) were considered
to be committed lifelong learners and (2) were viewed as exemplary facilita-
tors of others’ learning. With access to training records and personal knowl-
edge of employees who are predisposed to learning and sharing their learning
with others, the HR manager supplied fifteen potential participant names and
contact details according to the selection criteria with the understanding that
additional participants might be needed if theoretical saturation was not
achieved with this sample.
Following an introduction from the HR manager, the researcher called each
participant and then sent e-mails to the participants to solicit their participation
in the study. Three participants were unable to commit to the study because of
extensive work or travel obligations and were replaced by the HR manager with
three participants who also met the criteria. Ultimately thirteen employees were
identified at the corporate headquarters and two at other remote manufactur-
ing locations. Because the remote locations were unionized manufacturing sites,
the researcher felt that variations in organizational context were likely to con-
found the analysis. Therefore the sample of thirteen participants consisted of
seven women (one senior-level, one midlevel; and five lower-level employees)
and six men (three senior-level and three midlevel employees). The ethnicity
of the thirteen participants was self-identified as white. The average tenure with
the organization was 15.92 years. In terms of educational level, four participants
had a high school diploma, with one participant working on college courses;
two participants had an associate’s degree, with one participant working on
a bachelor’s; six participants had bachelor’s degrees; and one participant had a
master’s degree. The participants represented various functional areas: human
resources, information systems, quality and customer service, product devel-
opment and design, planning, process improvement, and strategy.
Data Collection. A pilot study was conducted before the full implemen-
tation of the main study, and consequently some of the questions on the inter-
view protocol were reworded and resequenced for clarity and flow. The final
interview protocol was reviewed by a management scholar with expertise in
the data collection methods selected for this study. The primary approaches to
data collection included an adaptation of the Critical Incident Technique (CIT;
Ellinger and Watkins, 1998; Flanagan, 1954) and semistructured in-depth
interviews (Kvale, 1996).
398 Ellinger

The CIT is a systematic and sequential method for collecting observed

incidents or observations previously made that are reported from memory
around a phenomenon of interest (Ellinger and Watkins, 1998). The CIT is
particularly useful as an exploratory method to increase knowledge about a
little-known phenomenon to provide a rich set of data (Gremler, 2004). The
CIT consists of a set procedures to collect, analyze the content of, and classify
human activity. The researcher begins by identifying the general aims of the
activity and develops precise instructions prior to collecting the data. The most
crucial aspect of data collection is the questions asked of participants. Next,
following data collection, the researcher analyzes and interprets the data and
reports the findings. The data can be analyzed inductively or deduced from
theoretical models (Gremler, 2004). The CIT has been widely used in prior
studies on informal learning (Ellinger, 1997; Marsick, 1999) and in educa-
tional, marketing, service, human factor, and communications research
(Ellinger and Watkins, 1998); its strengths and advantages have been well doc-
umented (Gremler, 2004). Although the CIT has historically been used to clas-
sify behaviors, Ellinger and Watkins (1998) extended the use of this method
for collecting learning incidents by incorporating a constructivist approach in
forming questions, which enables the researcher to look at attributions and fil-
ters that shape the learning as well as those elements in the context that affect
what is paid attention to and what is salient, to the learner.
Personal, face-to-face interviews were conducted with all thirteen employ-
ees at the corporate headquarters, and one telephone interview was required
to complete an interview. The interviews began with collection of two infor-
mal learning incidents using a detailed protocol to probe about the incidents.
Then the researcher asked the participant to reflect on these incidents and con-
sider his or her organization as an environment for informal learning. A series
of semistructured questions probed about the environment for learning (for
example, “What makes this an optimal environment for your informal learn-
ing?” “What prevents this from being an optimal environment for your infor-
mal learning?”). Field notes were also taken during each interview. A total of
twenty-six informal learning incidents were collected from the thirteen partic-
ipants. The interviews averaged an hour and forty-five minutes in length and
were conducted over one year. (During the course of the personal interviews,
the researcher also obtained two critical incidents in which the partici-
pants described facilitating others’ informal learning, collected participants’
metaphors for the organization as an environment for informal learning, and
obtained additional data about organizational contextual factors using an imag-
inary photography technique. The collection of additional data was used to
triangulate the findings.)
Data Analysis. The interviews were transcribed verbatim by a profes-
sional transcriptionist. The average length of the interview transcripts exceeded
42 pages per interview for a total of 543 pages of transcripts. The researcher
listened to each interview tape and edited it accordingly to remove sensitive
Contextual Factors Influencing Informal Learning in a Workplace Setting 399

