Bridging Formal and Informal Learning: A Strategic Imperative for Modern Organizations

Listen to this article:

Abstract: The evolving knowledge economy has fundamentally transformed how organizations approach workplace learning and development. This article examines the dynamic interplay between formal and informal learning dimensions within contemporary work environments, drawing on established human resource development (HRD) scholarship. While formal learning remains essential for structured skill acquisition, informal learning increasingly drives adaptation, innovation, and competitive advantage. However, the traditional dichotomy between these approaches obscures their complementary nature and interdependence. Through analysis of theoretical frameworks and organizational practices, this article demonstrates that effective workplace learning requires integrating both dimensions within expansive learning environments that balance organizational performance objectives with individual development needs. The article synthesizes evidence on learning conditions, transfer mechanisms, and contextual factors while highlighting critical considerations including equity, knowledge control, and learner agency. Implications for HRD practitioners emphasize the necessity of systematic needs analysis, strategic alignment, and cultivation of learning-supportive organizational cultures that recognize workplace learning as simultaneously spatial, social, and developmental.

Organizations today face an unprecedented imperative: continuously develop workforce capabilities while simultaneously responding to accelerating technological change, shifting market dynamics, and evolving employee expectations. The traditional boundaries separating formal training programs from day-to-day work experiences have become increasingly porous, challenging long-held assumptions about where, when, and how meaningful learning occurs (Marsick & Watkins, 2001; Tynjälä, 2008).

The stakes are considerable. As Billett (2002) observes, skills and competencies rapidly become outdated in fast-moving contexts, requiring continuous implementation and empowerment as strategic factors for global competitiveness. Yet many organizations continue investing primarily in formal training programs—classroom-based courses, structured curricula, designated instructors—while potentially overlooking the rich learning embedded in everyday work practices, social interactions, problem-solving moments, and experiential discovery.

This practical challenge reflects deeper conceptual tensions. Workplace learning scholarship reveals competing disciplinary perspectives, contested definitions, and divergent stakeholder interests that shape how learning is conceptualized, valued, and facilitated (Boud, 1998; Candy & Matthews, 1998). The formal-informal learning distinction itself, while analytically useful, risks oversimplification that masks the complex, integrated nature of learning as it actually unfolds in organizational contexts.

This article adopts an HRD lens to examine formal and informal workplace learning not as opposing paradigms but as complementary dimensions requiring strategic integration. The analysis explores definitional debates, examines the characteristics and outcomes of both learning modes, investigates the conditions that enhance or constrain learning effectiveness, and considers implications for building learning-oriented organizational capabilities.

The Workplace Learning Landscape

Defining Workplace Learning in Contemporary Contexts

Workplace learning defies singular definition, reflecting its inherently multifaceted nature. Jacobs and Parks (2009) conceptualize it broadly as "the multiple ways through which employees learn in organizations" and "the process that engages individuals in training programmes, education and development courses as well as experiential learning for the purpose of acquiring and/or implementing competences necessary to meet organizational demands" (p. 134). This definition usefully highlights the dual orientation toward both organizational requirements and individual development—a tension that permeates workplace learning theory and practice.

The definitional complexity stems partly from workplace learning's dual purposes. As Boud and Garrick (1999) observe, it simultaneously serves "the development of the enterprise through contributing to production, effectiveness and innovation" and "the development of individuals through contributing to knowledge, skills and the capacity to further their own learning both as employees and citizens in the wider society" (p. 6). These purposes, while potentially complementary, can also generate competing priorities regarding resource allocation, learning content, and outcome measurement.

Disciplinary diversity further enriches and complicates the conceptual terrain. Workplace learning attracts scholarship from adult education, organizational theory, vocational education, management studies, and cultural anthropology, among other fields (Candy & Matthews, 1998). Each discipline brings distinct theoretical frameworks—behaviorism, interpretivism, critical theory—and methodological approaches that yield valuable but sometimes contradictory insights about learning processes, contexts, and outcomes.

