Construction of collective self-determination in development-oriented group discussions

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Construction of collective self-determination in development-oriented group discussions © Sara Keronen, Soila Lemmetty and Kaija Marjukka Collin. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited Published version Keronen, Sara; Lemmetty, Soila; Collin, Kaija Marjukka Keronen, S., Lemmetty, S., & Collin, K. M. (2024). Construction of collective self-determination in development-oriented group discussions. Journal of Workplace Learning, 36(9), 88-105. https://doi.org/10.1108/jwl-05-2024-0110 2024 Construction of collective self-determination in developmentoriented group discussions Sara Keronen Department of Education, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland Soila Lemmetty School of Educational Sciences and Psychology, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland, and Kaija Marjukka Collin Department of Educational Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland Abstract Purpose –The purpose of this study is to explore the construction of collective self-determination in development-oriented group discussions. This paper provides empirical understanding of how collective selfdetermination is constructed in social interaction using certain communication styles. Design/methodology/approach –The qualitative data were based on four development-oriented group discussions (totaling 180min) of supervisors from Finnish central hospital and information and communication technology organization. Participants from hospitals worked as head nurses, while those from information technology organizations worked as leaders and project managers. The data were analysed through interaction and content analyses. Findings –Based on the findings, collective self-determination is constructed in social interaction through speech sections in which individuals’different speech acts facilitate basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness. In collective self-determination, the individual and the collective are emphasized at the same time, meaning that collective self-determination cannot occur without individual-level selfdetermination. Practical implications –Organizations and teams should focus on finding suitable ways to implement collective self-determination and consider the importance of social interaction and certain communication styles. Moreover, employees should be offered enough resources and support to be able to work in collectively self-determined manner. Originality/value –The study offered an approach to understand self-determination and its construction in group discussions aiming at collective learning. Collective self-determination emphasizes the group and its ability to be autonomous, responsible and capable to learn and to orient toward common goals and tasks. As © Sara Keronen, Soila Lemmetty and Kaija Marjukka Collin. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/ legalcode This work is supported by the Finnish Work Environment Fund (project number 200324 and 240024) and by the Finnish Cultural Foundation (project number 00240776). Authors would like to thank the target organizations and the participants who voluntarily spent their time with them. JWL 36,9 88 Received29 May 2024 Revised 2 September 2024 Accepted9 September 2024 Journal of Workplace Learning Vol. 36 No. 9, 2024 pp. 88-105 Emerald Publishing Limited 1366-5626 DOI 10.1108/JWL-05-2024-0110 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/1366-5626.htm such, it extends the previous understanding of self-determination as collective-level phenomenon. More research is needed in the context of working life. Keywords Collective self-determination, Self-determination theory, Group discussions, Workplace learning, ICT organization, Hospital Paper type Research paper 1. Introduction Due to continuous change and the increased amount of expert work, organizations have been forced to find new ways of organizing work to increase employees’learning and development and thus achieve a competitive advantage (Power and Waddell, 2004). Modern expert work, seen as continuous learning and development, requires autonomy, freedom and responsibility (Saks and Leijen, 2014;Noe and Ellingson, 2017). Employees are expected to be active, willing, able and interested in learning –in other words, be self-determined and have strong intrinsic motivation (Ryan and Deci, 2000). However, expert work is rarely completed alone. Learning emerges as a collective form in addition to individual practices. Cooperation, sharing expertise, teamwork and group situations with colleagues are essential to ensure the completion of daily work tasks (Lemmetty, 2020;Stabel et al., 2022). Selfdetermination is not the only essential requirement of expert work; collective team-level selfdetermination is as well (Keronen et al.,2023). Although autonomous and self-organized teams have been used in organizations in response to demands for continuous change and learning requirements (Lee and Edmondson, 2017), studies on collective self-determination in the context of learning in expert work are lacking (Keronen et al.,2023). Therefore, the current study approaches self-determination at the collective level. In the field of adult education, previous studies have shown that collegiality and social interaction are vital resources for learning at work, as learning occurs through participation in socially shared practices in the work community (Billett, 2014). In addition to individualoriented perspectives, self-determination