information, organizational identifiers, names, and confidential material that

might put the company or participant’s identity at risk. Following the editing
process for each interview, the researcher developed a broad initial coding
framework from the literature and categories drawn from the theoretical frame-
work guiding the study to begin the preliminary coding process for the infor-
mal learning data collected from the critical incidents and semistructured
interviews. The categories were external triggers for informal learning, inter-
nal triggers for informal learning, learning strategies, individual learning out-
comes, organizational learning outcomes, positive organizational contextual
factors, negative organizational contextual factors, positive personal factors,
and negative personal factors.
The researcher began analyzing the data using content analysis. This
research approach aids in classifying textual material, reducing it to relevant
and manageable bits of data (Weber, 1990). The research selected sentences as
the unit of analysis among content coding unit options. The nine categories
became the organizing framework to begin sorting the data. All sentences in
the transcripts were rigorously reviewed for these framework categories on the
basis of category definitions. All sentences meeting the definitional require-
ments for the framework categories were then mapped onto a large matrix that
contained the categories. Then the researcher created a narrative portrait of
each participant that captured the essence of the critical incidents and inter-
view data reported around the broad categories. Each participant received a
copy of his or her amended transcript and narrative portrait and was asked to
review all materials, make changes as necessary, and comment on the content.
The participants were encouraged to contact the researcher if any of the
insights gleaned from the interviews did not reflect the content and prelimi-
nary analysis of the interviews.
There were no requests for modifications. Following confirmation of
the accuracy of the transcripts and the content of the narrative portraits, the
researcher again reviewed each transcript against the content of the matrix to
ensure completeness and accuracy so that more refined analyses could be done
using constant comparative analysis (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). Constant
comparative analysis implies that the data are constantly compared and that
the comparisons lead to tentative categories compared with each other. Con-
stant comparative analysis was used to analyze data within each broad frame-
work category to develop themes and subthemes.
Trustworthiness. The researcher acknowledges that she is passionate
about informal learning. She has spent more than eight years researching the
topic with both qualitative and quantitative methods and has expertise in
using the critical incident technique. To ensure trustworthiness, the researcher
rigorously adhered to procedures outlined by Merriam (1998). To enhance
internal validity, the researcher used multiple approaches to collect the data.
For example, the researcher used the CIT to obtain multiple critical incidents.
A semistructured interview format followed collection of critical incidents to
400 Ellinger

obtain additional insights. The researcher also took field notes during the
interviews.
The researcher asked participants to review their transcripts and narrative
portraits as a form of member checking. The researcher also discussed the data
and emergent findings with other scholars and a project faculty mentor as
forms of peer and colleague review, and presented the emergent themes and
corresponding data in working paper sessions at two international conferences
and one practitioner chapter meeting. Additionally, data collection occurred
over the course of a year at RIC, thus enabling the researcher to increase the
validity of the findings. At the conclusion of the project, the researcher sub-
mitted a final report to all participants and asked that they provide additional
feedback about the integrity of the findings. The researcher did not receive any
feedback contradicting the findings.
To enhance reliability, the researcher maintained a rigorous audit trail by
documenting the data collection, analysis, and decision processes. The
researcher also submitted four semiannual reports to the funding administra-
tors detailing the research activities undertaken. To enhance external validity,
the researcher has attempted to provide thick, rich description of the themes
and subthemes and their relationship to the informal learning process so that
others can determine the extent to which the findings are transferable.

Findings
Several themes and subthemes emerged within the dataset relative to organi-
zational factors that positively and negatively influence the process of informal
learning.
Positive Organizational Contextual Factors. Table 1 presents the four
themes of organizational contextual factors that emerged which positively
influence informal learning along with their respective subthemes.
Learning-committed leadership and management emerged as a broad theme
that had seven subthemes associated with it. The influence of supervisors,
managers, and leaders is dominant throughout the informal learning process
and is depicted in Figure 2: (1) managers and leaders who create informal
learning opportunities; (2) managers and leaders who serve as developers
(coaches or mentors); (3) managers and leaders who visibly support and make
space for learning; (4) managers and leaders who encourage risk taking;
(5) managers and leaders who instill the importance of sharing knowledge and
developing others; (6) managers and leaders who give positive feedback
and recognition; and (7) managers and leaders who serve as role models. These
themes are described in the next paragraphs.
Relating to managers and leaders who create informal learning opportunities,
Allison (a pseudonym) acknowledged, “It was my supervisor bringing me in [to
the meeting] saying, ‘here would be a good technical resource,’ but also he had
in mind giving me exposure to these other things because he saw, or at least he
Contextual Factors Influencing Informal Learning in a Workplace Setting 401

Table 1. Positive Organizational Factors Influencing Informal Learning

Emergent Themes
Learning-committed leadership
and management
An internal culture committed
to learning
Work tools and resources
People who form webs of
relationships for learning
Subthemes
• Managers and leaders who create informal learning
opportunities
• Managers and leaders who serve as developers
(coaches and mentors)
• Managers and leaders who visibly support and
make space for learning
• Managers and leaders who encourage risk taking
• Managers and leaders who instill the importance of
sharing knowledge and developing others
• Managers and leaders who give positive feedback
and recognition
• Managers and leaders who serve as role models
• Symbol of the training room
• Openness and accessibility of people

Figure 2. Map of How Positive Organizational Contextual Factors

Influence the Process of Informal Learning
Positive Organizational
Contextual Factors

Reinventing Itself Company

⫹ Learning-committed
CONTEXT leadership and
management
Frame the Interpret
Triggers
context experience
⫹ Internal culture
committed to learning

Examine
Evaluate
Work alternative
lessons learned
solutions
⫹ Work tools
and resources

Assess intended Produce the Choose

and unintended proposed learning
consequences solutions strategies ⫹ People who form
webs of relationships
CONTEXT for learning
402 Ellinger

said he saw potential in me down the road, ‘give you the opportunity to learn
and participate and your participation will be on a small level, but you will get
exposure to this’ which I did.” For Allison, participating in the meeting was the
catalyst for her learning by having the opportunity to listen and observe others.
As for managers and leaders who serve as developers (coaches or mentors),
Allison said, “It’s my supervisor. . . . I have the best supervisor. . . . I think it is
his/her mentoring. I’ve been really fortunate to have these two supervisors—
I’ve only had three supervisors and these two are very strong supervisors . . .
anything I want to try or I want to understand, they always afford me that
opportunity . . . if I go to him/her with a question, he/she always explains it
on terms I can understand. . . . I can have very open conversations with them.”
In terms of the managers and leaders who visibly support and make space
for learning, Nicole said, “My direct supervisor supported me. He/she is patient
with the time it takes me to decide what I need to do and he/she supports my
decision to try to do it on my own.” By allowing Nicole to examine alternative
solutions and choose learning strategies that are most appropriate for her
needs, her supervisor is visibly supporting her informal learning. Kat said, “My
supervisor . . . is very adamant on . . . my learning. . . . It’s just not training the
big dogs . . . it’s training the whole crew to build this company . . . she sup-
ports me . . . she has pushed me . . . she is pushing me in a good way.”
Dale captures the subtheme about encouraging risk taking:

One of the ways [our company] is changing is for the [CEO] trying to get
people to take chances more than what they were. This is a very conservative
company and we’ve done it this way for a [number] of years and we can’t do it
any other way and s/he is trying to reward people for taking risks. She/he
would rather reward somebody for taking a risk and failing than she/he would
for somebody sitting back and not taking a risk and doing the same thing day
in and day out, so that part of the culture has changed . . . and I think that
facilitates a lot of this, too.

Similarly, Nicole said, “My direct manager . . . he supports me having new

ideas and wanting to change things.” As Doug acknowledged, “I’m sort of new
at this part of my job, and that I may not get it right the first time. [My super-
visor] makes it clear that failure is not preferred but it is an option . . . so that
helps.” As Bob noted, “You’ve got to make mistakes to learn. Or you’ve wasted
good mistakes. You only have so many of them in your lifetime, and if you
didn’t learning something from them you wasted them.”
In terms of managers and leaders who give positive feedback and recognition,
Nicole said, “There again, [my direct manager gives] . . . positive reinforce-
ment. ‘You did a great job.’ ‘This looks good.’”
Regarding managers and leaders who instill the importance of sharing knowl-
edge and developing others, Peter mentioned that he was a strong proponent of
informal learning; “I try to take that opportunity with people I work with. . . .
I like to take the opportunity to share what I’ve learned.”
Contextual Factors Influencing Informal Learning in a Workplace Setting 403

As for managers and leaders who serve as role models, Richard acknowledged
that the senior HR leader and CEO have been instrumental in shifting the orga-
nization from “the old traditional company, hierarchy, you do what I say, ‘Here,
boom, implement it,’ to make this ‘more of a collaboration in learning.’” He said,
“I would say a total commitment from the senior executive management that this
is the type of organization that we are going to have and that we aren’t just going
to kind of talk the talk, we are going to demonstrate it and be role models for it.”
As Figure 2 illustrates, these seven subthemes pervasively influence the
process of informal learning. Through provision of learning opportunities, man-
agers and leaders may trigger informal learning for their employees. They may
also be involved in the learning process by serving as a coach or mentor once
employees have chosen to learn from them. They may also help to create the
context for informal learning by making space for it to unfold as well as sup-
porting learners who are engaged in learning by encouraging learning and pro-
viding positive feedback. Encouraging risk taking and modeling behavior also
help to reinforce the importance of learning and create a culture of learning.
The theme of internal culture committed to learning had one subtheme, the
symbol of the training room. The training room at RIC is considered to be a site
for formal learning that reinforces the importance of learning and the invest-
ment the organization is making in promoting learning. The majority of
participants acknowledged that the company was spending considerable funds
on training. As Richard acknowledged, the company “is doing an awful lot with
training and things of that nature on teamwork and other issues and I think
what’s happening is all of that is beginning to . . . people understand that the
company is different and the company is interested in learning and managers
are approachable about issues.” Interesting, however, is the strong link between
formal and informal learning that is encouraged. The company recognized that
it had a number of employees with expertise they shared informally with their
colleagues and decided to create opportunities for those with specific knowl-
edge and expertise to serve as formal trainers on an occasional basis. In this way,
informal learning was translated into formal classroom learning.
Work tools and resources was a broad theme that influenced informal learn-
ing and included employees’ use of their computers, help menus, the Internet,
software, the telephone, books, and financial resources to support their infor-
mal learning endeavors. For the majority of participants, provision of these
technology tools and resources was related to employee job functions and
responsibilities. In other words, most employees had a desktop computer,
and their computer presented an optimal resource for informal learning. As
Allison stated, “If I’m curious about an area or need more information, some-
times I’ll surf the ‘Net or go out and scan a database for information . . . that is
a learning tool that I have.” As Dale noted, “The first thing I’m going to do is go
to the Internet and then Amazon or [another book company] or whatever, but
one of those two—it’s going to be the computer.” As Nicole said, “I’ve never
had any problem getting access to books or things. . . . our training depart-
ment has a library of information in relation to almost anything from how to
404 Ellinger

organize your life to computer softwares.” The availability of such work tools
and resources enable learners to consider alternative strategies for learning,
influences the types of learning strategies selected, and is also instrumental in
producing some of the actual outcomes of learning.
Another broad theme shaping informal learning was people who form webs of
relationships for learning. This theme had one subtheme: openness and accessibility
of people. As Kat noted, “There are so many people in this building, that, in some
way, will increase my knowledge or help me through a problem.” As Amanda
stated, “You are accessible to the people . . . you can go in any office . . . it’s not
closed off as far as being able to talk to anybody.” There was an overwhelming
sense that relationships are valued and important within this organization, and
having the ability to approach others enhances the informal learning process.
Employees in relationship with each other influence the solutions that are exam-
ined, the strategies that are selected, and how the proposed solutions are pro-
duced. Figure 2 depicts the positive contextual factors in relationship to the
reconceptualized Marsick and Watkins model of informal and incidental learn-
ing. By mapping the themes associated with organizational contextual factors
within the model, it becomes apparent how these factors positively influence the
informal learning process of employees.
Negative Organizational Contextual Factors (Detractors). Table 2 pre-
sents the eight overarching themes about the negative contextual factors that