The Formal-Informal Spectrum in Practice

Stern and Sommerlad (1999) propose viewing workplace learning along a continuum characterized by varying degrees of separation between learning and work itself. Their framework identifies three broad approaches: the workplace as a site for learning (where learning occurs "off the job" in designated training spaces), the workplace as a learning environment (where planned learning happens "on the job" within actual work contexts), and learning and working as inextricably linked (where continuous learning constitutes "the new form of labor," in Zuboff's memorable phrase).

Sambrook (2005) offers a complementary distinction between learning at work (planned training and educational courses), learning in work (informal processes like discussing, observing, asking questions, and problem-solving embedded in work activities), and learning outside work (development occurring beyond workplace boundaries but with workplace relevance). These categorizations recognize that learning location, intentionality, and structure vary considerably across organizational contexts.

Formal learning encompasses structured, intentionally designed learning experiences typically delivered through institutionally sponsored programs. Eraut (2000) identifies its characteristic features: prescribed frameworks, organized events or packages, designated teachers or trainers, qualifications or credits, and externally specified outcomes. Formal learning emphasizes systematic skill acquisition through pedagogical approaches emphasizing didactic interaction and measurable learning objectives (Beckett & Hager, 2002).

Informal learning, by contrast, emerges from work practice itself—often spontaneously, in response to immediate needs or challenges. Marsick and Watkins (1990) characterize it as learning that occurs wherever people have need, motivation, and opportunity, typically integrated with daily routines, triggered by internal or external jolts, not highly conscious, haphazard and chance-influenced, inductive through reflection and action, and linked to others' learning. Dale and Bell (1999) emphasize that informal learning "takes place in the work context, relates to an individual's performance of their job and/or their employability, and which is not formally organised into a programme or curriculum by the employer" (p. 1).

The intentionality dimension adds further nuance. Eraut (2000, 2001) distinguishes between implicit learning (non-intentional), reactive learning (explicit but spontaneous, occurring without dedicated time), and deliberative learning (intentional and planned). This framework acknowledges that learning stimuli and learning moments need not coincide temporally—we learn in the present from past experiences through retrospective sense-making or from anticipated futures through hypothetical scenario construction.

Organizational and Individual Consequences of Learning Modes

Organizational Performance Impacts

The learning mode choices organizations make carry significant performance implications. Research demonstrates positive correlations between formal learning participation and talent retention, particularly when learning opportunities align with employees' strengths and interests (Govaerts et al., 2010). Organizations investing in formal development programs signal commitment to employee growth, potentially strengthening psychological contracts and reducing turnover among high-potential staff.

Formal learning also facilitates systematic skill upgrading across employee populations. Structured programs enable standardized competency development, quality control through curriculum design, and assessment mechanisms that verify learning achievement (Barber, 2005). These characteristics prove particularly valuable for technical skills, regulatory compliance requirements, and organization-wide capability building where consistency matters.

However, informal learning increasingly drives the adaptive capabilities essential for competitive advantage. Employees who actively engage in informal learning—seeking out colleagues with relevant expertise, experimenting with new approaches, reflecting on experiences—develop broader, more flexible skill sets and demonstrate greater innovation capacity (Lohman, 2005). Informal learning facilitates rapid knowledge transfer to practice, enables context-specific problem-solving, and generates the tacit knowledge that distinguishes expert from adequate performance (Marsick et al., 2008).

The workplace climate itself mediates learning effectiveness. Research by Kirby et al. (2003) reveals significant relationships between learning approaches and workplace climate dimensions. Environments characterized by autonomy, participatory decision-making, knowledge-sharing norms, and recognition for learning engagement foster both deeper formal learning integration and richer informal learning (Felstead et al., 2009). Conversely, restrictive environments—featuring narrow task definitions, hierarchical control, and individual knowledge hoarding—undermine learning effectiveness regardless of mode.

