HOW CAN INDIVIDUAL LEARNING AT THE WORKPLACE CONTRIBUTE TO ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING? AN ADULT EDUCATION PERSPECTIVE ON REQUIREMENTS AND BOUNDARIES

The paper discusses the relationship of individual learning at the workplace and organisational learning from the perspective of adult education research. It asks which processes are required for individual learning to contribute to organisational learning and considers boundaries against change triggered by the organisations’ members. This question is discussed by focussing on a recent empirical study, which outlines processes of communication that help to transform individual into organisational learning. These processes are analysed within the context of inter-organisational cooperation, taking up a topical challenge in adult and continuing education in Germany. The study draws on Social Systems Theory; its methodological design comprises qualitative case studies. The empirical results differentiate organisational learning as a multi-faceted concept that encompasses change and highlights how organisations develop processes to prevent being induced towards organisational learning by their members. The paper discusses these findings with regard to the demands lifelong learning faces in the workplace.


INTRODUCTION
During recent years there has been increased interest in organisational questions concern ing adult education (AE) within the German research debate. While organisational issues were once regarded as marginal to the supposed core interest in learning and teaching (critically: Terhart, 1986), today they are seen as critical for a comprehensive understand ing of AE (Schemmann, 2015). Moreover, for organisations, keeping pace with societal changes is a challenge. These societal changes include, for example, global demands accompanied by local responsibilities, the increase of digitalisation, and new ways of working under the current COVID19 pandemic. Emphasizing the organisational level has led to a strong focus on organisational learning in AE research. When addressing organisational learning, it is striking that the relationship between the individuals of a working environment and the organisation itself forms a pivotal point. The individual is discussed as an agent of organisational learning (Friedman, 2001), provoking research on aspects of the relation between individual and organisational learning. However, expla nations for this relation are ambiguous. For example, Elkjaer and Wahlgren (2006) point out that "it is difficult to avoid a starting point for learning that begins with individuals' learning in organizations" (p. 16) when trying to grasp organisational learning as a self owned process and level. Referring to the work of Elkjaer and Wahlgren (2006), Döös, Johansson and Wilhelmson (2014) also address the problem of understanding organisa tional learning as solely aggregated individual learning. They propose an analogy that considers different learning subjects, contents, and processes for both individual and or ganisational learning and relate them to each other. From the perspective of AE research, this topic continues to have a lasting presence in international discourse (e.g. Elkjaer, 2017), showing that further insights into the interlinkage of individual and organisational learning remain a current issue. A particular problem lies in explaining learning at an organisation's social level if organisational learning is understood as being clearly dis tinguished from individual learning by the organisation's members (Kuper, 1997, p. 141;Göhlich, 2009, p. 29).
These considerations highlight the need to further analyse the role played by individual learning at the workplace in stimulating learning at the organisational level. 1 This ap proach widens the understanding of workplace learning (WPL) as employees' continuous learning by also considering "the influence of the organisational and wider institutional context in which learning at work occurs" (Fuller & Unwin 2004, p. 133). Thus, this per spective directs our attention to structural conditions. This paper discusses how individual learning contributes to organisational learning by drawing on a qualitative empirical study (Jenner, 2018) that explores this matter within the context of cooperative activities among AE providers. As explained below, this context has proven suitable for exploring the contribution of individual learning to organisational learning due to the specific structural characteristics of interorganisa tional cooperation (Jenner, 2015). In recent years cooperative activities have become necessary for organisations in adult and continuing education in Germany and have been fostered by various publicly funded schemes (Alke & Jütte, 2016). Cooperative activities facilitate lifelong learning opportunities, e.g., by pooling resources, reaching new target groups, and jointly developing new course offers and projects (Alke & Jütte, 2016, p. 2). These activities aim at offering people wider opportunities to engage in lifelong learning within their region, thus increasing local participation (for the interna tional discussion: Evans, 2019). Assuming cooperative activities lead to developmental processes within the involved organisations, cooperation is regarded as a challenge and therefore a cause for organisational learning (Feld, 2011). However, according to Kämper and Schmidt (2000), the structural conditions of interorganisational coopera tion reveal that it mainly depends on the single members of each organisation who deal with cooperative challenges. Usually, a single person is in charge of cooperative activ ities. This person represents the home organisation and interacts with members from partner organisations, thus taking a keyposition. Consequently, challenges occurring within cooperative activities can only be dealt with in the corresponding home organisa tions if the members play them back (Kämper & Schmidt, 2000). Therefore, challenges arising from cooperative activities occur initially for the organisations' members and, in dealing with them, can create a need for individual learning. Organisational learning remains dependent on whether the challenges dealt with by the cooperating person are also introduced back into the home organisation and become a matter for internal negotiation. Against this background, the study focusses on interorganisational coop eration as an empirical setting that allows for the systematic differentiation between the individual's work-related learning processes within cooperative activities outside the home organisation and the requirements necessary to stimulate organisational learning inside the home organisation.