Table 2. Negative Organizational Factors Influencing Informal Learning

Emergent Themes
Leadership and management not
committed to learning
An internal culture of
entitlement that is slowly
changing
Work tools and resources
People who disrupt webs of
relationships for learning
Structural inhibitors
Lack of time because of job
pressures and responsibilities
Too much change too fast
Not learning from learning
Subthemes
• Unsupportive and disrespectful leaders and
managers who do not value learning
• Microleaders and managers who tell you what to do
• Organizational distractions that impede informal
learning
• Diminished personal communications because of
virtual technology
• Some budget constraints
• Old-guard cynicism
• Being territorial and hedging knowledge because of
fear of downsizing
• Physical architectural barriers
• A silo mentality; functional walls
Contextual Factors Influencing Informal Learning in a Workplace Setting 405

emerged and their respective subthemes. Four of these emergent themes con-
trast four of the broad categories that positively influenced informal learning.
The theme of leadership and management not committed to learning comprised
two subthemes: unsupportive and disrespectful managers and leaders who don’t
value learning and micromanagers and leaders who tell you what to do. These
subthemes reflected a more authoritarian approach to leadership and manage-
ment that is based on position power. Kat described an incident in which she
and a colleague were working at the computer during her lunch hour and her
colleague was helping her learn a function. She then described one of her super-
visors as someone whom she (Kat) “didn’t do a whole lot for . . . but he/she
would come out and I didn’t feel like he/she was real pleased with what I was
doing. . . . That may have inhibited the length of time that we spent [on the
computer] but granted it was our lunch [hour] so I felt somewhat entitled to it.”
She said that this supervisor “has a look, it’s almost like the look my mother
would give me . . . he/she didn’t mind interrupting what I was doing . . . even
though I’m sitting here trying to learn something . . . he/she didn’t respect that.”
As for micromanagers and leaders who tell you what to do, Dale said
although he has a supervisor who does not micromanage him, “That’s not
necessarily true throughout this building.” Bob mentioned, “I do realize that
we still have a few old-school managers [who] believe that all the power
belongs to them” and who don’t encourage employees to think and learn for
themselves.
As Figure 3 illustrates, when some leaders and managers use or abuse their
position power, or project an attitude that is not supportive of employees,
opportunities for learning may not be made available. Managers and leaders
are likely not to actively focus on serving as coaches, mentors, or role models
and will negatively influence the culture, which impedes and suppresses infor-
mal learning.
Although work tools and resources, such as the computer and telephone,
can facilitate informal learning, they can also produce organizational distrac-
tions that impede informal learning and diminish personal communication
with each other because of virtual technology. Last, some budget constraints
may inhibit informal learning if financial resources are not as widely available
as they previously were.
People who disrupt webs of relationships for learning represented another broad
theme that impedes informal learning. Two subthemes emerged: old-guard cyn-
icism and being territorial and hedging knowledge because of fear of downsizing. As
Richard acknowledged, “certain associates . . . just comments they will make,
don’t pay any attention to that [new ways of doing things], it’s just a bunch of
B.S.” Similarly, Doug said, “A couple of people that were in there [a meeting] that
had been with the organization a good while came with the old cynicism . . . ‘We
can’t do that because,’ ‘That won’t fly because,’ and it really just deenergized the
room—kind of sucked the energy right out of there—attitude has a lot to do
with it and I think that kind of hurt [or got in the way of informal learning] in
 Figure 3. Map of How Negative Organizational Contextual Factors Influence the Process
of Informal Learning

Negative Organizational Negative Organizational

Contextual Factors Contextual Factors

Reinventing Itself Company

⫺ Structural ⫺ Learning-committed
inhibitors CONTEXT leadership and
management
Frame the Interpret
Triggers
context experience
⫺ Internal culture
⫺ Lack of time of entitlement

Examine
Evaluate
Work alternative
lessons learned
solutions
⫺ Too much change ⫺ Work tools
too fast and resources

Assess intended Produce the Choose

and unintended proposed learning
⫺ Not learning consequences solutions strategies ⫺ People who form
from learning webs of relationships
CONTEXT for learning
Contextual Factors Influencing Informal Learning in a Workplace Setting 407

this instance.” Similarly, Lucy acknowledged, “There is somewhat of an attitude

of that’s how we’ve always done it, which is real hard to get around . . . so there’s
pockets of people not wanting to change very rapidly . . . it’s not domineering,
that’s not the majority” but it can get in the way of informal learning.
In terms of being territorial and hedging knowledge because of fear of down-
sizing, Lucy also mentioned, “Letting go of that territory . . . be willing to show
somebody else something you know and in return gain something that they
know.” Lucy said she wished that “people would let go of their fear of losing
their job . . . nobody’s guaranteed anything . . . we have people who will not
tell anybody to save their life what they do because they want to retire in [a
number of] years . . . but get over that . . . let’s share, let’s get better.” The neg-
ative attitudes and territorialism serve to create conflict, which suppresses the
possibilities of informal learning among some employees and creates tension
within the movement toward the learning culture that is occurring.
An internal culture of entitlement that is slowly changing was another theme
that seems to impede informal learning. The company is experiencing a culture
shift, but there are still some individuals who are resistant to learning and
the change in a culture that requires continuous learning. For example, Doug
said, “This is a corporation where, a few years ago, you could have come and
worked the remainder of your professional career here easily, and I don’t feel
like that’s the case anymore. . . . You are going to have to earn your right to
work here versus feeling it’s more entitled to you.” Similarly, Gabrielle said:

We have people that have been here [a number of] years. . . . They have
people like me that are new and my skill level is so much higher than the
people that have been here [number of years] but they are kind of stuck in
a situation where they have been here this long—this is what they do—
they don’t want to learn—they don’t want to move forward or keep up with
technology . . . it doesn’t matter to me if you’ve been there two years,
twenty years, you should keep trying to learn new things and keep up with
what’s going on.