Individual Development and Capability Outcomes

From the employee perspective, formal and informal learning serve different but complementary developmental functions. Formal learning provides structured pathways for career advancement, portable credentials signaling competence to internal and external labor markets, and opportunities for systematic skill development that might not emerge through work practice alone (Fuller & Unwin, 2003). Participation in formal programs also builds learning confidence and metacognitive awareness—employees develop understanding of their own learning processes and preferences.

Informal learning, meanwhile, enables employees to address immediate performance challenges, adapt to changing role requirements, and develop the practical wisdom that comes from experience. The learning proves immediately applicable because it emerges from actual work contexts rather than simulated training environments (Clarke, 2005). Employees develop problem-solving capabilities, social capital through collegial knowledge exchange, and organizational savvy regarding implicit norms and practices.

Yet informal learning carries equity implications requiring careful attention. Research consistently demonstrates that informal learning opportunities distribute unevenly across organizational hierarchies, with higher-status positions offering richer learning prospects (Colley et al., 2002). Women, ethnic minorities, older workers, and those in lower-status roles often face systemic barriers to informal learning participation stemming from exclusion from decision-making, limited access to knowledgeable mentors, and workplace cultures reflecting gendered or racialized assumptions (Bierema, 2001; Probert, 1999).

Age-related considerations further complicate the picture. Fuller and Unwin (2005) found that mature workers bring valuable accumulated knowledge to learning situations but may face stereotyped assumptions about learning capacity or motivation. Organizations must therefore consider how both formal and informal learning opportunities can be designed to leverage diverse employees' strengths while addressing structural barriers to participation.

Evidence-Based Organizational Responses

Designing Expansive Learning Environments

Fuller and Unwin's (2003, 2004) expansive-restrictive continuum provides a powerful framework for understanding workplace learning quality. Expansive learning environments feature multiple opportunities for boundary crossing (between novice and expert, team and organization, workplace and educational institution), gradual identity transformation from peripheral to full community participation, and explicit focus on knowledge acquisition alongside productive work. Restrictive environments, conversely, limit learning opportunities through narrow job definitions, minimal collaboration, and exclusive focus on immediate productive contribution.

Critically, expansiveness does not automatically correspond to formal versus informal learning modes. Highly structured formal training can occur within restrictive environments that provide no opportunity to apply new knowledge, while rich informal learning thrives in expansive contexts regardless of formal program presence. The learning environment quality matters more than the learning mode per se.

Microsoft's approach to continuous learning illustrates expansive environment principles. The technology company combines formal technical training pathways with informal learning supports including internal knowledge-sharing platforms, cross-functional project assignments, and protected time for skill development. Employees access on-demand learning resources while simultaneously participating in communities of practice where experienced colleagues share emerging knowledge. Performance management explicitly recognizes learning contributions, not just productive output, signaling organizational commitment to development.

Cultivating Learning-Supportive Organizational Culture

Organizational culture profoundly shapes learning effectiveness. Cohen's (2013) research on frontline managers revealed that learning-committed leadership—supervisors who actively facilitate subordinate learning through coaching, opportunity provision, and mistake tolerance—significantly enhances both formal training transfer and informal learning engagement. Leadership behaviors modeling learning orientation prove particularly powerful, demonstrating that continuous development represents an organizational value, not merely rhetorical commitment.

Communication practices also matter considerably. Clarke (2005) identified effective communication and opportunities for reflection among the key predictors of learning environment quality. Organizations enabling regular dialogue about work practices, dedicated reflection time, and feedback-rich interactions create conditions where both formal skill application and informal knowledge generation flourish.