By drawing on this empirical study (Jenner, 2018), the paper discusses how individual learning in cooperative contexts can raise matters that are relevant for the organisation, thus prompting the organisation to process these as triggers and initiate organisational learning at a structural level. Also, the findings reveal processes through which the organ isation brushes off and demarcates triggers inducing change. The paper focusses on these phenomena by addressing the question as to which processes are necessary for organi sations to either take up or brush off triggers that individual learning offers to stimulate organisational learning. This question is discussed considering both the requirements as well as boundaries regarding the impact of individual learning in the workplace on organ isational learning.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This section outlines the study's theoretical framework (Jenner, 2018, cf. preliminary work Jenner, 2015. It has been developed from German sociologist Niklas Luhmann's Social Systems Theory, especially considering his work on organisations (Luhmann, 2011). By focussing exclusively on communication, Luhmann's perspective distinguishes between organisations as social communication systems and their members, who partic ipate in the communication system but are not considered part of it. Here, this analytical differentiation is seen as a theoretical surplus for investigating the relation of individual and organisational learning because it does not run the risk of mingling the two.
Thereby, organisations are understood as social systems that constitute themselves "as a nexus of communications referring to each other and differentiating themselves from an environment" (Becker & Haunschild, 2003, p. 715;original italics). While most other theories seeking to explain social processes focus on actions, Social Systems Theory focusses on communication. Luhmann (2011) argues that communication, unlike ac tion, includes at least two individuals and therefore allows for the explaining of social coordination. Communication is understood in a selfreferential (autopoietic) manner, meaning only communication can produce communication and therefore creates the abovementioned boundary separating it from its environment (Luhmann, 2011). 2 Luh mann (2011) considers organisations as specific social systems and the form of com munication essential for organisations is the communication of decisions. However, this "does not imply that all communications occurring in organizations are decisions, but that all important, decisive communications crucial for organizations are in the shape of decisions" (Becker & Haunschild, 2003, p. 725, Note 4;original italics). Due to focussing exclusively on decisive communication, Luhmann (2011) does not concep tualise the individual as part of the organisation. Rather, he analyses the individual as part of the organisation's environment. In Luhmann's understanding, the individual gains relevance for the organisation solely by actively participating in organisational decisionmaking communication. 3 Seidl (2005b) makes clear this perspective does not imply a less important role of the individual than in other theories. Referring to organi sations and individuals as different systems, Seidl states that "[o]n the contrary, through this differentiation it can be clearly shown that, and in what way, both types of systems depend on each other" (p. 33; original italics). This approach thus does not question the relevance of, e.g., norms, beliefs, perceptions or social practices of human beings in their working environment, but it analytically grasps them only as far as they contribute to organisational decisionmaking communication.
Social Systems Theory understands learning as an internally structured way in which a system deals with triggers occurring in its environment (Kuper, 2010, p. 348). This refers to the idea that systems are operationally closed and have a selfreferential way of func tioning (Luhmann, 2011, pp. 51-52). Triggers occurring in a system's environment do not enter the system, but rather, the system deals with them according to its specific way of functioning. In the case of individual learning, this means individuals deal with triggers based on their consciousness (Esposito, 2015). They experience triggers when their un derstanding reaches a limit (Schäffter, 1997, p. 695), such as when something new, prob lematic or challenging causes constraints in one's current understanding. Schäffter (1997, p. 696) points out this can induce individual learning because disturbances in understand ing have the potential to cause reflection and to change preexisting latent assumptions. For example, if a person who feels insecure in cooperating with partners who are also competitors develops strategies to handle the simultaneity of cooperation and competi tion, the person thereby overcomes the experienced constraint. Consequently, individual learning is defined as an ascription for overcoming constraints in understanding by de veloping ways to resolve what initially occurs as a limitation to previous understanding.