has been studied from a sociocultural perspective that emphasizes the collective nature of expert work (Lemmetty, 2020). These practices are essential enablers of self-determination and the fulfillment of basic psychological needs that intrinsically motivate employees (Keronen et al., 2023). When enhancing people’s basic psychological needs and their commitment to certain behaviors, autonomy-supportive communication styles are crucial (Martela et al., 2021). When the responsibility of the work and learning has shifted from organizations to teams (Ellinger, 2005;Noe and Ellingson, 2017), the focus should be on self-determination as a collective activity (Lemmetty, 2020), not as individual abilities (Hetzner et al., 2012). The essential question is how the team can orient itself in social interaction toward a common direction of learning, achieving goals and completing complex and problem-driven work tasks. Research on self-determination has tended to focus on individual-oriented perspectives (Rigby and Ryan, 2018), although the fulfillment of basic needs not only relies on the individual’s own activity but is also influenced by the demands, obstacles and affordances of the sociocultural context (Ryan and Deci, 2000). Thus, the motivational processes behind selfdetermination theory (SDT) at the individual level may also operate at the group level (Thomas et al., 2017). Collective self-determination has been previously studied in the context of indigenous people and democracy (Murphy, 2014;Zuehl, 2016) but not in the context of work (Keronen et al., 2023). Martela et al. (2021) offered theoretical techniques for using autonomysupportive communication styles to engage in certain behaviors, but empirical research on these communication techniques is needed. Moreover, SDT should be used more in organizational contexts (Gagné and Deci, 2005) and different learning environments Journal of Workplace Learning 89 (Hsu et al.,2019). Therefore, this study explores self-determination from a collective perspective as a sociocultural phenomenon constructed through speech acts in social interactions. The study approaches the construction of collective self-determination in the context of development-oriented group discussions with supervisors from a central hospital and an information and communication technology (ICT) organization. This study contributes to previous research on self-determination by empirically exploring on the interpersonal level how basic psychological needs are enhanced by certain communication styles (see Martela et al., 2021). Hence, the study aims to increase the understanding of self-determination as a collective-level phenomenon approached from adult education perspective. 2. Collective self-determination SDT is based on three basic psychological needs that are essential for optimal development and well-being: autonomy, competence and relatedness (Ryan and Deci, 2000). Selfdetermination can be described as a perceived sense of autonomy and possibility of choice, need for knowledge and competence, need to belong in the community and meaningfulness (Rigby and Ryan, 2018). When the three needs are fulfilled, individuals can be assumed to be self-motivated, active, inspired (Ryan and Deci, 2000) and learning-oriented through personal initiative they take (Hetzner et al.,2012). In other words, they have strong inner motivation. The three needs underlie proactivity, engagement, and thus certain behaviors (Rigby and Ryan, 2018). As noted above, research on basic psychological needs has tended to focus on individual-oriented perspectives (Rigby and Ryan, 2018). However, the fulfillment of these needs depends on the social and contextual conditions, opportunities and requirements that either facilitate or hinder people’s self-motivation, performance and development (Ryan and Deci, 2000). In the context of learning at work, social interaction in the community enables basic psychological needs to be fulfilled on individual (Keronen et al., 2023) and collective level. In social interaction, autonomy can be supported by offering certain limitations for behavior in autonomy-supportive ways, that is, by explaining why limits are necessary and giving a clear rationale (Martela et al., 2021;Rigby and Ryan, 2018). Moreover, providing structure, feedback and guidance on how to adhere to the necessary rules supports the need for competence (Martela et al.,2021). In addition, relatedness is supported by enhancing the sense of belongingness, connection, mutual bond and trust (Martela et al., 2021;Rigby and Ryan, 2018). From sociological perspective, collective self-determination is defined as a phenomenon in which people jointly control the institutions that structure their social world (Zuehl, 2016). In collective self-determination, the roles of autonomy and self-determined motivation stem from group membership rather than from individuals. Collective self-determination can be described as the freedom to decide what actions the group takes and why (Thomas et al., 2017). Thus, behind collective self-determination is engagement in certain behaviors (see Martela et al., 2021) as one unit. Collective self-determination can be approached as a group’s collective capability to enhance freedom and well-being (Murphy, 2014). Although the phenomenon of collective self-determination has not been studied in adult education or the workplace context, the practices and features that manifest collective self-determination have already been used in organizations. 