Pixar Animation Studios exemplifies culture-driven learning. The company's renowned "Braintrust" process brings together directors and senior creative leaders to provide candid feedback on works-in-progress. This structured-yet-informal mechanism facilitates continuous learning through peer expertise sharing, reflective dialogue, and psychological safety for risk-taking. The practice demonstrates how organizational rituals can simultaneously embody formal (structured, regular, facilitated) and informal (emergent, experience-based, peer-driven) learning characteristics while reinforcing cultural values around collective excellence.

Implementing Structured Development Pathways

Despite informal learning's value, formal development programs remain essential for systematic capability building. Effective formal initiatives share several characteristics: strategic alignment with organizational objectives, needs-based design following thorough organizational analysis, and integration mechanisms supporting workplace application (Goldstein & Ford, 2002).

Chiaburu and Marinova's (2005) research identifies critical predictors of training effectiveness: organizational support (resources, time allocation, managerial encouragement), training self-efficacy (learners' confidence in ability to master content), and goal orientation (individual motivations for learning). Organizations addressing these factors through program design, manager preparation, and learner selection maximize formal learning returns.

The training-development distinction proposed by Sonnentag et al. (2004) offers useful guidance. Training focuses on current and near-future job requirements, providing specific skills for immediate performance improvement. Development takes longer-term views, building capabilities for future roles and fostering continuous learning orientation. Strategic organizations balance both, recognizing that training addresses present needs while development builds adaptive capacity.

Accenture's Career Counselor program demonstrates integrated formal development. The global consulting firm assigns each employee a dedicated career counselor—a more senior professional providing multi-year guidance, development planning, and learning resource navigation. This formal structure supports informal learning through the counseling relationship while connecting employees to appropriate formal training. The program recognizes that effective development requires both structured pathways and personalized, relationship-based support.

Building Transfer-Supportive Infrastructures

Learning value ultimately depends on workplace application—the transfer problem that has long vexed HRD practitioners. Egan et al. (2004) found that organizational learning culture and job satisfaction significantly predict both motivation to transfer learning and turnover intention, suggesting that transfer support and retention strategy interconnect.

Coetzer's (2007) research identified that employees perceive their workplaces as learning environments when organizations provide supportive training infrastructure—not merely programs themselves but also implementation support, supervisor involvement in application planning, and performance management integration. Transfer requires organizational systems alignment, not just individual learner motivation.

Work design itself shapes transfer potential. Jobs offering autonomy, task variety, and decision-making authority naturally create application opportunities for newly acquired capabilities (Awoniyi et al., 2002). Conversely, tightly prescribed roles with minimal discretion limit formal learning application regardless of program quality, representing an infrastructure constraint on learning investment returns.

Toyota's renowned continuous improvement system exemplifies transfer-supportive infrastructure. The company's formal problem-solving training (including root cause analysis methods) immediately connects to daily kaizen activities where employees apply techniques to real production challenges. Supervisors actively support application, improvement ideas receive rapid implementation feedback, and the performance management system rewards effective problem-solving. This alignment creates a transfer-optimized environment where formal learning directly feeds informal capability development.

Leveraging Technology-Enabled Learning

Digital technologies increasingly blur formal-informal boundaries while expanding learning accessibility. Learning management systems deliver formal content on-demand, enabling just-in-time skill acquisition. Social learning platforms facilitate informal knowledge exchange at scale. Performance support tools embed learning directly in workflow, making capability building inseparable from task execution.

However, technology-enabled learning introduces new equity considerations. Felstead and Jewson's (2000) research on remote work found that physical separation from colleagues and managers potentially restricts informal learning opportunities that on-site workers access naturally. Organizations must therefore deliberately design virtual learning supports—online communities, digital mentoring, virtual collaboration opportunities—to ensure distributed employees access comparable learning environments.

IBM's "Think Academy" illustrates technology-leveraged integration. The platform combines formal courses (with credentials and structured curricula), informal knowledge-sharing forums, expert-led virtual sessions, and AI-powered personalized learning recommendations. Employees navigate seamlessly between formal and informal resources based on immediate needs, work context, and development goals. The integrated approach recognizes that learners require multiple modalities and that learning mode selection should respond to specific situations rather than organizational defaults.