Turning to a definition of organisational learning, the internally structured way in which an organisation deals with triggers in its environment is based on decisive communication (Luhmann, 2011). However, Luhmann (1992, pp. 168-169) stresses that a decision is a single momentary occurrence that does not outlast time, thus it cannot be changed. 4 He argues, though, that there is a certain type of decision in organisations that is lasting: so called decision premises. Becker and Haunschild (2003) explain: "Decision premises are structural limitations of possible decisions that are taken for granted when decisionmak ing situations occur" (p. 718). These premises endure over time because they form a kind of guiding lane for making momentary decisions in line with organisational expectations. Hence, decision premises function as orienting structures within an organisation (Luh mann, 1992, p. 172). Changes are possible because decision premises, unlike momentary decisions, outlast time. Change occurs when triggers in the environment cause organisa tional decisions to be made in a different way and when these variations in decisionmak ing ensure that future decisions are also made in a new way, i.e., become established as decision premises (Luhmann, 2011, p. 352). Consequently, organisational learning is understood at a structural level as when the organisation's decision premises change. This concerns not only formal but also informal structures, e.g., when people in a workplace establish routines and these become expected and orienting, thus taking over the function of a decision premise (Kühl, 2011). An example of this is if members of a university's subunit observe unclear regulations for recognising results from exams students have taken abroad and then develop strategies that finally become an accepted and expected procedure throughout the subunit, i.e., take over the function of decision premises.
Consequently, the first prerequisite for individual learning to contribute to organisational learning concerns whether it gains relevance within organisational communication. In dividual learning is not a matter for the organisation per se, bearing in mind that Social Systems Theory considers individuals' potentials as remaining invisible for the organisa tion as long as they do not become a matter within organisational communication (Simon, 2007, p. 41). Social Systems Theory understands the relation between an individual and an organisation as a socalled irritation, meaning the systems influence one another, but there is no transfer of information from one system into another. Occurrences in their respective environments have the quality of an amorphous noise, from which systems can gain information according to their own, selfmade internal facilities for interpretation. (Becker & Haunschild, 2003, p. 715) Obviously, learning cannot be passed on. This implies empirically considering how oc currences for individual learning, as well as developed knowledge or experience on be half of the individuals, raises matters within organisational communication. 5 However, once issues have become a matter within organisational communication, they do not automatically trigger organisational learning. Rather, the issues can fade without causing organisational processing. According to the outlined understanding of organisa tional learning, it is also crucial whether issues are further processed within the organ isation and lead to decisions that differ from the usual organisational decisionmaking. If these variations occur and prevail as a premise for further decisions, i.e., constitute a variation of the current structures, organisational learning takes place.
To further clarify these relations calls for empirical exploration. For the empirical analysis focussing on interorganisational cooperation, these considerations imply three perspectives: • Which occurrences for individual workrelated learning coincide with cooperative tasks, i.e., which challenges, problems, new situations, etc. does the cooperating per son face and how does he/she deal with them in terms of individual learning? • How are occurrences for learning introduced to the home organisation, i.e., (how) do these challenges, or the individual's strategies in overcoming them by learning, become an issue within organisational communication and how are they further processed? • How can the according organisational communication lead to variations in organisa tional decisionmaking? Do these variations induce preexisting decision premises to change, bringing about organisational learning?
Comprising these perspectives, the study's overall research interest asked which com munication processes enable individual learning in the context of cooperation to be transformed into organisational learning. The analytical focus is on the "intersection" (metaphorically speaking) between the person in charge of cooperating outside the home organisation and ways in which issues relevant for individual learning are introduced and processed within the home organisation. As discussed in the conclusion, tracing how individual learning becomes a matter within organisational communication and deci sionmaking is essential for subsequently specifying further conditions relevant for in ducing change.

METHODS
The qualitative study (Jenner, 2018) is based on interviews collected in a caserelated design. A case was analytically defined as the abovementioned "intersection": Each case considered an organisational member in charge of a specific cooperation activity, explor ing this key person's perspective on the cooperative activity, considering cooperative sit uations calling for individual learning as well as analysing how the key person deals with such occurrences and introduces them to the home organisation. Furthermore, to include an exemplary innerorganisational perspective, each case considered an additional mem ber of the home organisation to understand what goes on at the "intersection" from an internal, complementary perspective. Although single perspectives do not provide insight into overall organisational processes, this design sheds light on how occurrences for in dividual learning are introduced to the home organisation and how they are processed as potential triggers for organisational learning. The "intersection" cases were chosen within a regional network consisting primarily of different organisations within the field of con tinuing education, vocational education and training, and regional companies. To explore the connecting lines between the key person's cooperative activities and processes inside the home organisation, it was necessary to collect explicit problemfocussed narrations. Thus, fourteen qualitative guidelinebased, problemfocussed interviews (Witzel, 2000) were performed (average duration: 84 minutes). They were audiorecorded, transcribed, and analysed in a first exploratory approach of initial text work (Kuckartz, 2012).
