This article presents the voices of three central thinkers in the documentation movement in a round-table discussion that explores the key questions regarding the definition of documentation, common misunderstandings of the strategy, lessons that have emerged over decades of documenting in various contexts, and puzzles that are emerging for the future of the practice. The discussion reminds the reader that documentation is not just a teaching tool, but a pedagogical philosophy of knowing and valuing children. Engaging in documentation can challenge one's Terri Turner is a project specialist, and Daniel Gray

Purpose – This paper aims to gather empirical evidence for what colleagues from different organizations reported they learned from informal professional learning conversations. Informal learning conversations with colleagues is a powerful yet understudied source of self-directed, professional development. Design/methodology/approach – This study of mixed methods investigated the types of learning 79 leaders from 22 organizations reported they learned via post-conversation surveys from 44 peer-led discussions over a two-year period. Findings – Survey data suggest empirical evidence of five learning outcomes – informational, conceptual, operational, reflective and social learning. The study describes these categories, the overall distribution of these types of learning in the community and how most conversations were “high-yielding” in a particular outcome. Originality/value – To the knowledge of the authors, this study is the first to suggest empirical evidence of categories of learning that participants report from informal, cross-organizational learning conversations.

PurposeThis paper aims to present multidisciplinary, research‐based insights into the challenges of changing behaviors at large‐scale in organizations and articulates practical approaches for leaders.Design/methodology/approachA literature review of research and practices of social and organizational change was conducted and thematically summarized. The themes were discussed and revised with input from twenty global leaders and a dozen university researchers at a two‐day conference held at Harvard University's Learning Innovation Laboratory.FindingsSupporting changes of practice in organizations depends on a leaders understanding how to best affect collective behaviors. Emerging research from the fields of political science, social networking, and social change suggest that leaders can build three types of bridges that support large‐scale change: emotional bridges by creating strategic narratives, relational bridges by targeting social clusters, and structural bridges by leveraging pre‐existing social associations in organizations.Practical implicationsThe themes illustrate practical approaches that leaders can use to diagnose the types of change they wish to support and offer concrete strategies for designing and supporting changes in collective behaviors.Originality/valueThis article aims to present a unique synthesis of emerging, multidisciplinary research on supporting collective change in organizations and offers an intuitive model to support leaders in their actions.

is the top marketing executive in her firm and she has a problem. Her CEO has asked her to create a new, innovative strategy that can ensure the company's growth in the years to come. It seems like an ideal challenge for her and the five directors she supervises to take on. However, corralling these strong and successful directors to collaborate has been no easy task. Too many meetings usually end up feeling like a waste of time, marked with stretches of down spiraling, disconnected conversations, and displays of showmanship. At the end of most discussions, Janet is left to pull together a memo on behalf of the group that is not very different from her ideas going into the meeting. This is an urgent and high profile challenge from the CEO himself, so how can she make her team work better?

Cross-organizational "learning conversations" are an important source of informal learning among professionals, though little is known about whether specific characteristics of conversational interaction contribute to different learning outcomes in such conversations. This mixed-methods study examined the relationship between what (learning outcomes) and from what (specific conversational contributions) 79 executives from 22 organizations reported they learned from informal, peer-led conversations. Findings suggest that (1) there are unique associations between different types of reported learning outcomes and specific types of conversational contributions that are controversial, narrative, and inquiry in nature and (2) higher and/or lower proportions of certain conversational moves may support particular types of learning outcomes. We conclude with a discussion of findings and how they can support developing more nuanced taxonomies of effective discourse for informal learning, and identify areas for future research.