Building Long-Term Learning Capability

Fostering Learning-to-Learn Competencies

Beyond specific skill development, effective organizations cultivate meta-learning capabilities—employees' capacity to diagnose their own learning needs, access appropriate resources, and continuously adapt their capabilities. Berings et al.'s (2005, 2007) research on workplace learning styles revealed that employees demonstrating adaptive flexibility in learning strategy deployment—matching approaches to contexts—achieve superior outcomes.

Organizations support meta-learning development through several mechanisms. Formal programs can explicitly teach learning strategies, reflection practices, and self-assessment techniques. Managers can facilitate learning conversations, helping employees identify development needs and create learning plans. Performance management can incorporate learning goal-setting alongside performance objectives, legitimizing development as work rather than distraction from work.

The psychological contract between employer and employee increasingly centers on employability rather than employment security (Forrier & Sels, 2003). Organizations providing rich learning opportunities—both formal and informal—strengthen this contract by enabling capability development that serves both organizational and individual interests. Employees gain portable skills and credentials, while organizations benefit from enhanced adaptive capacity and engagement.

Creating Knowledge-Sharing Architectures

Informal learning's organizational value depends significantly on knowledge flow—whether individual insights become collective capabilities. Communities of practice represent powerful mechanisms for knowledge sharing, enabling practitioners to exchange expertise, develop shared understanding, and collectively solve problems (Boud & Middleton, 2003). While communities form informally, organizations can nurture them through time allocation, recognition, technological infrastructure, and leadership support.

Effective knowledge-sharing architectures recognize that valuable knowledge exists in multiple forms. Blackler (1995) distinguished between embodied knowledge (action-oriented, partly tacit), embedded knowledge (residing in routines and technologies), embrained knowledge (conceptual and theoretical), encultured knowledge (shared understandings and values), and encoded knowledge (formalized in documents and systems). Organizations require varied mechanisms—from storytelling to databases, mentoring to standard operating procedures—to capture and disseminate these knowledge types.

Barriers to knowledge sharing require active management. Spencer (2001) identified knowledge control issues—who defines valid knowledge, who accesses it, whose interests it serves—as critical yet often overlooked dimensions. Organizations must address questions of knowledge equity, ensuring that informal learning benefits and formal development opportunities distribute fairly rather than reinforcing existing hierarchies.

Developing Learning-Oriented Leadership

Leadership behaviors fundamentally shape learning culture. Ellinger and Cseh's (2007) research found that managers who adopt facilitative approaches—asking questions rather than providing answers, creating learning opportunities through challenging assignments, tolerating productive failure—significantly enhance both formal training effectiveness and informal learning engagement.

However, developing learning-oriented leadership requires overcoming several challenges. Traditional management training often emphasizes control, efficiency, and error prevention—orientations potentially conflicting with learning support. Managers face time pressures limiting their capacity for developmental conversations. Performance pressures may create risk aversion that discourages experimentation essential for informal learning.

Organizations can address these challenges through manager selection (prioritizing learning facilitation in hiring and promotion), leadership development programs emphasizing coaching skills, performance management recognizing developmental leadership, and workload management providing time for learning support activities. Critically, senior leadership must model learning orientation, demonstrating that development represents strategic priority rather than operational distraction.

Conclusion

The formal-informal learning dichotomy, while analytically useful, ultimately proves inadequate for capturing workplace learning's integrated, situated nature. As Colley et al. (2002) observed, few if any learning situations feature purely formal or informal characteristics—rather, most learning experiences blend structured and emergent, planned and spontaneous, individual and social elements in ways that defy neat categorization.