In a next step, the insights from the exploratory analysis were considered for concretising the theoretical premises. Thus, a concept for analysis was developed, detailing which aspects needed to be considered to explore how individual learning can trigger organ isational communication and decisionmaking. Additionally, the first exploratory anal ysis revealed that indepth case analysis was required to grasp internal organisational processes. This led to selecting two cases for indepth study. They were sampled within the collected empirical material according to the criterion of "intensity sampling" as sug gested by Patton (1990, pp. 171-172). This meant selecting cases based on their richness concerning the research question. The first case was selected due to its high illustrative eligibility; the second was chosen based on its potential for contrasting and differentiating the results of the prior case. 6 These two cases built the centrepiece of the reported study.
Both cases were analysed indepth, in total comprising four interviews (two per case) and 138 pages of transcription. The analysis was carried out by thematically structuring the transcripts through coding and categorisation (Kuckartz, 2012) using qualitative analysis software (MAXQDA). Three main perspectives guided this structuring: first, learning oc currences for the employees involved in cooperation and their strategies to deal with them; second, the ways in which these occurrences are introduced and processed in the home or ganisation; third, occasions inside the home organisation which prepare cooperative activ ities. The third perspective emerged from the initial exploratory analysis. It shows how the key person's participation in cooperation is brought in line with the organisation's expec tations prior to cooperative activities. Structuring the empirical material along these three perspectives built a foundation upon which the "intersections" could then be carved out in a reconstructive approach. Both interviews belonging to an "intersection" were analysed together, investigating the interview passages assigned to each of the abovementioned perspectives. These passages were analysed with respect to the theoretical perspective, i.e., the emergence of organisational communication referring to the individual's work-related learning in the context of cooperative tasks, connections to organisational decision-making, and the formation of decision premises. Thus, organisational learning related to indi vidual learning became comprehensible by tracing triggers introduced to the home organ isation, considering relations and contrasts in the narrations of the interviewees belonging to one "intersection". In addition, studying semantic distinctions within the interviewee's narrations enabled insights into the characteristic distinctions expressed as patterns that guide the organisation's decisionmaking (Besio & Pronzini, 2010, p. 8).

EMPIRICAL FINDINGS
This section outlines selected key findings from the two previously specified case studies (Jenner, 2018). The findings are split into three sections. First, communicative processes used for individual learning to trigger organisational decisionmaking. Second, strategies the organisation uses to process triggers but deals with them in a way that avoids organ isational learning. Third, conclusions regarding communicative processes essential for organisations in deciding whether to take up or reject triggers brought along by workre lated learning. 7 Taking up Triggers from Individual Learning The first case comprises, on the one hand, an employee who has a leadership role and is engaged in interorganisational cooperation, representing the home organisation as a key person. On the other hand, is the key person's superior, who is the general manager. The general manager is not directly involved in the cooperative activities, but has touching points, e.g., when there is a need to discuss cooperation strategies. The organisation aims to contribute to common welfare by offering vocational continuing education alongside a range of other services. The cooperation takes place with other local partners engaged in continuing education and vocational education and training. The organisation and local partners share an interest in working together on a project to offer services and products for personnel issues to regional businesses. The findings are presented alongside the three perspectives introduced previously.

