How can pathways be charted in organizations when flux is constant, and being "in the middle of the mess" is the very condition for coordinated action? With increasing demands for collaborative approaches to addressing complex organizational and societal challenges — so-called "wicked problems" (Rittel and Webber, 1973) — there is a pressing need for practicing methods that strengthen coordination and collective leadership. Building on the argument that these changes in organizational practice require new ways to collectively chart pathways forward, the paper explores how learning circles as an approach to organizational education can enhance the capacity to coordinate and work responsively in cross-organizational contexts of welfare professionals - where problems are unstable, complex, and systemic, and where progress often means learning to embrace the messiness of it all.

Learning circles represent a model for practice-based learning that have a long tradition in the Nordic countries. It can be defined as structured and collaborative search processes, intended to enable participants from diverse organizational contexts or professions to engage in reflective problem-solving and co-creative learning. Rooted in participants' specific expertise and specialized practice-based knowledge, learning circles leverage tangible work-related challenges as a foundation for collaborative inquiry and the co-creation of practices tailored to organizational needs (Aakjær & Wegener, 2023). 

The aim of the paper is to explore the use of learning circles as a participatory and practice-based approach to cultivating cross-organizational agency – understood as the social capacity (processes of social engagement) to act and address problems collaboratively across organizational and professional boundaries (Emirbayer and Mische 1998; Edwards 2005; 2016). To achieve this, the paper examines learning circles as boundary-spanning organizational practices (Star & Griesemer, 1989; Hargadon & Beckhy, 2006, Akkerman & Bakker, 2011) through which participants chart ways forward by building cross-organizational agency. Informed by the ideas of lifelong learning, pragmatism and social learning theory, we explore learning circles as a method for co-creating knowledge and strategies that span organizational boundaries and address the need for integrating differences (Follett, (1995 [1949]; Ansell 2009).

Charting, understood as both a conceptual and performative practice, is central to the learning circle methodology. Drawing on Knorr-Cetina’s (1999) notion of epistemic cultures, this paper emphasizes how learning circles serve as epistemic spaces where participants (across organizational divides) collaboratively map, interpret, and decide directions of how to act/enact on complex organizational challenges. Charting in this context moves beyond static visualization and becomes a collaborative active process of constructing shared meaning, developing actionable plans, and iteratively refining organizational strategies/organizational ways forward in response to problematic situations and their epistemic dilemmas (Hopwood, 2017). Dilemmas that emerge from the complexities of diverse professional practices.

Empirical findings from a Danish research project on recruitment challenges and collaborative learning among professionals involved in the broad field of elderly care illustrate how learning circles enable participants to engage in situated problem-solving (or problem handling) by addressing common context-specific issues and dilemmas through co-created knowledge. This process integrates cross-organizational agency with material-discursive practices that transform insights into practical outcomes. For example, a learning circle can work on identifying and implementing new strategies for employee retention by combining experience sharing, local data analysis, and the joint development of new practices, such as tailored onboarding programs or a new mentor role for training new employees. As Foucault (1972) suggests, charting practices not only represent but actively shape the realities of organizing, blending visual, material, and social dimensions.

The study elaborates insights into how learning circles, as boundary spanning performative spaces, enable organizations to chart responsive ways forward by mobilizing and integrating cross-organizational agency into strategic and operational practices.

The paper draws on a three-year qualitative research project aimed at engaging professionals in elderly care through learning circles to co-create inclusive work communities and career paths in response to growing recruitment challenges. Cross-organizational learning circles are part of the research design and are applied as a participatory research method, engaging practitioners from three organizations and researchers (as co-researchers) in joint inquiry to co-create both practical and scientific knowledge about sustainable practices to handle the recruitment challenges in elderly care. The project's methodology combines two parallel tracks: cross-organizational learning circles and ethnographic data collection. The learning circles are implemented as 2-year-long programs in two different municipalities (one large and one small) and serve as central spaces/venues for cross-disciplinary reflection and development among participants from three organizational settings: social and healthcare education programs, municipal elderly care services, and employment services. The ethnographic track gathers context-sensitive knowledge through documents combined with 55 interviews with professionals and students pursuing a career in elderly care and observations from field visits and organization-specific materials. The study’s data also encompass the faciliation of 14 learning circle meetings, each approximately 4 hours long, all of which were recorded and transcribed - plus supplementary written and visual artifacts from each session. In a learning circle, the outset lies in employees' specific knowledge of workflows, using concrete challenges as the basis for collective development of forward-thinking solutions to the organization's challenges (Aakjær & Wegener, 2023). Learning circles are grounded in four basic principles: (1) they involve exploring experiences and developing actionable possibilities in practice among a group of participants, (2) they rely on the foundation of participants' experiences and knowledge, (3) the learning content of the circle is collectively decided and shaped by the participants themselves, and (4) the process is facilitated by a circle leader (a researcher or consultant) (Lotz & Aakjær, 2024; Marquard et al., 2023). Learning circle meetings are structured as dynamic charting processes, that follows a generic structure comprising three key activities: exploring a shared theme or problem, developing an understanding of it, and deciding on actionable next steps. This study offers a compelling empirical context to explore how learning circles, as boundary-spanning practices, enable participants from diverse organizations to collaboratively chart pathways forward, fostering cross-organizational agency. By applying participatory methods that bridge organizational boundaries, the examination of learning circles as charting practices provides unique insights into the becoming (or not becoming) of cross-organizational agency.