For HRD practitioners, this complexity carries several implications:

First, abandon false choices between formal and informal learning. Both modes offer distinct value and serve complementary functions. Organizations require systematic approaches recognizing when formal structure optimally supports learning (standardized skill building, credential acquisition, foundational knowledge), when informal emergence proves more effective (context-specific problem-solving, tacit knowledge development, adaptive response), and how integrated approaches leverage both modes' strengths.

Second, prioritize learning environment quality over learning mode selection. Fuller and Unwin's expansive-restrictive framework highlights that environmental characteristics—autonomy, collaboration opportunity, knowledge-sharing norms, developmental leadership—matter more than whether learning happens in classrooms or workplaces. Organizations should invest in creating expansive conditions where both formal and informal learning thrive rather than debating modal superiority.

Third, address equity systematically. Learning opportunities—both formal and informal—must distribute fairly across organizational demographics. This requires examining structural barriers affecting women, ethnic minorities, older workers, and lower-status employees while designing inclusive learning environments where all workers access developmental supports and knowledge-sharing networks.

Fourth, align learning investment with strategic objectives through systematic needs analysis. Effective workplace learning begins with organizational analysis (contextual factors supporting or constraining development), job analysis (capability requirements for effective performance), and people analysis (individual readiness, motivation, and learning preferences). This foundation enables deliberate design choices about formal-informal balance, content priorities, delivery mechanisms, and evaluation approaches.

Fifth, recognize learning as simultaneously individual and organizational. The reciprocal interaction between learner and workplace determines learning outcomes (Tynjälä, 2008). Organizations must therefore consider both individual agency—employees' active role in shaping their learning—and organizational responsibility for creating enabling conditions. Neither individual initiative nor organizational infrastructure alone suffices; effective learning requires their integration.

The transition from viewing workplace learning as training delivery to recognizing it as continuous, integrated, strategically essential organizational capability represents a fundamental shift. As workplaces evolve—becoming more distributed, technologically mediated, demographically diverse, and dynamically changing—learning approaches must evolve correspondingly. Organizations that successfully integrate formal and informal learning dimensions, create expansive learning environments, and align development with both organizational and individual objectives will build the adaptive capabilities that increasingly differentiate competitive success from struggle in the knowledge economy.

References

1. Ashforth, B. E., Sluss, D. M., & Saks, A. M. (2007). Socialization tactics, proactive behavior, and newcomer learning: Integrating socialization models. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70(3), 447–462.

2. Ashton, D. (2004). The impact of organisational structure and practices on learning in the workplace. International Journal of Training and Development, 8(1), 43–53.

3. Awoniyi, E. A., Griego, O. V., & Morgan, G. A. (2002). Person-environment fit and transfer of training. International Journal of Training and Development, 6(1), 25–35.

4. Barber, J. (2005). Skill upgrading within informal training: Lessons from the Indian auto mechanic. International Journal of Training and Development, 9(2), 128–139.

5. Beckett, D., & Hager, P. (2002). Life, work and learning: Practice in postmodernity. Routledge.

6. Berings, M. G. M. C., & Poell, R. F. (2008). The relationship between on-the-job learning, job characteristics, and work-based learning style preferences. International Journal of Training and Development, 12(1), 32–48.

7. Berings, M. G. M. C., Poell, R. F., & Simons, P. R. J. (2005). Conceptualizing on-the-job learning styles. Human Resource Development Review, 4(4), 373–400.

8. Berings, M. G. M. C., Poell, R. F., & Simons, P. R. J. (2007). Dimensions of on-the-job learning styles. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 56(3), 358–391.

9. Berings, M. G. M. C., Poell, R. F., Simons, P. R. J., & Van Veldhoven, M. J. P. M. (2008). The development and validation of the on-the-job learning styles questionnaire for the nursing profession. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 61(3), 339–350.

10. Bierema, L. L. (2001). Women, work, and learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 92, 53–62.

11. Billett, S. (1999). Guided learning at work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 11(3), 82–101.

12. Billett, S. (2001). Learning in the workplace: Strategies for effective practice. Allen & Unwin.

13. Billett, S. (2002). Toward a workplace pedagogy: Guidance, participation, and engagement. Adult Education Quarterly, 53(1), 27–43.