Individual Learning Within the Cooperation
Different challenges calling for individual learning within the key person's cooperative activities are apparent. These challenges result from new situations the key person faces such as social interactions and cooperation with partners who may in other contexts be competitors: Yes, at first this was a very unfamiliar cooperation, I had not experienced it in this way before. Providers now work on a project together but, at the same time, are also competitors in the market. (Key person, case 1) In addition, new situations arise while working on new topics, jointly developing new ideas, or opening up a new field of joint engagement. The challenges become apparent when, for example, the key person describes that visiting regional businesses as potential customers means to enter a totally different culture. So that means I definitely need an antenna for it, a feeling for the existence of cultural differences. I would say it requires de veloping a certain intercultural competence. That starts with the way of dress ing […], the language is a different kind. (Key person, case 1) This example highlights that the key person needs to develop strategies to find her way around the businesses. Several similar incidents demonstrate the key person seeks con nectivity to the new context by developing strategies to handle challenges. This allows her to bridge the differences between the home organisation and the unfamiliar, ex ternal working context. Thus, individually learning how to overcome constraints that occur when approaching the new context serves as a strategy to mediate between the home organisation and the new setting. By developing expertise in the cooperative con text, the key person opens up a field of action that she can introduce back to the home organisation.

Introducing Learning Occurrences to the Home Organisation
When turning to the question as to how learning issues are introduced and become a mat ter within the organisational communication, a multistep process is identified: the initial mode is concerned with whether learning occurrences actually become a matter within organisational communication. For example, the key person describes how she informs others in her home organisation about cooperation topics: Yes, well on the one hand, I also reported about this issue in the intranet. Then I distributed these brochures, […], I spread them within our organisation and also talked about these project activities in team meetings. […]. And I involved more than one colleague. (Key person, case 1) Whilst these issues are not necessarily subject to subsequent processing, further findings reveal how a second mode of communicative activities can lead to matters being followed up within the organisation. This second mode concerns augmenting resonance for issues once they have been introduced to the organisation. The following example, taken from the general manager's interview, highlights strategies regarding a service product the key person has developed within the cooperation: Besides illustrating that further resonance for the key person's cooperative matters oc curs, the example reveals a pattern: Triggers deriving from the key person's cooperative activities are analysed regarding their future potential (how can we proceed?). These trig gers are rated (does it help us?). Finally, they are taken into account to decide on further action to follow up on an estimated potential (should the product be brought to market, used as a reference to win customers, or to apply for funding?). This multistep process shows how potential triggers for organisational learning are woven deeper into the organ isational communication. The process elaborates the potential triggers and opens them up to organisational decisionmaking regarding future actions. Furthermore, according processes only partially take place with intent; rather they appear as a continuous latent pattern within the interviews. This way of processing triggers highlights how the organi sation prepares the ground for considering them in its decisionmaking. Based on the key person's workrelated experience in the new field of action, the sequence of analysing, rating and decision-making can take place within the organisation.
Finally, a third mode of communicative processes highlights the emergence of potential changes in the organisation's decision structures. Structuring premises appear by con sidering which distinctions the interviewees use. One central premise that guides organ isational decisionmaking in this case is, for example, the selfobserving use of the dis tinction better versus worse. Interestingly, this distinction is relevant for organisational decisions regarding quality development. The interview with the general manager reveals comparisons between the home organisation and the cooperating partner organisations: The comparison provokes decisions: either it confirms the organisation's success, thus highlighting the efficacy of existing structures, or leads to decisions as to how the or ganisation should consider different possibilities to improve its strategy. These questions prompt organisational decisionmaking regarding the organisation's quality. The arising decisions guide what happens subsequently, thus having the potential to serve as deci sion premises, and therefore to bring about organisational learning. Also, the distinction (better versus worse) guides how organisational decisions should be made with respect to comparisons between the home organisation and the cooperating partners. Therefore, the distinction itself reveals a structure the organisation already makes use of for checking its quality. This structure demonstrates that challenges arising from cooperation have previ ously been considered within the organisational decision premises. Here, organisational learning appears in retrospect as the premise mirrors already familiar challenges.

Preparing for Cooperative Activities
The third perspective describes situations that prepare the key person's external cooper ative activities. For example, the key person and the general manager connect when an upcoming meeting with the cooperation partners requires the key person to represent the home organisation's position regarding negotiated matters. These preparatory situations reflect the organisation's leading distinctions by clarifying how the key person should perform in line with organisational expectations. For example, the distinction better ver sus worse is latently present in the expectation to avoid a disadvantageous position com pared to partner organisations. The general manager explains he expects the key person to balance between either contributing to the cooperation, or defending the home organ isation's position towards the partners by considering "how much is it still wanted that we contribute or do we have to start biting at some point too" (General manager, case 1).
Both interviewees report that expectations as described in this example are thematised when discussing cooperation strategies. While the organisation cannot influence the key person's external cooperative activities directly, clarifying the organisation's guiding de cision premises prepares the key person to perform in a way the organisation approves.
