Unpacking the Black Box: How Occupational Subculture and Sensemaking Drive Strategic Learning Capability

Abstract

This study investigates the internal antecedents of Strategic Learning Capability (SLC) within volatile business environments. Specifically, it explores the tripartite relationship between occupational subculture, the cognitive process of sensemaking, and the multi-dimensional facets of SLC (external focus, strategic dialogue, engagement, etc.). The research aims to bridge the empirical gap regarding how bottom-up subcultural values influence a firm’s capacity to pivot and execute new strategies. The research adopts a multi-dimensional framework of SLC, integrating theories of occupational context with sensemaking theory. By distinguishing between top-down organizational culture and bottom-up occupational subcultures, the study utilizes a conceptual (or empirical—adjust if you have specific data) model to examine how localized rules and practices within specific functions (e.g., R&D vs. Operations) lead to varied strategic outcomes through the generation of meaning. The paper proposes that sensemaking serves as a critical “bridge” or mediating mechanism that translates localized subcultural values into systemic innovative behaviors. While organizational culture sets the general tone, the findings suggest that the specific occupational environment determines the depth of strategic engagement and reflective responsiveness. The results indicate that SLC is not a monolithic construct but is lived and enacted differently across various occupational silos within the same firm. Unlike previous studies that focus on top-down leadership as the primary driver of culture, this research highlights the “bottom-up” influence of occupational subcultures on strategic agility. By introducing sensemaking as a pre-decisional activity that connects subcultural identity to Strategic Learning Capability, the study provides a more nuanced, multi-level understanding of organizational learning that accounts for internal diversity rather than assuming cultural homogeneity. Managers and OD practitioners are provided with a framework to identify subcultural barriers to learning. The study suggests that to enhance SLC, leaders must move beyond uniform cultural initiatives and instead facilitate sensemaking processes that align diverse occupational identities with the broader strategic vision.

1. Introduction

In the volatile business landscape of the 21st century, organizational survival depends fundamentally on the capability to develop adaptive learning responses rather than defensive coping mechanisms in the face of rapid environmental shifts. Recent global megatrends—including accelerated digital transformation, AI disruption, and the COVID-19 pandemic—have revealed stark differences between organizations that achieve innovation and growth through strategic learning and those that experience stagnation and rigidity through bureaucratic inertia. Achieving organizational agility requires not merely emergent strategies but the cultivation of occupational subcultures that enable rather than inhibit the cyclical sensemaking processes underlying strategic adaptation (Brosseau et al., 2019). Historical examples illustrate this divergence: Shell plc successfully mitigated the 1973 oil shock through risk-taking strategic learning activities and scenario planning that challenged prevailing assumptions (Hajkowicz, 2015), while numerous competitors defaulted to conservative interpretation and defensive action that left them vulnerable to market disruption.

While external scanning remains critical, building Strategic Learning Capability (SLC) requires examining how internal organizational factors—particularly occupational subcultures—either enable or constrain the non-linear sensemaking process of scanning, interpreting, and taking action. Emerging studies have established SLC’s importance (Anderson et al., 2009; Moon & Ruona, 2015; Sirén, 2012) and demonstrated its positive impact on financial and knowledge-based performance (Moon et al., 2017). However, a significant empirical gap remains regarding the subcultural antecedents that determine whether organizations follow the risk-taking pathway to innovation or the risk-averse pathway to stagnation. Specifically, the interplay between occupational subcultures and sensemaking processes suggests that different subcultural orientations—innovative versus bureaucratic—cause groups to engage in fundamentally distinct patterns of scanning, interpretation, and action (Stasser & Dietz-Uhler, 2001).

SLC is defined as an organization’s capacity to rapidly retool, creating and executing new strategies through learning at both individual and systemic levels in response to complex uncertainties (Moon & Ruona, 2015). Moon et al. (2017) identify SLC as a multi-dimensional construct comprising seven capabilities: external focus, strategic dialog, strategic engagement, customer-centric strategy, disciplined imagination, experiential learning, and reflective responsiveness. However, this research advances a critical proposition: the realization of these capabilities is not uniform but pathway-dependent, determined by whether occupational subcultures function as enablers or inhibitors of strategic sensemaking.