14. Billett, S. (2014). Workplace learning theories and practices. In D. Lipari & S. Pastore (Eds.), Nuove parole della formazione (pp. 287–295). Palinsesto.

15. Blackler, F. (1995). Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: An overview and interpretation. Organization Studies, 16(6), 1021–1046.

16. Boud, D. (Ed.). (1998). Current issues and new agendas in workplace learning. National Centre for Vocational Education Research.

17. Boud, D., & Garrick, J. (1999). Understandings of workplace learning. In D. Boud & J. Garrick (Eds.), Understanding learning at work (pp. 1–11). Routledge.

18. Boud, D., & Middleton, H. (2003). Learning from others at work: Communities of practice and informal learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15(5), 194–202.

19. Candy, P., & Matthews, J. (1998). Fusing learning and work: Changing conceptions of workplace learning. In D. Boud (Ed.), Current issues and new agendas in workplace learning (pp. 9–30). National Centre for Vocational Education Research.

20. Chiaburu, D., & Marinova, S. (2005). What predicts skill transfer? An exploratory study of goal orientation, training self-efficacy and organizational support. International Journal of Training and Development, 9(2), 110–123.

21. Clarke, N. (2005). Workplace learning environment and its relationship with learning outcomes in healthcare organizations. Human Resource Development International, 8(2), 185–205.

22. Coetzer, A. (2007). Employee perceptions of their workplaces as learning environments. Journal of Workplace Learning, 19(7), 417–434.

23. Cohen, J. (2013). The nature of learning being facilitated by frontline managers. Human Resource Development International, 16(5), 502–518.

24. Colley, H., Hodkinson, P., & Malcolm, J. (2002). Non-formal learning: Mapping the conceptual terrain. University of Leeds Lifelong Learning Institute.

25. Du Gay, P. (1996). Consumption and identity at work. Sage.

26. Dale, M., & Bell, J. (1999). Informal learning in the workplace (Research Brief No. 134). Department for Education and Employment.

27. Edwards, R. (1998). Flexibility, reflexivity and reflection in the contemporary workplace. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 17(6), 377–388.

28. Egan, T., Yang, B., & Bartlett, K. (2004). The effects of organizational learning culture and job satisfaction on motivation to transfer learning and turnover intention. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(3), 279–301.

29. Ellinger, A. D. (2005). Contextual factors influencing informal learning in a workplace setting: The case of 'reinventing itself company.' Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(3), 389–415.

30. Ellinger, A. D., & Cseh, M. (2007). Contextual factors influencing the facilitation of others' learning through everyday work experiences. Journal of Workplace Learning, 19(7), 435–452.

31. Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(1), 113–136.

32. Eraut, M. (2001). Learning challenges for knowledge-based organisations. In CIPD & European Consortium of Learning Organisations, Workplace learning in Europe (pp. 20–34). Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

33. Felstead, A., & Jewson, N. (2000). In work, at home: Towards an understanding of homeworking. Routledge.

34. Felstead, A., Fuller, A., Jewson, N., & Unwin, L. (2009). Improving working as learning. Routledge.

35. Felstead, A., Fuller, A., Jewson, N., & Unwin, L. (2011). Working to learn, learning to work (Praxis No. 7). UK Commission for Employment and Skills.

36. Fenwick, T. (2001). Tides of change: New themes and questions in workplace learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 92, 3–17.

37. Finegold, D., Levenson, A., & Van Buren, M. (2005). Access to training and its impact on temporary workers. Human Resource Management Journal, 15(2), 66–85.

38. Forrier, A., & Sels, L. (2003). The concept employability: A complex mosaic. International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, 3(2), 102–124.