Here again, organisational learning shows in retrospect because decision premises appear that refer to cooperative challenges and, thus, demonstrate the organisation's familiarity with orienting employees accordingly. Dealing with triggering situations leads to these premises being revived when preparing the key person for future situations.
So far the results show how learning occurrences experienced by the key person are wo ven into the organisational communication and are processed in a way that opens them up for organisational decisionmaking, i.e., preparing organisational learning or displaying it in retrospect.

Brushing off Triggers that Derive from Individual Learning
This section draws on selected key findings from the second case study. It is similar to the first case study in that it concerns an intersection between a key person involved in coop erative activities and a representative of the home organisation who is at the same time the general manager. The key person continuously initiates occasions for organisational learning, but here they are rejected by the organisation.
The key person is responsible for the home organisation's strategic project activities. While the organisation is located in the field of initial and continuing vocational ed ucation and training, the key person's cooperative activities require mixing with local companies. Moreover, the cooperative activities are beneficial in a number of ways and help attain multiple goals. They include the desire to implement new courses to meet the specific needs of companies. In addition, the key person's cooperative activities involve building up expertise for the requirements needed to open up to this new target group. This building up of expertise is important because the organisation is unfamiliar with offering these kinds of courses for companies.
Although these courses initially took place intermittently, they were not implemented as part of the regular course offer in the mid or longterm. In retrospect, both interviewees state a gap between their prior expectations and the results. Remarkably, what at first sight seems to have simply not succeeded stands in contrast to the key person's report about undertaking various activities to implement the new course offers. They comprise, for example, continuous attempts to win over colleagues to ensure meeting the needs of companyoriented course offers and resting the responsibility on more than just the key person's shoulders. The general manager also supports the idea of implementing the new offers, which leads to questioning what obstacles hinder the expected, and obviously desired, implementation. From an analytical point of view, what initially seems not to op erate as intended turns out to be the result of examining processes inside the organisation, following the same pattern as in the prior case. The next example is from the key person's interview and gives an impression of the internal negotiation about new course offers: Regarding the effects for the organisation, what can be said? Well, first of all, that is a question concerning the selfunderstanding of our house. In how far are soft themes 8 , leadership and soft themes, that was a strategic issue from time to time, "does it belong to the profile of [organisation's name] and do we want to develop a corresponding offer?" But in sum, that didn't really win through. From time to time there have always been single rhetoric courses, also a lead ership course, but it did not really become a core theme in the work here. (Key person, case 2) Triggers calling for change are processed within the organisational communication, and resonance is augmented (negotiation takes place). Situations aiming to augment reso nance follow the familiar pattern: Triggers are analysed inside the organisation ("that was a strategic issue"). Then they are rated ("does it belong to the profile"). Finally, a decision is prompted, ("do we want to develop a corresponding offer"). However, the difference here is that it is not a decision initiating change. Instead, the multistep process occurs repeatedly ("that was a strategic issue from time to time"; courses took place, "from time to time", i.e., on approval) and recurrently leads to decisions against further processing. When examining possible explanations for this ambiguous situation, the requirements for implementing the new course offers do not match various internal conditions. This makes it functional for the organisation to reject triggers that do not match its selfidentity. The case shows the organisation takes notice of the key person's triggers, it processes them by augmenting resonance in a way that includes negotiation and therefore analyses, rates and decides about further actions, but produces decisions to, metaphorically speaking, brush off triggers pushing towards change. This decision against change functions as a premise because it repeatedly guides the brushing off of triggers. Throughout the tran scripts, each time the key person attempts to implement the course offers, it shows as a continuously reproduced decision. Here, the decision premise to brush off corresponding triggers prevents organisational learning. Its rejection becomes comprehensible despite referring to something not taking place. At the same time, this decision premise also revives the validity of hitherto existing premises by confirming not to change them. It sta bilises the current status quo, again pointing to the actuality of already existing premises for dealing with cooperation.

Synopsis: Organisational Learning Between Taking up and Brushing off Triggers
Turning to the question as to which processes are necessary for organisations to either take up or brush off triggers individual learning offers to stimulate organisational learn ing, the results reveal a multistep process within organisational communication. Once occurrences for individual learning have been introduced to the organisational commu nication, the multistep process can lead to augmenting resonance for these matters by analysing, rating and deciding whether to take up or brush off triggers pushing towards change. Thus, these steps form the prerequisites for either changing or reviving the valid ity of existing structures.