The theme of structural inhibitors was a contextual factor that had two sub-
themes: physical architectural barriers (structure of building and physical work
space) and a silo mentality, or functional walls. For example, Amanda acknowl-
edged, “The barriers are that every room is blocked off.” Further, when asked
what would make the environment more conductive to informal learning, she
replied, “Besides the walls coming down?”
In terms of a silo mentality or functional walls, Kat said, “I’d break down the
walls between the different divisions . . . not real walls . . . and they are crum-
bling as we speak. . . . It’s an absolute must for this group to share information
with this group in order to make the company bigger and better than what it is
and we are beginning to do some cross-training and putting people where they
408 Ellinger

can do the best job.” Architectural barriers associated with the physical struc-
ture of the current facility can suppress learning. The movement toward the
process-focused structure will eventually alleviate the silo mentality and may
promote more collaboration and cross-fertilization of ideas around processes
as opposed to functions and products, but at present the existence of some of
these barriers impedes informal learning.
Lack of time because of job pressures and responsibilities also inhibits informal
learning. For example, Ponie acknowledged, “I might be working on six differ-
ent projects at one time and I don’t have the time at that particular moment to
face a situation that just came up and I need to talk to someone else and get
someone else’s advice, sometimes I don’t have time right at that moment . . . if
you have to wait two or three days sometimes you lose a little bit, so time gets
in the way.” Nicole said, “Time . . . that evil word. . . . You do not have the time
to take . . . the pressure of the job and the responsibilities hinder [informal learn-
ing].” Because this company is in the midst of shifting its overall structure from
the traditional divisional, hierarchical one to a process-focused one, job func-
tions and responsibilities are changing; keeping pace with new job demands
can be constraining. Employees are time-pressured, asked to do more with less,
and may not have the opportunity to take advantage of informal learning oppor-
tunities that arise during the course of their work. They may choose learning
strategies that are not optimal because they lack the time for learning, and they
may not assess and reflect on the outcomes of their learning.
Last, too much change too fast and not learning from learning represented
potential inhibitors to informal learning and seem to be a function of the mag-
nitude of change that is occurring within the company. As Dale mentioned, “We
don’t learn from what we learned . . . there is a lot of that going on around the
company that I may have been able to use or somebody may have been able to
use some of what I come up with and we find we duplicate the efforts. . . . I
think we duplicate a lot of our learning individually that we could probably do
collaterally.” He and others acknowledged that there was not an infrastructure
to capture key learnings to prevent duplication. Even though the company has
an intranet, a mechanism for capturing expertise, key learnings, and lessons
learned throughout this period of change does not exist. Figure 3 depicts these
negative contextual factors in relationship to the reconceptualized Marsick and
Watkins model of informal and incidental learning. By mapping the themes
associated with negative organizational contextual factors within the model, it
becomes apparent how these factors negatively influence the informal learning
process of employees.

Discussion
Informal learning is considered to be context-bound, yet limited empirical
research has examined the organizational contextual factors that influence
informal learning. This study examined informal learning and the contextual
Contextual Factors Influencing Informal Learning in a Workplace Setting 409

factors that positively and negatively influence such learning in a learning-ori-

ented organization. The findings that emerged describe the contextual factors
that influence informal learning and articulate how such factors influence the
process of informal learning. The findings further elucidate how informal
learning can “best be supported, encouraged, and developed” (Marsick and
Volpe, 1999, p. 3).
In terms of positive organizational contextual factors that emerged, an
important finding in the current study is the critical role that learning-committed
leadership and management plays as a contextual factor that has a tremendous
influence on the informal learning process. Seven subthemes associated with this
theme describe how managers and leaders can have an impact on various aspects
of the informal learning process: managers and leaders who create informal learn-
ing opportunities, managers and leaders who serve as developers (coaches or
mentors), managers and leaders who visibly support and make space for learn-
ing, managers and leaders who encourage risk taking, managers and leaders who
instill the importance of sharing knowledge and developing others, managers
and leaders who give positive feedback and recognition, and managers and lead-
ers who serve as role models.
The studies by Sambrook and Stewart (2000) and Ashton (2004) have
previously identified management support as a compelling contextual factor
influencing workplace learning in general. More recently, Skule (2004) iden-
tified management support for learning as a predominant condition at work
that promotes informal learning. However, what constitutes management sup-
port and how such support is manifested and influences the process of infor-
mal learning has not been fully established in these studies. In contrast, the
Teaching Firm study did not specifically identify leaders and managers in their
articulation of contextual factors influencing informal learning, but it did sug-
gest that organizational practices “are established from the top down” (Leslie,
Aring, and Brand, 1998, p. 15).
Scholars have acknowledged the importance of leaders and managers in
facilitating learning and have suggested that they assume the roles of coaches
or mentors, provide support and feedback, and create a culture for learning
(Ashton, 2004; Beattie, 2002; Dale and Bell, 1999; Ellinger and Bostrom, 1999;
Eraut, Alderton, Cole, and Senker, 2000; London and Smither, 1999; Poell,
Van der Krogt, and Warmerdam, 1998). However, Vera and Crossan (2004)
have indicated that leaders “lack guidance on how their actions facilitate or
hinder learning” (p. 222). The findings from this study, as articulated by seven
subthemes within the theme of learning-committed leadership and manage-
ment, more clearly specify how such actions influence informal learning.
The importance of an internal culture committed to learning emerged as a
contextual factor influencing informal learning in this study. This factor was fur-
ther described by a subtheme, the symbol of the training room, which served to
reveal the importance the organization was placing on learning through expen-
ditures on formal training. The link between formal and informal learning was
410 Ellinger