3. Self-organized, autonomous teams as manifestations of collective selfdetermination in the work context In the organizational context, collective self-determination manifests as different team-level practices and processes through which employees at the team level work in a self-determined and self-organized manner toward their goals and tasks. The aim of these practices and JWL 36,9 90 processes, which usually use self-organization and lower hierarchical configurations (Lee and Edmondson, 2017), is to improve employees’work and learning (see Bunderson and Boumgarden, 2010;Power and Waddell, 2004). Different autonomous and self-organized teams are understood as examples of collective self-determination, as teams have autonomy, responsibility and more control over their own work and ongoing projects (Auvinen et al., 2018;Laloux, 2014;Langfred, 2000) and thus have strong self-determination regarding daily work tasks (Wall et al., 1986). Teams regulate their behavior when completing work tasks (Cohen and Ledford, 1994), for example, by setting goals, analyzing problems, making plans and evaluating their performance (Laloux, 2014). Higher autonomy and responsibility of work support intrinsic motivation behind employees’actions (Laloux, 2014), emphasizing the idea of SDT as basis for function of teams. They have high degree of independence, leadership, dedication and collation (Patanakul et al., 2012), which requires increased communication among team members (Muthusamy et al., 2005). Moreover, communication, coordination, mutual support, effort and cohesion have been found to define the selforganized team’s quality and performance (Zaimovic et al., 2021). Successful implementation requires self-organized team’s ability to align their tasks goals and strategies (Nederveen Pieterse et al., 2019). Although self-organized and autonomous teams work largely on their own and have autonomy, they are not uncontrolled. Leadership is needed to avoid instability, ambiguity and prevent chaos, although at the same time leadership should not be controlling, diminishing creativity and spontaneity (Moe et al.,2008). Leadership in these teams can be approached from a plural perspective as “power-with”leadership, in which the knowledge needed to complete the work tasks is held by individuals and teams instead of individual leaders. This refers to a model in which leadership is collectively everyone’s responsibility and constructed through social interaction. (Salovaara and Bathurst, 2018). The self-organization of teams does not mean that there is no structure. There are practices and structures that indicate how teams should work, make decisions and share roles (Laloux, 2014). Clear structures are also needed to ensure that colleagues provide enough support for learning (Bunderson and Boumgarden, 2010) and that supervisors avoid unwanted outcomes, such as unclear responsibilities and outsourcing of or absence of responsibility (Bell, 2017;Collin et al., 2021). In innovative work, self-organized teams with stronger capabilities, freedom and autonomy can perform better than other teams (Patanakul et al., 2012) based on intensified commitment to the team (Muthusamy et al., 2005). Although, teams with higher levels of structure (i.e. higher levels of specialization, formalization and hierarchy) can promote learning by creating a safe and predictable team environment where information is shared freely and conflicts are reduced. However, the different ways of self-organizing work do not mean leaving individuals or teams without support (Collin et al., 2018) or structure. Instead, finding a balance between autonomy and support (Collin et al.,2021) when implementing self-organized teams is essential. 4. Learning through group discussions as a context for collective self-determination In this study, collective self-determination is explored in the context of development-oriented group discussions aimed at developing participants’competencies and knowledge through discussion, dialogue and shared meaning. Therefore, these group discussions are approached as collective learning situations. Learning through group discussions is essential also in participant’s daily work environments at hospital and ICT organization, since learning and social interaction can be seen intertwined rather than separate elements of expert work (Collin, 2008). In these both work environments, multiple practices and processes of learning through discussions are crucial, since the completion of daily work tasks is based on employees’expertise and at the team-level sharing competencies and working together. These Journal of Workplace Learning 91 kinds of practices and processes emphasize the importance of collective learning based on collegiality, social interaction and participation in socially shared practices (Billett, 2014). In hospital, learning occurs in social interactions with colleagues (Brooks et al., 2017; Stabel et al.,2022) through one’s own work, theory or guidance, reflections on work experiences and life outside of work (Berings et al., 2008). Collaboration and giving feedback play a critical role in sharing of what has been learned (Kyndt et al., 2016;Riera Claret et al., 2020) when completion of everyday tasks is based on consulting and interprofessional teamwork (Pimmer et al., 2013). In the ICT field, learning is linked to everyday work and framed by solving complex problems (Collin, 2008) and working with technologies (Vähäsantanen and Eteläpelto, 2017). Learning takes place either through interactions with colleagues and customers or independently as information retrieval (Gijbels et al., 2012;Lemmetty, 2020), which requires employees’autonomy and control over their own learning processes (Bell, 2017;Frenkel and Sanders, 2007). Although learning in the ICT field takes independent forms, it should not be seen as totally autonomous or independent (Lemmetty, 2020), since the work is completed in projects that include multiple experts and customers requiring learning together and sharing competencies. Therefore, in both work organizations, learning as collective-level phenomenon relies on collegiality, community, group situations and teamwork (Lemmetty, 2020). 