The paper argues that tackling wicked problems calls for new knowledge and methods to develop more relational and resonant forms of collaborating and organizing across boundaries to navigate layered, complex and messy contexts. The paper explores and critically examines learning circles as a method for cultivating leadership and organizational practices that enhance the ability to lead and work responsively in cross-organizational contexts. It introduces the concept of cross-organizational agency to describe the dynamic coordination processes that facilitate collaboration and the integration of differences across organizational boundaries (Elkjær et al., 2021). Using the case of elderly care professionals addressing recruitment challenges, the study provides insights into how the becoming of cross-organizational agency emerges, evolves and is challenged by conflicting perspectives and interests among participants of learning circles. By analyzing learning circles as dynamic, boundary-spanning charting practices, this paper highlights three key dimensions in promoting cross-organizational agency: (1) Collaborative searching and framing practices, where participants collectively identify and interpret challenges and opportunities while building awareness of mutual interdependencies and conflicting interests; (2) relational charting, emphasizing the importance of trust, empathy, and mutual accountability as foundational to creative problem-solving and mapping pathways forward; and (3) materially grounded charting, focusing on practical insights, tangible outcomes and the use of material and visual resources and tools to anchor learning in actionable strategies/practices that span across organizational divides. By incorporating these dimensions, learning circles contribute to the co-creation of responsive practices and reinforce organizational capacity to navigate complex and uncertain futures. This study contributes to organizational education by demonstrating how charting, as a core organizing practice, can support collaborative foresight, adaptability, and innovation. Learning circles, as performative spaces for charting the way forward, offer a promising framework for co-addressing cross-organizational challenges and embracing the messiness or ‘wicked-mess’ of current organizations.

Aakjær, M., & Wegener, C. (2023). Theorizing learning circles – a Nordic tradition revitalized in times of social innovation imperatives. Journal of Education and Work. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2023.2231351 Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311404435 Ansell, C. (2009). Mary Parker Follett and pragmatist organization. In P. Adler (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Sociology and Organization Studies: Classical Foundations (pp. 464-485). Oxford University Press. Edwards, A. (2005). Relational agency: Learning to be a resourceful practitioner. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(3), 168–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2006.06.010 Edwards, A. (2016). Revealing relational work. In A. Edwards (Ed.), Working relationally in and across practices: Cultural-historical approaches to collaboration (pp. 1-22). Cambridge University Press. Elkjær, B., Lotz, M., & Nickelsen, N. C. M. (2021). Coordination as integration – The dilemmas when organizing inter-professional teams at a hospice. In B. Elkjær, M. Lotz, & N. C. M. Nickelsen (Eds.), Current Practices in Workplace and Organizational Learning: Revisiting the Classics and Advancing Knowledge (pp. 37-54). Springer. Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023. https://doi.org/10.1086/231294 Follett, M. P. (1995). Constructive conflict. In P. Graham (Ed.), Mary Parker Follett: Prophet of Management. A Celebration of Writings from the 1920s (pp. 67–97). Harvard Business School Press. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). Pantheon Books. Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality: Volume 1: An introduction (R. Hurley, Trans.). Pantheon Books. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Harvard University Press. Hargadon, A. B., & Bechky, B. A. (2006). When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organization Science, 17(4), 484–500. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1060.0200 Lotz, M. M., & Aakjær, M. K. (2024). Towards a relational ethics of learning circles. In S. Spišák (Ed.), Participation, collaboration and co-creation: Qualitative inquiry across and beyond divides (p. 227). The European Network for Qualitative Inquiry. (ECQI Congress Proceedings No. 2024). Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730 Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001