also fostered through this symbol because individuals with knowledge and skills
were encouraged to serve as occasional trainers. The importance of organiza-
tional culture as a contextual factor was also identified by the Teaching Firm
study (Leslie, Aring, and Brand, 1998) and Sambrook and Stewart (2000). In
slight contrast, the Teaching Firm study suggested that organizational culture
was the contextual factor that had the strongest impact on informal learning.
The findings from the present study suggest that learning-committed leadership
and management was more pervasive; they illustrate how such leadership and
management behaviors can begin to create a culture for learning. Last, two other
contextual factors, work tools and resources, and people who form webs of rela-
tionships for learning, emerged as having a positive influence on informal learn-
ing. Work tools, resources, collegial support, knowledge sharing, and
communities of practice have been found to support learning (Ashton, 2004;
Dale and Bell, 1999; Dennen and Wang, 2002; Ellstrom, 2001; Tikkanen,
2002).
In terms of the negative organizational contextual factors that influence
informal learning, the current study identified leadership and management not
committed to learning, through disrespectful and unsupportive leaders and
manager and micromanagement behaviors; and an internal culture of entitle-
ment that is slowly shifting as being negative organizational factors that inhibit
and suppress informal learning. Sambrook and Stewart (2000) acknowledged
that the converse of their findings about management support and learning
culture were true: leaders and managers who do not support learning inhibit
it, as do an insufficient learning culture and lack of time and resources. Orga-
nizational culture was identified as the contextual factor having the strongest
impact on informal learning in the Teaching Firm study, but the tensions
between a shifting culture are noticeably present in the current study, and an
internal culture of entitlement that is slowly shifting actually suppresses infor-
mal learning. This finding might suggest the existence of subcultures and how
such subcultures positively and negatively influence informal learning.
In contrast to other scholars’ findings, work tools and resources were iden-
tified as inhibitors when they become a distraction, reduce personal commu-
nication, or are budget-constrained. The influence of people who disrupt webs
of relationships for learning also emerged as a negative factor along with struc-
tural inhibitors that relate to both physical and functional barriers. In addition,
lack of time because of intense job pressure and responsibility, an over-
whelming magnitude of change, and the lack of a mechanism to capture and
integrate key learning emerged as inhibitors. Other scholars have found that
lack of time for learning, lack of proximity to learning resources, lack of mean-
ingful rewards for learning, and limited decision-making power inhibit infor-
mal learning (Lohman, 2000; Sambrook and Stewart, 2000). The current study
offers support for some of these findings but also extends our understanding
of how these factors become inhibitors in the process of informal learning. Fur-
thermore, Savolainen (2000) contends that “change and learning reinforce each
Contextual Factors Influencing Informal Learning in a Workplace Setting 411

other,” and Skule (2004) acknowledges that a high degree of exposure to

changes as well as exposure to demands are predominant conditions at work
that promote informal learning. However, the findings from this study also sug-
gest that too much change can be overwhelming and can actually suppress
informal learning.
In summary, the findings from this study identify both positive and negative
organizational contextual factors that influence informal learning and describe
how such factors influence the process of informal learning within a learning-
oriented environment. Many of these findings lend support for some of the orga-
nizational contextual factors that have been previously identified by other
scholars. However, the findings considerably extend our understanding of the
importance of learning-committed leadership and management as an organiza-
tional contextual factor, and of how managers and leaders support or inhibit
informal workplace learning.
There are several limitations associated with this research that should be con-
sidered in reviewing the findings of this study. First, the qualitative case study
approach is a limitation because the findings from a case study are not intended
to be generalizable to populations or universes (Yin, 2003). Second, use of self-
report interview data is another limitation, as is recollection of critical informal
learning incidents from memory. Last, the number of critical incidents is relatively
small, though sufficient for an exploratory study.

Conclusions and Implications

The workplace represents a large arena in which adult learning often occurs
informally. There is a growing literature base on informal learning, but schol-
ars have acknowledged that considerable research must be undertaken to bet-
ter understand how organizations inhibit and facilitate informal learning
(Billett, 2000; Karakowsky and McBey, 1999; Lohman, 2000; Sambrook, 2005;
Sambrook and Stewart, 2000; Skule, 2004; Watkins and Cervero, 2000). The
research findings presented here offer insights about the contextual factors that
positively and negatively influence employees’ informal learning and may
enhance HRD practitioners’ ability to promote conditions within an organiza-
tion in support of informal learning.
Implications for Practice. Enos, Kehrhahn, and Bell (2003) have
suggested that organizations “harness and leverage” (p. 385) informal learn-
ing, and the findings that have emerged may give HRD professionals, man-
agers, and leaders insights and strategies on how this can occur. The findings
from the current study emphasize the importance of learning-committed lead-
ership and management in the process of informal learning and the movement
toward building a learning culture. Seven subthemes emerged that articulate
how learning-committed managers and leaders positively influence the process
of informal learning. These subthemes may serve as a guideline for human
resource professionals charged with developing managers and leaders.
412 Ellinger