5. Research aim and question The purpose of this study is to explore the construction of collective self-determination in development-oriented group discussions. Moreover, this study approaches collective selfdetermination in social interaction and through speech acts facilitating autonomy, competence and relatedness in these discussions. Thus, the following research question is posed: How is collective self-determination constructed by speech acts in development-oriented group discussions? 6. Methodology As the purpose is to explore collective self-determination in development-oriented group discussions, this study relies on understanding self-determination and learning as socially constructed phenomena. Hence, in this study, learning at the group level is approached as a sociocultural phenomenon, such as an interaction among the individual, others and the environment (Billett, 2014;Vygotsky, 1978). We understand learning occurring in interpersonal activities among people in a social learning system (John-Steiner and Mahn, 1996;Wenger, 1998) and interactional processes through which the basic psychological needs are either fulfilled or hindered (Ryan and Deci, 2000). The aim of this study was to examine how the participants in the group construct collective self-determination through social interaction (Poole et al.,1999) and look at how their behavior in the meaning-making process creates new knowledge and understanding (Burtis and Turman, 2006). The interaction analysis at the interpersonal level (McLeod et al., 2010) was applied because the interest was in interactional activity. Particularly, we explored the underlaying actions and meanings of speeches constructing collective self-determination. The interaction analysis allows to reveal dialogical details of the meaning-making process (Marková et al.,2007) constructing collective self-determination in the group interaction. Moreover, content analysis (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005) was applied to understand the content of the discussions. JWL 36,9 92 6.1 Data The data for this study was collected as part of a larger research and development project in Finland aimed to produce understanding of sustainability of learning in expert work. Part of this project was to conduct a group coaching sessions as an intervention aimed to increase participants’knowledge of workplace learning in sustainable way and how it can be supported in supervisory work (Collin et al., 2023). The data used in this study was collected from these group coaching sessions, which occurred as concrete development-oriented group discussions. The data consisted of audio recordings (n= 180min) from four sessions –two at a central hospital and two at an ICT organization. These two organizations were chosen because daily work tasks in these rely on teamwork, project work, collaboration and employees’ability to communicate with each other in a multiprofessional manner. Moreover, the work can be described as expert work requiring continuous learning and development at individual and collective levels. As the aim of the group coaching sessions was to increase the participants understanding of how to support workplace learning, all participants had supervisory roles that included employees’guidance. The participants from the ICT organization were team leaders and project managers, and the participants from the central hospital were physicians and head nurses. The group coaching sessions were conducted by two people, one facilitating the conversation and the other as a researcher, focusing more on taking notes and observing the situation. The first author conducted the hospital meetings. The role of the facilitator was to guide each session, instruct and facilitate the tasks. Group discussions conducted as face-toface meetings, and either four or five participants attended the sessions. The content for the discussions was designed by the researchers of the project and was not part of the university’s curriculum or of specific learning goals or certificates. At the beginning of each session, a short orientation for the current topic was provided by the facilitator, and then planned tasks were conducted through which the participants shared their own experiences, knowledge and competencies in group discussion aimed to achieve learning. Interaction and open conversation between the participants and between the facilitator and the participants were emphasized during the discussions. In both groups, the participants mostly knew each other, although they did not all work with each other on a daily basis. 