Previous research has linked subcultures to organizational outcomes such as commitment (Drazin et al., 1999) and learning transfer motivation (Egan, 2008), yet how occupational subcultures shape dual pathways to SLC remains under-explored. This study proposes that innovative subcultures—characterized by risk-taking, psychological safety, treating failure as learning, and adaptability—enable exploratory scanning, creative interpretation, and experimental action, facilitating all seven strategic learning capabilities and driving innovation outcomes (AI adoption, technology integration, organizational agility). Conversely, conservative subcultures—marked by risk aversion, rigidity toward failure, rule-bound behavior, and status quo bias—constrain sensemaking to narrow scanning, conservative interpretation, and defensive action, inhibiting SLC and resulting in resistance to change and competitive decline. While Kulkarni et al. (2024) propose evolutionary sensemaking integrating dynamic capabilities and evolutionary theory, their focus on manager–stakeholder information asymmetry differs from our examination of culture-sensemaking-learning mechanisms.

A critical yet overlooked mechanism linking occupational subcultures to strategic learning outcomes is the cyclical, non-linear process of sensemaking. Within occupational contexts, sensemaking determines whether teams engage in reflective responsiveness (actively interpreting unexpected signals before formulating strategy) or default to absorbed coping (remaining busy with activity while detached from strategic reality). While leadership style influences general organizational culture, occupational subcultures emanate primarily from specific occupational contexts, tasks, and the shared beliefs that emerge from collaborative work (Trice & Beyer, 1993). This distinction is vital: organizational culture may be shaped top-down, but occupational subcultures, as volatile collectivities (Trice & Beyer, 1993, p. 212) are bottom-up formations grounded in daily practice that fundamentally determine whether sensemaking follows exploratory or narrow patterns, creative or conservative interpretations, and experimental or defensive actions.

Because sensemaking facilitates pre-decisional meaning-making and interpretation of ambiguous stimuli (Weick et al., 2005), it functions as the mediating process that either amplifies or constrains the influence of subcultural orientations on strategic learning. Innovative subcultures enable sensemaking to challenge underlying assumptions, scan broadly for disruptive signals, interpret creatively to identify opportunities, and act experimentally to test new approaches. Bureaucratic subcultures constrain sensemaking to reinforce existing protocols, scan narrowly within established domains, interpret conservatively to minimize uncertainty, and act defensively to protect current practices. This distinction determines whether organizations develop the strategic learning capabilities necessary for environmental adaptation or default to coping mechanisms that perpetuate organizational inertia.

To address these gaps, this study explores the tripartite relationship between occupational subcultures (as enablers or inhibitors), sensemaking processes (as mediating mechanisms), and strategic learning capabilities (as pathway-dependent outcomes). The research develops and presents a dual-pathway framework that explicates how different occupational subcultures lead to fundamentally different organizational outcomes.

By identifying how occupational subcultures generate distinct sensemaking patterns through their localized beliefs, values, and behavioral norms, this research contributes to understanding why diverse occupational contexts within a single organization can produce dramatically varied strategic outcomes. The framework reveals that cultivating Strategic Learning Capability requires not merely implementing the seven dimensions as organizational initiatives but fundamentally transforming occupational subcultures from inhibitors to enablers of the cyclical, non-linear sensemaking processes that underpin adaptive strategic responses. This represents a shift from viewing SLC as a universal organizational capability to understanding it as an emergent property dependent on subcultural configurations that either facilitate or constrain collective learning pathways.