Specifically, HRD professionals can educate managers and leaders about

the conditions that trigger informal learning as well as the process of informal
learning so that creation of learning opportunities can be enhanced for employ-
ees and the process of informal learning can be supported. Further, human
resource professionals can assist with development coaching and mentoring
skills that may enable managers and leaders to play more pivotal roles in this
process. Becoming more skillful in providing feedback and helping employees
assess, evaluate, and reflect on the outcomes of their informal learning activi-
ties are also critical competencies required of managers and leaders.
In addition to developing leaders and managers as informal learning facil-
itators, developmental attention can also be given to employees who may need
to further build teaming and collaborative skills so that collective learning can
be shared in organizations. Furnishing a physical infrastructure and resources
that stimulate informal learning are also important considerations. For exam-
ple, creating architectural designs and open spaces and facilitating opportuni-
ties for employees to meet, work, and socialize together is fundamental to
building networks and communities of practice that foster conditions for infor-
mal learning.
Implications for Future Research. This study is a foundation for future
research on the factors that enhance and suppress informal learning in the
workplace. RIC was in the midst of shifting from a hierarchical organization to
a process-focused one and therefore the extent to which these findings can be
applied to other organizations needs to be further examined. In particular, it
is hoped that this study will stimulate future research on informal learning that
explores different organizational settings as an environment for informal work-
place learning as well as various cultural settings so a more comprehensive
understanding of how organizations promote and impede informal learning
can emerge.
Research that continues to explore the contextual factors that promote and
impede informal learning will enable practitioners and researchers to better
assess an organization as a setting for such learning, as well as develop tools to
measure the extent to which this type of learning is occurring and the factors
that positively and negatively influence such learning.

References
Ashton, D. N. (2004). The impact of organizational structure and practices on learning in the
workplace. International Journal of Training and Development, 8 (1), 43–53.
Beattie, R. S. (2002). Developmental managers: Line managers as facilitators of workplace learning in
voluntary organizations. Ph.D. thesis, University of Glasgow.
Billett, S. (2000). Guided learning at work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 12 (7), 272–285.
Billett, S. (2001). Learning through work: Workplace affordances and individual engagement.
Journal of Workplace Learning, 13 (5), 209–214.
Billett, S. (2002). Toward a workplace pedagogy: Guidance, participation, and engagement. Adult
Education Quarterly, 53 (1), 27–43.
Contextual Factors Influencing Informal Learning in a Workplace Setting 413

Boud, D., Freeland, J., Hawke, G. & McDonald, R. (1998). More strategic, more critical, more
evaluative: Perspectives on research into workplace learning and assessment. In Boud, D. (Ed.),
Current Issues and New Agendas in Workplace Learning (pp. 136–150). Adelaide: National Centre
for Vocational Education Research.
Boud, D., & Garrick, J. (Eds.). (1999). Understanding learning at work. London: Routledge.
Boud, D., & Middleton, H. (2003). Learning from others at work: Communities of practice and
informal learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15 (5), 194–202.
Collin, K. (2002). Development engineers’ conceptions of learning at work. Studies in Continuing
Education, 24 (2), 133–152.
Cseh, M. (1998). Managerial learning in the transition to a free market economy in Romanian
private companies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens.
Cseh, M. (1999). Contextual learning of owner-managers of small, successful Romanian compa-
nies. In K. P. Kuchinke (Ed.), Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource development
conference (pp. 927–933). Arlington, VA: AHRD.
Cseh, M., Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1999). Informal and incidental learning in the work-
place. In G. A. Straka (Ed.), Conceptions of self-directed learning: Theoretical and conceptual
considerations (pp. 59–74). MüNster, Germany: Waxman.
Dale, M., & Bell, J. (1999). Informal learning in the workplace. Department for Education and
Employment Research Report no. 134. London: Department for Education and Employment.
Day, N. (1998). Informal learning. Workforce, 77 (6), 30–35.
Dechant, K. (1989). Managerial change in the workplace: Learning strategies of managers.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University.
Dennen, V. P., & Wang, M. (2002). The keyboard-based job coach: Informal learning via the
Internet. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4 (4), 440–450.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.
Dirkx, J. M. (1999). Invited reaction: Managers as facilitators of learning in learning organiza-
tions. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10 (2), 127–134.
Doornbos, A. J., Bolhuis, S., & Denessen, E. (2004). Exploring the relation between work
domains and work-related learning: The case of the Dutch police force. International Journal
of Training and Development, 8 (3), 174–190.
Ellinger, A. D. (1997). Managers as facilitators of learning in learning organizations. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens.
Ellinger, A. D. (2003). Antecedents and consequences of coaching behavior. Performance Improve-
ment Quarterly, 16 (1), 5–28.
Ellinger, A. D., & Bostrom, R. P. (1999). Managerial coaching behaviors in learning organizations.
Journal of Management Development, 18 (9), 752–771.
Ellinger, A. D., & Watkins, K. E. (1998). Updating the critical incident technique after forty years.
In R. Torraco (Ed.), Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development (pp. 285–292).
Oak Brook, IL: AHRD.
Ellstrom, P. (2001). Integrating learning and work: Problems and prospects. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 12 (4), 421–435.
Enos, M. D., Kehrhahn, M. T., & Bell, A. (2003). Informal learning and the transfer of learn-
ing: How managers develop proficiency. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14 (4),
369–387.
Eraut, M., Alderton, J. Cole, G., & Senker, P. (2000). Development of knowledge and skills at
work. In F. Coffield (Ed.), Differing visions of a learning society, vol. 1 (pp. 231–262). Briston,
UK: Policy Press.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51 (4), 327–358.
Gremler, D. D. (2004). The critical incident technique in service research. Journal of Service
Research, 7 (1), 65–89.
Illeris, K. (2003). Workplace learning and learning theory. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15 (4),
161–178.
414 Ellinger