6.2 Analysis Before the systematic analysis, the audio recordings were transcribed. The analysis process, methods and data used are described in Table 1. below. In the first phase of the analysis, learning episodes were identified and reviewed to limit the data to those relevant to the study. In this study, an “episode”is defined as a coherent section of speech that can be distinguished from the rest of the discussion (Marková et al., 2007) based on sections where participants create new knowledge and learn together through shared understanding and negotiations of meanings. First, the ends of the episodes were located by finding the point at which the participants made a conclusion or summary or when new knowledge and understanding occurred based on the preceding conversation. Then, the beginnings of the episodes were located by reading the transcripts from the end backward and locating the point at which participants started to discuss the current topic, and others actively brought their own perspectives and thoughts to the conversation. This phase required to focus on the content of the conversation, highlighting the content analytical approach of the analysis (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). In learning episodes, individual participants bring their own knowledge and understanding of the topic; this can be understood as individual learning. After these perspectives are challenged and discussed together by other participants, they are either accepted, modified or rejected. At the end of an episode, conclusions or summaries can be Journal of Workplace Learning 93 understood as new knowledge emerging in the group –that is, collective learning. All these coherent sections of speeches, i.e. learning episodes, were separated from the rest of the data. Altogether, 16 learning episodes formed a basis for the second phase of the analysis, which answers the research question. In the initial analysis of the second phase, speech sections illustrating autonomy, competence and relatedness were located and color-coded from the learning episodes in a theory-driven manner (Martela et al., 2021;Ryan and Deci, 2000). These speech sections were part of learning episodes, consisted of multiple comments, and were formed by the analysis process. For instance, a section of the speech was interpreted to demonstrate competence when the conversation indicated that the participants’goal was to acquire and develop new knowledge and skills. In the subsequent analysis of the second phase, the focus was on individual speech acts that facilitate autonomy, competence and relatedness in speech sections found in initial analysis. The speech sections were further divided into speech acts. Hence, the unit of analysis was speech act (McLeod et al., 2010), and interaction analyses at the interpersonal level (McLeod et al.,2010) and content analysis (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005) were applied. In data-driven location of the speech acts, individual speeches were approached as activity aimed to construct collective self-determination (see Burtis and Turman, 2006). Moreover, the focus was on how the information has been shared in the discussion, what is the tone of the speeches and what is the underlying function of the speeches in discussion. Hence, the way participants communicate in group was the focus on analysis (Poole et al., 1999), and therefore, the behavior was analysed at the social interactional level (Burtis and Turman, 2006). Furthermore, the content of the conversation was examined at the same time to make sure the interpretation of the meaning and function of the speeches were understood Table 1. Framework of the analysis Phase of analysis I Learning episodes II Answering research question Analysis section New knowledge and learning in the group Initial analysis: Construction of learning episodes by speech sections illustrating autonomy, competence and relatedness Subsequent analysis: facilitative speech acts Data Development-oriented group discussions Learning episodes Speech sections illustrating autonomy, competence and relatedness Target of the analysis Episodes Speech sections Speech acts Analysis method Classification into episodes based on the theme discussed (Marková et al., 2007) Interaction analysis (McLeod et al., 2010) and Qualitative content analysis (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005) Basis Data-based Theory-driven Data-based Findings Learning episodes Speech sections illustrating autonomy, competence and relatedness Speech acts facilitating autonomy, competence and relatedness in group interactions Source: Authors’own work JWL 36,9 94 correctly. Although the aim was not to determine specific themes, as is usually the case in content analysis. (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005) All speech acts were located and coded by describing their initial meaning and function in group discussion. For example, participants’ comments asking to get more information or criticizing something were categorized under speech act of evaluating information and offering critical comments. Moreover, the speech acts of evaluating information and offering critical comments were understood to support competence since they offered construction and structure into conversation and support possibilities to participate. All speech acts were categorized under three categories: autonomy, competence and relatedness based on which psychological needs they are facilitating. Table 2 below shows an example of the speech section of competence including data citations and illustrates the interpretation process of speech acts from hospital’s group discussion. 