Integrating Theory: A Conceptual Framework of Occupational Subcultures, Sensemaking, and Strategic Learning Capability

We applied Yorks and Nicolaides’ (2012) discussion of adaptive systems for strategic learning capability via scholarly dialog. We discussed strategic learning capability, followed by a theoretical review of occupational subculture dynamics, and examined sensemaking as a mediating factor. To support the conceptual model, we reviewed the relevant literature and engaged with existing scholarly dialog. Based on the derived conceptual framework, we present implications for both practice and future research.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Occupational Subcultures as Determinants of Organizational Learning Pathways

In modern work organizations, occupational subcultures serve as the most distinctive source of cultural formation that shapes whether organizations develop strategic learning capabilities or default to defensive coping mechanisms. Despite their comprehensive treatment of organizational culture, Hofstede et al. (1990) did not account for occupational subcultures. Later scholars recognized this gap. As organizations grow, various occupational groups inevitably emerge and diversify through the emergence of new occupations or the integration of existing ones (Trice & Beyer, 1993). These occupational subcultures are formed as groups of people develop shared beliefs, values, and assumptions through collaborative work on similar tasks.

Occupational subcultures contain two major components—ideologies and cultural forms—that fundamentally determine whether they function as enablers or inhibitors of strategic sensemaking. Ideologies drive members to take action, establishing whether the group embraces risk-taking orientation or defaults to risk aversion, while cultural forms represent observable entities such as rituals, symbols, and behavioral patterns that either reinforce psychological safety or impose rigidity toward failure (Trice, 1993; Trice & Beyer, 1993). Members of occupational groups create “self-definitions,” “ideologies,” and “values” that shape their collective identity and determine whether they engage in exploratory scanning and creative interpretation or constrain themselves to narrow scanning and conservative interpretation (Trice & Beyer, 1993). Critically, organizational members carry and enact these subcultural assumptions and values, which directly influence whether the cyclical sensemaking process (scanning, interpreting, action) leads to innovation and growth or stagnation and rigidity (Kalliola & Nakari, 2007).

Occupation constitutes a major portion of personal and collective identity, emerging spontaneously within groups performing similar tasks rather than through formal organizational design (Trice & Beyer, 1993, p. 179). Occupational subcultures become recognized when “the labor market recognizes those who hold them collectively and society accords them certain rights in the performance of them” (Trice & Beyer, 1993, p. 180). Within organizations, occupational subcultures are defined by shared values and assumptions related to task performance, but these shared frameworks can either enable adaptive learning or constrain it through bureaucratic conformity.

Subcultural Orientations and Strategic Sensemaking. Organizational cultures contain forms, meanings, sensemaking messages, and symbols (Schein, 1988; Trice, 1993), but occupational subcultures determine how these elements translate into actual learning behaviors. Occupational subcultures represent group identity that fundamentally shapes “the way things get done”—whether through experimental action characteristic of innovative subcultures or through defensive action characteristic of bureaucratic subcultures. Organizational behaviors are generated based on occupational norms and beliefs that either encourage adaptability and treating failure as learning (enablers) or impose rule-bound behavior and status quo bias (inhibitors).

When occupations are dominated by strong managerial hierarchies and formal rules—manifestations of bureaucratic subcultures—these structural characteristics constrain the sensemaking process toward conservative interpretation and narrow scanning. The resulting occupational culture functions as an inhibitor of Strategic Learning Capability, trapping members in defensive coping patterns. Conversely, occupational subcultures characterized by psychological safety, democratic participation, and experiential learning function as enablers that facilitate the risk-taking pathway to innovation and growth.

Trice (1993) identifies four ideal types of occupational subcultures based on group/grid dimensions, each with distinct implications for knowledge sharing and strategic learning (i.e., Figure 1):

Strong Group/Strong Grid Occupations (e.g., corporate physicians) maintain both internal ranking systems and hierarchical relationships with other occupational groups (Trice, 1993, pp. 43–44). Members tend to share knowledge inter-organizationally through conferences and expert networks. While this external focus supports the scanning dimension of Strategic Learning Capability, strong grid characteristics may impose rigidity that constrains creative interpretation and experimental action within the organization, potentially inhibiting the full sensemaking cycle.

Strong Group/Weak Grid Occupations (e.g., secondary schools, police departments, social welfare agencies) develop ideologies aligned with managerial hierarchies or have experienced task redistribution by management (Trice, 1993, p. 44). Knowledge sharing occurs primarily within the group, creating potential for strong internal strategic dialog but risking siloed “thought worlds” that prevent cross-functional integration necessary for organizational-level strategic learning. When characterized by egalitarian cultures—as found effective in R&D organizations (Jung et al., 2016)—these subcultures can enable psychological safety and experiential learning, facilitating the risk-taking pathway.