Karakowsky, L., & McBey, K. (1999). The lessons of work: Toward an understanding of the impli-
cations of the workplace for adult learning and development. Journal of Workplace Learning,
11 (6), 192–201.
Knowles, M. (1950). Informal adult education. New York: Association Press.
Knowles, M. S. (1984). The adult learner: A neglected species (3rd. ed.). Houston: Gulf.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Leslie, B., Aring, M. K., & Brand, B. (1998). Informal learning: The new frontier of employee
development and organizational development. Economic Development Review, 15 (4), 12–18.
Lindeman, E. (1926). To discover the meaning of experience. Survey, 55, 545–546.
Lohman, M. C. (2000). Environmental inhibitors to informal learning in the workplace: A case
study of public school teachers. Adult Education Quarterly, 50 (2), 83–101.
Lohman, M. C. (2003). Work situations triggering participation in informal learning in the work-
place. A case study of public school teachers. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 16 (1), 29–54.
London, M., & Smither, J. W. (1999). Empowered self-development and continuous learning.
Human Resource Management, 38 (1), 3–15.
Marsick, V. J. (1999). Design of studies. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 3, 96–100.
Marsick, V. J. (2003). Invited reaction: Informal learning and the transfer of learning: How man-
agers develop proficiency. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14 (4), 389–395.
Marsick, V. J., & Volpe, M. (1999). The nature and need for informal learning. Advances in Devel-
oping Human Resources, 3, 1–9.
Marsick, V. J., Volpe, M., & Watkins, K. E. (1999). Theory and practice of informal learning in
the knowledge era. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 3, 80–95.
Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (1990). Informal and incidental learning in the workplace. London:
Routledge.
Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (1997). Lessons from informal and incidental learning. In
J. Burgoyne & M. Reynolds (Eds.), Management learning: Integrating perspectives in theory
and practice (pp. 295–311). London: Sage.
Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (1999). Facilitating learning organizations: Making learning count.
Aldershot, Hampshire, UK: Gower Press.
Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2001). Informal and incidental learning. In S. B. Merriam (Ed.),
The new update on adult learning (pp. 25–34). New Directions in Adult and Continuing
Education, no. 89. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Matthews, J. H., & Candy, P. C. (1999). New dimensions in the dynamics of learning and
knowledge. In D. Boud & J. Garrick (Eds.), Understanding learning at work (pp. 47–64).
London: Routledge.
Matthews, P. (1999). Workplace learning: Developing an holistic model. Learning Organization,
6 (1), 18–29.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide (2nd ed.).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B., & Simpson, E. L. (1995). A guide to research for educators and trainers of adults
(2nd ed.). Malabar, FL: Krieger.
Mumford, A. (1993). How managers can develop managers. Aldershot, Hampshire, UK:
Gower Press.
Poell, R. F., Van der Krogt, F. J., & Warmerdam, J.H.M. (1998). Project-based learning in profes-
sional organizations. Adult Education Quarterly, 49 (1), 28–42.
Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2001). The science of training: A decade of progress. Annual
Review of Psychology, 52, 471–499.
Sambrook, A. (2005). Factors influencing the context and process of work-related learning: Syn-
thesizing findings from two research projects. Human Resource Development International, 8 (1),
101–119.
Contextual Factors Influencing Informal Learning in a Workplace Setting 415

Sambrook, S., & Stewart, J. (2000). Factors influencing learning in European learning-oriented
organizations: Issues for management. Journal of European Industrial Training, 24 (2), 209–221.
Savolainen, T. (2000). How organizations promote and avoid learning: Development of positive
and negative learning cycles. Journal of Workplace Learning, 12 (5), 195–204.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday.
Skule, S. (2004). Learning conditions at work: A framework to understand and assess informal
learning in the workplace. International Journal of Training and Development, 8 (1), 8–17.
Stern, E., & Sommerlad, E. (1999). Workplace learning, culture and performance. Trowbridge,
Wiltshire, UK: Cromwell Press.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tikkanen, T. (2002). Learning at work in technology intensive environments. Journal of Work-
place Learning, 14 (3), 89–97.
Torraco, R. J. (1999). Integrating learning with working: A reconception of the role of workplace
learning. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10 (3), 249–270.
Van der Sluis, L.E.C., & Poell, R. F. (2002). Learning opportunities and learning behavior: A study
among MBAs in their early career stage. Management Learning, 33 (3), 291–311.
Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Academy of
Management Review, 29 (2), 222–241.
Watkins, K. E. (1995). Workplace learning: Changing times, changing practices. In W. Franklin
Spikes (Ed.), Workplace learning (pp. 3–16). New Directions in Adult and Continuing Educa-
tion, no. 68. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Watkins, K. E., & Cervero, R. M. (2000). Organizations as contexts for learning: A case study in
certified public accountancy. Journal of Workplace Learning, 12 (3), 187–194.
Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1992). Towards a theory of informal and incidental learning in
organizations. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 11 (4), 287–300.
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Westbrook, T. S., & Veale, J. R. (2001). Work-related learning as a core value: An Iowa perspec-
tive. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12 (3), 301–318.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Andrea D. Ellinger is assistant professor of human resource education at the

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

For bulk reprints of this article, please call (201) 748-8789.