7. Findings 7.1 Construction of collective self-determination: speech sections illustrating autonomy, competence and relatedness Collective self-determination was constructed in learning episodes by speech sections illustrating autonomy, competence and relatedness and the facilitating speech acts. The Table 2. Example of the interpretation of analysis process Participant Citation Interpretation of the meaning and function of speech Speech act Participant 3: And that is our goal that one of our head nurses would always do a shift [at the department] during three weeks period, because that is where you get the information that oh lord this is how things work now !can be interpreted as a common and mutual goal since the participant uses the word “our”in speech and because the following participant continue providing instructions related to goal !create structure to discussion since it expresses of what is expected or required behavior !aims to engage and participate people to discussions through achieving this goal Setting goals Participant 4: But you have kind of remind yourself that you don’t stay, you must put it on your calendar that you actually go there, because they [visits at the department] are very useful !provides concrete instructions how working at the department would be possible and explains possible obstacles (limitation of time) for others to be considered !by considering the instructions others can make a change as capable and competent people !support competence by acknowledging the actions required to achieve the goals !engage others to the goal and discussion by describing the positive benefits Providing instructions Source: Authors’own work Journal of Workplace Learning 95 in these kinds of teams have enough knowledge and resources to engage the behavior required to collective self-determination. Each speech section and its facilitative acts have their own meaning and function in construction of collective self-determination. This means that relying only on one communication style can lead teams to be too independent and far from the other teams and goals of the organization. Therefore, organizations and teams using collective selfdetermination should elaborate all these three needs in their actions as well as explore suitable ways for the certain context to implement collective self-determination. Regarding the limitations of this study, it could be argued that the results might be context-related and therefore not transferable to other contexts. As the concept of collective self-determination has not been studied in the field of adult education or the context of working life, this perspective, as used in this study, is only one approach to explore the phenomenon. Moreover, the facilitators and researcher’s role in development-oriented group discussion should be considered, although their role was not to guide the conversation or the learning but to facilitate the group. Therefore, the results might be different in real-life working situations depending, for example, on whether the official supervisor is present or not in the situation or depending on the combination of the group of people. An apparent limitation of the method was that group communication was analysed only using audio recordings; thus, facial expressions and gestures were excluded. In the future, studying employees’experiences of working and learning in collectively self-determined teams would be essential to get their own experiences of the phenomenon. As employees’resources and capabilities for self-determination might differ depending on the situation and work tasks, collective self-determination could be expected to be also situational and contextual. Exploring the dynamics of the phenomenon in different organizational context, such as nonprofit organizations, education institutions or government agencies, would broaden the understanding of how these communication styles apply across different sectors. Understanding how collective self-determination operates in various settings could offer information to develop more effective team and leadership practices. Supporting practices and processes in a sociocultural context need to be explored in more detail in relation to collective self-determination. In addition, everyday learning and teamlevel situations could be explored qualitatively by using observation and ethnography. Using different methods would deepen the understanding of the emergence and occurrence of selfdetermination as a collective-level phenomenon. Using remote work and different online environments to complete daily work tasks creates new frameworks and challenges for teams’collective self-determination. Moreover, as the learning and completion of daily work tasks rely even more on collective and collegial practices, shared understanding and sharing competencies, collective self-determination, rather than individually oriented practices and processes, might be emphasized in the future. More research is needed to define and determine the phenomenon in the context of working life. References Auvinen, T., Riivari, E. and Sajasalo, P. (2018), “Lessons learned from traditional and ‘new-age’ leadership”, in Eskola, A. (Eds), Navigating Through Changing Times, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 95-112. Bell, B.S. (2017), “Strategies for supporting self-regulation during self-directed learning in the workplace”, in Noe, R.A. and Ellingson, J.E. (Eds), Autonomous Learning in the Workplace, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 117-134. Berings, M., Poell, R. and Gelissen, J. (2008), “On-the-job learning in the nursing profession: developing and validating a classification of learning activities and learning themes”,Personnel Review, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 442-459, doi: 10.1108/00483480810877606. JWL 36,9 102 Billett, S. (2014), “Mimesis: learning through everyday activities and interactions at work”,Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 462-482, doi: 10.1177/1534484314548275. Brooks, J.V., Gorbenko, K. and Bosk, C. (2017), “Interactional resources for quality improvement: learning from participants through a qualitative study”,Quality Management in Health Care, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 55-62, doi: 10.1097/QMH.0000000000000128. Bunderson, J.S. and Boumgarden, P. (2010), “Structure and learning in self-managed teams: why ‘bureaucratic’teams can be better learners”,Organization Science, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 609-624, doi: 10.1287/orsc.1090.0483. Burtis, J.O. and Turman, P.D.