The findings reveal different processual dimensions of organisational learning: First, the results highlight how triggers are processed in a way that enables considering them in organisational decisionmaking, thus preparing opportunities to adopt these triggers later on. Here, organisational learning shows as it is occurring by communication processes opening up triggers to be considered for change, albeit leaving open whether this does subsequently happen or not. Second, organisational learning shows in retrospect as a previous process that has resulted in already established premises, which relate to familiar challenges deriving from cooperation. Third, organisational learning also becomes comprehensible through decision premises that aim at maintaining the existing status quo, i.e., protecting existing structures from change and preventing organisational learning. Fourth, organisational learning comprises changes in decision premises deriving from the multi-step process. These dimensions point to a multifaceted understanding of organ isational learning that is not limited to new developments. Likewise, this understanding comprises the development of structures that negate organisational learning due to the organisation's ability to brush off triggers and preserve established structures.
Furthermore, taking up and brushing off triggers relate to each other reciprocally: al ready existing decision premises reflect that the organisation has taken on triggers and developed ways to deal with them. These premises allow the organisation to differentiate whether change is suitable or not. At the same time, the organisation's capability to re ject triggers appears as a prerequisite for engaging in the melange of different interests and triggers that cooperative activities entail. Being able to reject triggers prevents the organisation from being disrupted by all possible opportunities for change. Thus, being able to brush off triggers prepares the organisation to expose itself to relevant contexts without necessarily inducing change. Rather, it can engage in cooperative activities and benefit from them whilst at the same time selfregulating which stimulations it takes on. The capability to differentiate between taking on and brushing off triggers enables the organisation -and thus its employees -to indulge in a multitude of demands and diverse, ambiguous interests, typical in cooperative working contexts.

CONCLUSION
The question as to how organisations take up or brush off triggers that individual learning offers to stimulate change has become accessible by differentiating between learning at the level of organisations as social systems and learning as an individual process. The focus has been on relating these two phenomena to each other, tracing how individual learning in the context of cooperative activities can trigger a multistep process within the organisational communication, thus leading to decisions about organisational learning.
Turning to implications for lifelong learning embedded in the organisational demands of the workplace, the findings demonstrate that a contribution of individual to organisational learning does not solely depend on the employees' workrelated learning processes. Rath er, it also depends on structural conditions within the workplace. Thus, acknowledging the role of the individual for organisational learning requires not overwhelming this role with a responsibility that also lies within the workplace's selforganisation of structures. Furthermore, the results show that engaging in a specific context (here: cooperating with AE providers) enables employees to enter a personally owned sphere of activity, thus de veloping a specific area of expertise. Fuller and Unwin (2004) refer to the term "learning territory" to express that "every individual has, and has had, access to a (unique) range of learning opportunities" (p. 133). The results highlight the potential for actively engaging in developments at the workplace if employees build up expertise in an autonomous sphere of activity with relevance to their work. However, this requires organisational structures that allow employees to introduce new impulses and alter hitherto existing routines.
Requirements and boundaries have been analysed as part of the paper's aim to carve out basic underlying communication processes for individual learning to promote organi sational learning. Furthermore, explaining these processes serves as a prerequisite for subsequent research to specify which conditions make the sequenced mode of organisa tional communication and decisionmaking likely to occur. Further results from this study indicate that the key person's position within the home organisation is likely to influence decisive communication (Jenner, 2018, p. 268). For example, this may concern whether the key person takes a leadership role, has responsibilities linked to developing the organ isation, or is involved in either core or peripheral spheres of activity within the organisa tion (Jenner, 2018, pp. 268-269). Additionally, the key person's involvement in internal networks with other colleagues as well as the importance of cooperative activities for the organisation are considered relevant for influencing decisive communication and also need further exploration (Jenner, 2018, pp. 269-271). These considerations indicate that it is also necessary to take power relations in organisational decisionmaking into account. Negotiation of interests and social power relations are known to influence programme planning in AE (Cervero & Wilson, 1998), suggesting power relations also play a crucial role in other areas of organisational decisionmaking. It is important for AE to pursue these questions as understanding how to integrate working and learning remains a topical challenge, bearing in mind that "[t]he workplace is the locus of learning for many adults throughout their working career and thus WPL represents an integral and a substantive part of lifelong learning" (Sutherland Olsen & Tikkanen, 2018, p. 546) -especially in the current challenging times.