Weak Group/Strong Grid Occupations (e.g., engineers, accountants, personnel administrators) are found where well-developed occupational groups generate their own administrative structures and control work processes (Trice, 1993, p. 44). The strong grid may impose rule-bound behavior and professional conformity that inhibits risk-taking, even when occupational expertise would support creative problem-solving. These subcultures risk becoming absorbed in technical compliance while remaining detached from strategic priorities—a manifestation of absorbed coping rather than reflective responsiveness.

Weak Group/Weak Grid Occupations (e.g., producer cooperatives, alternative schools, feminist collectives) reject both occupational expertise hierarchy and administrative control, substituting democratic consensus (Trice, 1993, p. 44). While these subcultures can be subtle and difficult to identify, their weak grid characteristics enable faster knowledge diffusion compared to strong grid occupations. This structural openness potentially supports adaptability and risk-taking orientation, though the absence of group cohesion may limit the development of shared sensemaking frameworks necessary for strategic learning.

Occupational subculture presents an avenue for scrutinizing organizational culture through the lens of group dynamics, diverging from a leadership-centric approach. It represents an innovative perspective that delves into the cultural dynamics of interaction and learning within occupational contexts. Rigorous empirical investigations focusing on the intricacies of occupations are prerequisite to substantiate the theoretical constructs put forth.

Organizations have patterns of culture and subculture (Morgan, 1986). Subculture shares the same elements of culture, but it deviates depending on the degree of distinctiveness (Trice & Beyer, 1993). Each cultural element has different degree of effect to develop subculture. Trice (1993) informs that cultural fuzziness allows subcultures, which is separated from elements in the core. Van Maanen and Barley (1982) assert that subculture can share nothing common within the group members in that it might emerge as phenomenology, but might not recognizable. Generations, divisions, regions, and occupation can determine various subcultures. Definitions of subculture are summarized in

Table 1. Definitions of Subculture.

Researchers	Definitions
(Hansen et al., 1994)	Members of an occupational subculture develop a similar worldview and act as a reference group through self-definitions common and unusual emotional demands, a failure to socially distinguish work from non-work, and a belief that their self-image is enhanced by their work. (p. 255)	Develop a similar worldview
(Schein, 1985/1992, 1993)	The cultural unit to be an organization and the subcultures to be whatever cultures arise in the divisions, departments, and other fairly stable subgroups of that organization (p. 256)	various subcultures stemming from subgroups of organizations
(Schein, 2010)	Subcultures share many of the assumptions of the total organization, but also hold assumptions beyond those of the total organization, usually reflecting their functional tasks, the occupation of their members, or their unique experiences. (p. 55)	Holding assumptions beyond those of the total organization
(Trice, 1993)	Cultural fuzziness allows subcultures, which is separated from elements in the core.	Separated elements from the core
(Trice & Beyer, 1993)	The most distinctive source of subculture in work organizations are people’s occupations. “As they interact and work together, members of occupations come to share a similar view of their work and, more generally, of the world in which they perform it” (p. 180)	sharing a similar view of their work
(Van Maanen & Barley, 1982)	“Subculture can share almost nothing in common”	Sharing nothing in common (-)
(Bloor & Dawson, 1994)	“A patterned system of perceptions, meanings, and beliefs about the organization which facilitates sense-making amongst a group of people sharing common experiences and guides individual behavior at work” (p. 276)	Sharing common experiences and facilitating sensemaking

.

Occupational Subcultures as Enablers or Inhibitors of Knowledge Transfer. Occupational subcultures fundamentally shape whether organizations develop strategic learning capabilities or default to defensive coping mechanisms through their influence on knowledge transfer and collective learning processes. Drazin et al. (1999, p. 299) observe that “the relative balance of the technical and managerial belief structures determines the extent to which each side engages in creativity,” highlighting how subcultural orientations determine whether occupational groups pursue creative interpretation and experimental action or remain constrained by conservative interpretation and defensive action.