(2006), Group Communication Pitfalls. Overcoming Barriers to an Effective Group Experience, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Cohen, S.G. and Ledford, G.E. Jr (1994), “The effectiveness of self-managing teams: a quasiexperiment”,Human Relations, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 13-43, doi: 10.1177/001872679404700102. Collin, K. (2008), “Development engineers’work and learning as shared practice”,International Journal of Lifelong Education, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 379-397, doi: 10.1080/02601370802213856. Collin, K., Herranen, S., Paloniemi, S., Auvinen, T., Riivari, E., Sintonen, T. and Lemmetty, S. (2018), “Leadership as an enabler of professional agency and creativity: case studies from the Finnish information technology sector”,International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 222-232, doi: 10.1111/ijtd.12130. Collin, K., Keronen, S., Lemmetty, S., Auvinen, T. and Riivari, E. (2021), “Self-organised structures in the field of ICT: challenges for employees’workplace learning”,Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 95-108, doi: 10.1108/JWL-10-2019-0124. Collin, K., Lemmetty, S., Jaakkola, M. and Keronen, S. (2023), Lähijohtaminen Kestävän Oppimisen Edistäjänä Työelämässä (JoKo): Tutkimushankkeen Loppuraportti [Leading Sustainable Learning at Work (JoKo): Report], University of Jyväskylä, doi: 10.17011/jyureports/2023/18. Ellinger, A.D. (2005), “Contextual factors influencing informal learning in a workplace setting: the case of ‘reinventing itself company”,Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 389-415, doi: 10.1002/hrdq.1145. Frenkel, S.J. and Sanders, K. (2007), “Explaining variations in co-worker assistance in organizations”, Organization Studies, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 797-823, doi: 10.1177/0170840707073079. Gagné, M. and Deci, E.L. (2005), “Self-determination theory and work motivation”,Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 331-362, doi: 10.1002/job.322. Gijbels, D., Raemdonck, I., Vervecken, D. and Van Herck, J. (2012), “Understanding work-related learning: the case of ICTworkers”,Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp.416-429, doi: 10.1108/13665621211250315. Hetzner, S., Heid, H. and Gruber, H. (2012), “Change at work and professional learning: how readiness to change, self-determination and personal initiative affect individual learning through reflection”,European Journal of Psychology of Education, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 539-555, doi: 10.1007/s10212-011-0094-1. Hsieh, H.F. and Shannon, S.E. (2005), “Three approaches to qualitative content analysis”,Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 15 No. 9, pp. 1277-1288, doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687. Hsu, H.C.K., Wang, C.V. and Levesque-Bristol, C. (2019), “Reexamining the impact of selfdetermination theory on learning outcomes in the online learning environment”,Education and Information Technologies, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 2159-2174, doi: 10.1007/s10639-019-09863-w. John-Steiner, V. and Mahn, H. (1996), “Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: a vygotskian framework”,Educational Psychologist, Vol. 31 Nos 3/4, pp. 191-206, doi: 10.1207/ s15326985ep3103&4_4. Keronen, S., Lemmetty, S. and Collin, K. (2023), “Employees’self-determination in collegial learning situations at work: a comparative study of a Finnish ICTorganization and a central hospital”, Journal of Workplace Learning 103 Scandinavian Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-16, doi: 10.16993/sjwop.192. Kyndt, E., Vermeire, E. and Cabus, S. (2016), “Informal workplace learning among nurses learning outcomes”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 435-450, doi: 10.1108/JWL-06-2015-0052. Laloux, F. (2014), Reinventing Organizations: A Guide to Creating Organizations Inspired by the Next Stage in Human Consciousness, Nelson Parker, Brussels. Langfred, C.W. (2000), “The paradox of self-management: individual and group autonomy in work groups”,Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 563-585, doi: 10.1002/10991379(200008)21:5<563::AID-JOB31>3.0.CO;2-H. Lee, M.Y. and Edmondson, A.C. (2017), “Self-managing organizations: exploring the limits of lesshierarchical organizing”,Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 37, pp. 35-58, doi: 10.1016/ j.riob.2017.10.002. Lemmetty, S. (2020), Self-Learning is Present Every Day –in Fact, It’smyJob”, Self-Directed Workplace Learning in Technology-Based Work, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä. Marková, I., Linell, P., Grossen, M. and Salazar Orvig, A. (2007), Dialogue in Focus Groups: Exploring Socially Shared Knowledge, Equinox Publishing, Equinox Pub, London. Martela, F., Hankonen, N., Ryan, R.M. and Vansteenkiste, M. (2021), “Motivating voluntary compliance to behavioural restrictions: self-determination theory–based checklist of principles for covid-19 and other emergency communications”,European