39. Fuller, A., & Unwin, L. (2003). Learning as apprentices in the contemporary UK workplace: Creating and managing expansive and restrictive participation. Journal of Education and Work, 16(4), 407–426.

40. Fuller, A., & Unwin, L. (2004). Expansive learning environments: Integrating organizational and personal development. In H. Rainbird, A. Fuller, & A. Munro (Eds.), Workplace learning in context (pp. 126–144). Routledge.

41. Fuller, A., & Unwin, L. (2005). Older and wiser? Workplace learning from the perspective of older employees. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 24(1), 21–39.

42. Garrick, J. (1998). Informal learning in the workplace: Unmasking human resource development. Routledge.

43. Garrick, J., & Usher, R. (2000). Flexible learning, contemporary work and enterprising selves. Electronic Journal of Sociology, 5(1).

44. Goldstein, I. L., & Ford, J. K. (2002). Training in organizations (4th ed.). Wadsworth.

45. Govaerts, N., & Baert, H. (2011). Learning patterns in organizations: Towards a typology of workplace-learning configurations. Human Resource Development International, 14(5), 545–559.

46. Govaerts, N., Kyndt, E., Dochy, F., & Baert, H. (2010). Influence of learning and working climate on the retention of talented employees. Journal of Workplace Learning, 23(1), 35–55.

47. Hager, P. (2004). Current theories of workplace learning: A critical assessment. In N. Bascia, A. Datnow, & K. Leithwood (Eds.), International handbook of educational policy (pp. 829–846). Kluwer Academic Press.

48. Jacobs, R., & Parks, Y. (2009). A proposed conceptual framework of workplace learning: Implications for theory development and research in human resource development. Human Resource Development Review, 8(2), 133–150.

49. Kirby, J., Knapper, C., Evans, C., Carty, A., & Gadula, C. (2003). Approaches to learning at work and workplace climate. International Journal of Training and Development, 7(1), 31–52.

50. Kyndt, E., Dochy, F., & Nijs, H. (2009). Learning conditions for non-formal and informal workplace learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 21(5), 369–383.

51. Lohman, M. C. (2005). A survey of factors influencing the engagement of two professional groups in informal workplace learning activities. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(4), 501–527.

52. Manuti, A., & De Palma, D. (2014). Why people are important for organizations. Palgrave.

53. Marsick, V. J. (2009). Toward a unifying framework to support informal learning theory, research and practice. Journal of Workplace Learning, 21(4), 265–275.

54. Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (1990). Informal and incidental learning in the workplace. Routledge.

55. Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2001). Informal and incidental learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 89, 25–34.

56. Marsick, V. J., Watkins, K. E., Callahan, M. W., & Volpe, M. (2008). Informal and incidental learning in the workplace. In M. C. Smith & N. DeFrates-Densch (Eds.), Handbook of research on adult learning and development (pp. 570–599). Routledge.

57. Probert, B. (1999). Gendered workers and gendered work. In D. Boud & J. Garrick (Eds.), Understanding learning at work (pp. 165–179). Routledge.

58. Sambrook, S. (2005). Factors influencing the context and process of work-related learning: Synthesizing findings from two research projects. Human Resource Development International, 8(1), 101–119.

59. Sonnentag, S., Niessen, C., & Ohly, S. (2004). Learning at work: Training and development. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 249–289). Wiley.

60. Spencer, B. (2001). Changing questions of workplace learning researchers. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 92, 31–40.

61. Stern, A., & Sommerlad, E. (1999). Workplace learning, culture and performance. Institute of Personnel and Development.

62. Tynjälä, P. (2008). Perspectives into learning at the workplace. Educational Research Review, 3(2), 130–154.

63. Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine. Basic Books.

---

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Associate Dean and Director of HR Programs (WGU); Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD/HR/Leadership Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.

---

Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2025). Bridging Formal and Informal Learning: A Strategic Imperative for Modern Organizations. Human Capital Leadership Review, 28(1). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.28.1.3