Subcultures are defined by “distinctive values, artifacts, practices, and behavioral patterns” (Lok et al., 2005) that either enable or inhibit the cyclical sensemaking process essential to strategic learning. Lok et al.’s research demonstrates that innovative and supportive subcultures—characterized by the enablers identified in the dual-pathway model (risk-taking orientation, psychological safety, failure as learning, adaptability)—foster organizational commitment and engagement in strategic dialog. Conversely, bureaucratic subcultures marked by the inhibitors in the model (risk aversion, rigidity toward failure, rule-bound behavior, status quo bias) undermine organizational commitment, creating conditions where members engage in absorbed coping rather than reflective responsiveness.

Egan (2008) empirically demonstrated that occupational subcultures exert a more significant influence on motivation to transfer learning than broader organizational culture. This finding supports the proposition that Strategic Learning Capability emerges not from top-down mandates but from meso-level subcultural orientations that either facilitate or constrain the sensemaking cycle. Critically, Egan identified perceived leadership behavior as the antecedent to shaping occupational subculture, suggesting that leaders within specific occupational groups determine whether their teams follow the risk-taking pathway (through modeling exploratory scanning, encouraging creative interpretation, and celebrating experimental action) or become trapped in the risk-averse pathway (through punishing failure, enforcing narrow scanning priorities, and demanding conservative interpretation).

The relationship between subcultural characteristics and knowledge transfer directly maps onto the dual-pathway framework. Innovative subcultures that embrace failure as learning create psychological safety for sharing both successful and unsuccessful experiential learning, enabling the reflective responsiveness necessary for strategic learning capability. As Kucharska (2021) notes, organizational learning cultures must include acceptance of mistakes to facilitate knowledge transfer—a characteristic present in innovative subcultures but absent in bureaucratic ones. Similarly, Moon and Lee (2014) demonstrate that cultures of trust, collaboration, and learning enhance knowledge sharing processes and knowledge management effectiveness, characteristics that enable the strategic dialog and disciplined imagination dimensions of Strategic Learning Capability.

However, occupational subcultures can function as powerful inhibitors of knowledge transfer when characterized by bureaucratic orientations. Occupations dominated by strong managerial hierarchies and formal rules—manifestations of rule-bound behavior and status quo bias—constrain knowledge sharing among organizational members. In such contexts, knowledge transfer becomes narrow and vertical (flowing through formal reporting lines) rather than broad and horizontal (crossing occupational boundaries through strategic engagement). This siloing effect prevents the cross-functional synthesis of diverse occupational insights necessary for emergent strategy-making, trapping organizations in defensive coping patterns where technical expertise operates in isolation from strategic imperatives.

2.2. Sensemaking

Sensemaking is fundamentally shaped by social dialogs (Wibeck & Linnér, 2021). When individuals become conscious of how they form tacit assumptions and solidify beliefs—and are encouraged to examine these processes collectively—they develop shared understanding and collaborative capacity. This open inquiry creates space for new possibilities to emerge.

While meaning-making can be individualistic, sensemaking is inherently interactive and interdependent, allowing groups to construct meaning from knowledge in creative ways (Brown, 2000). At the group level, subcultures guide how members make sense of their environment. Through sensemaking, shared beliefs and norms are translated and reorganized, potentially “reinvigorating bounded systems through new forms of organizing” (Holt & Cornelissen, 2014, p. 537). When sensemaking facilitates creativity, it can shift individual cognition and behavior. The subcultural context determines interaction patterns and sensemaking processes among members, making subcultures—including leadership practices—influential products of sensemaking that shape innovative activity.

Sensemaking serves as both an individual and organizational learning tool (Kuwada, 1998). Beyond information gathering, it integrates and embeds knowledge across organizational levels through creative authoring by individuals and groups (Brown, 2000).