Review of Social Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 305-347, doi: 10.1080/10463283.2020.1857082. McLeod, J.M., Kosicki, G.M. and McLeod, D.M. (2010), “Levels of analysis and communication science”, in Berger, C.R., Roloff, M.E. and Roskos-Ewoldsen, D.R. (Eds), The Handbook of Communication Science, Sage, CA, pp. 183-200. Moe, N.B., Dingsøyr, T. and Dybå, T. (2008), “Understanding self-organizing teams in agile software development”, in 19th Australian conference on software engineering, pp. 76-85, doi: 10.5555/ 1395083.1395657. Murphy, M. (2014), “Self-determination as a collective capability: the case of indigenous peoples”, Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 320-334, doi: 10.1080/ 19452829.2013.878320. Muthusamy, S.K., Wheeler, J.V. and Simmons, B.L. (2005), “Self-managing work teams: enhancing organizational innovativeness”,Organization Development Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 53-66. Nederveen Pieterse, A., Hollenbeck, J.R., van Knippenberg, D., Spitzmüller, M., Dimotakis, N., Karam, E.P. and Sleesman, D.J. (2019), “Hierarchical leadership versus self-management in teams: goal orientation diversity as moderator of their relative effectiveness”,The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 6, doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101343. Noe, R.A. and Ellingson, J.E. (2017), “Autonomous learning in the workplace”,inNoe,R.A.and Ellingson, J.E. (Eds), Autonomous Learning in the Workplace, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 1-11. Patanakul, P., Chen, J. and Lynn, G.S. (2012), “Autonomous teams and new product development”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 734-750, doi: 10.1111/j.15405885.2012.00934.x. Pimmer, C., Pachler, N. and Genewein, U. (2013), “Contextual dynamics in clinical workplaces: learning from doctor-doctor consultations”,Medical Education, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 463-475, doi: 10.1111/medu.12130. Poole, M.S., Keyton, J. and Frey, L.R. (1999), “Group communication methodology”, in Frey, L.R., Gouran, D.S. and Poole, M.S. (Eds), Handbook of Group Communication Theory and Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 92-112. Power, J. and Waddell, D. (2004), “The link between self-managed work teams and learning organisations using performance indicators”,The Learning Organization, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 244-259, doi: 10.1108/09696470410533003. JWL 36,9 104 Riera Claret, C., Sahagún, M.Á. and Selva, C. (2020), “Peer and informal learning among hospital doctors: an ethnographic study focused on routines, practices and relationships”,Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 285-301, doi: 10.1108/JWL-11-2018-0141. Rigby, C.S. and Ryan, R.M. (2018), “Self-determination theory in human resource development: new directions and practical considerations”,Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 133-147, doi: 10.1177/1523422318756954. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000), “Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being”,American Psychologist, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 68-78, doi: 10.1002/jsfa.2740050407. Saks, K. and Leijen, Ä. (2014), “Distinguishing self-directed and self-regulated learning and measuring them in the e-learning context”,Procedia –Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 112, pp. 190-198, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1155. Salovaara, P. and Bathurst, R. (2018), “Power-with leadership practices: an unfinished business”, Leadership, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 179-202, doi: 10.1177/1742715016652932. Stabel, L.S., McGrath, C., Björck, E., Elmberger, A. and Laksov, K.B. (2022), “Navigating affordances for learning in clinical workplaces: a qualitative study of general practitioners’continued professional development”,Vocations and Learning, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 427-448, doi: 10.1007/ s12186-022-09295-7. Thomas, E.F., Amiot, C.E., Louis, W.R. and Goddard, A. (2017), “Collective self-determination: how the agent of help promotes pride, well-being, and support for intergroup helping”,Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 662-677, doi: 10.1177/0146167217695553. Vähäsantanen, K. and Eteläpelto, A. (2017), “Agency and learning in the work of software professionals”, in Harteis, C. (Eds), The Impact of Digitalization in the Workplace: An Educational View, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 161-179. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978), “Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes”, in Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S. and Souberman, E. (Eds), Mind in Society, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 19-58. Wall, T.D., Kemp, N.J., Jackson, P.R. and Clegg, C.W. (1986), “Outcomes of autonomous workgroups: a long-term field experiment”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 280-304. Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511803932. Zaimovic, T., Kozic, M., Efendić, A. and Džanić, A. (2021), “Self-organizing teams in software development –myth or reality”,TEM Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 1565-1571, doi: 10.18421/ TEM104-10. Zuehl, J. (2016), “Collective Self-Determination”, Doctoral dissertation, Princeton University, ProQuest, Parkway. Corresponding author Sara Keronen can be contacted at: sara.e.keronen@jyu.fi For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected] Journal of Workplace Learning 105