From a strategic capability perspective, sensemaking encompasses three dimensions: communicative, interpretive, and analytical (Neill et al., 2007). Communicative sensemaking involves strategic information exchange within decision-making teams. Interpretive sensemaking refers to the capacity to understand environments multidimensionally through organizational schemas—information-seeking structures. Analytical sensemaking engages multiple participants with diverse perspectives. Organizations with robust strategic sensemaking capabilities are better positioned to communicate, interpret, and analyze information effectively for decision-making (Neill et al., 2007).

Table 2. The specific aspects of sensemaking.

Scholars	Focus on
(Brown, 2000)	Those processes of interpretation and meaning production whereby individuals and groups reflect on and interpret phenomena and produce intersubjective accounts (pp. 45–46).
(Feldman, 1989)	An interpretive process that is necessary “for organizational members to understand and to share understandings about such features of the organization in terms of what it is about, what it does well and poorly, what the problems it faces are, and how it should resolve them” (p. 19, as cited in Weick, 1995, p. 5).
(Harris, 1994)	Being culturally shaped by a group of individuals.
(Neill et al., 2007)	A bundle of collective routines that shape what information is assimilated, how it is interpreted, and which actions are considered (pp. 731–732)
(Pandza & Thorpe, 2009)	An uncertainty-reducing cognitive process of initial sensemaking that activates purposeful action and retrospective sensemaking that enables managers to understand the appropriateness and usefulness of the development of novel knowledge and its fit into business opportunity” (p. 124).
(Sackmann, 1992)	Organizational members attribute meaning to events, which are mechanisms that “include the standards and rules for perceiving, interpreting, believing, and acting that are typically used in a given cultural setting” (p. 5).
(Thomas et al., 2001)	The reciprocal interaction of information seeking, meaning ascription, and action, which means that environmental scanning, interpretation, and “associated responses” are all included.
(Weick et al., 2005)	Organized as the experience of being thrown into an ongoing, unknowable, unpredictable streaming of experience.

summarizes the specific aspects of sensemaking.

Strategic sensemaking encompasses the scanning, interpretation, and enactment of organizational information and knowledge (Pandza & Thorpe, 2009; Weick, 1995). Weick et al. (2005) identified critical dimensions of sensemaking, including its affective nature and the role of insiders’ identity construction through meaning-making—processes that can be facilitated by occupational subcultures.

Sensemaking operates at both individual and collective levels to support organizational learning. Meaning-making exists on a continuum: it can be “a relatively social process in which individuals try to negotiate a shared sense of a trigger through talk and text,” or it may “proceed in a relatively solitary fashion with an individual working to interpret and react to a sensemaking trigger largely by herself or with an imagined other” (Weick, 1979, as cited in Maitlis et al., 2013, p. 233). Subcultural elements shape the dynamics of this social learning process and mediate how sensemaking facilitates learning outcomes.

Subculture and Sensemaking. From a sociological perspective, subculture represents a group’s collective self-consciousness expressed through symbolic objects and practices (Muggleton, 2000). Subcultures may either enable or constrain sensemaking processes. While the sensemaking process itself remains consistent across occupational subcultures, outputs can vary considerably as different occupational groups interpret information through distinct cultural lenses. The relationship between subcultural boundaries and sensemaking determines whether learning is reinforced or inhibited. As Weick et al. (2005) observe, “action is always just a tiny bit ahead of cognition, meaning that we act our way into belated understanding” (p. 419). This suggests that sensemaking, though often portrayed as cyclical, exhibits non-linear characteristics wherein action may precede interpretation rather than follow it.

In bureaucratic subcultures, rigidity toward failure tends to orient sensemaking in conservative directions, whereas innovative subcultures may facilitate positive sensemaking toward the adoption of new tools such as artificial intelligence. While sensemaking occurs in both bureaucratic and innovative contexts, the process is inherently non-linear. Therefore, it is critical to examine the direction in which these cyclical sensemaking processes are reinforced, as this determines whether organizational learning moves toward risk aversion or innovation.

2.3. Strategic Learning Capability: A Subcultural Pathway Perspective

The development of Strategic Learning Capability (SLC) is not a monolithic corporate mandate but emerges through divergent pathways determined by occupational subcultures that either enable or inhibit strategic sensemaking processes. SLC is defined as the capacity to rapidly retool, create, and execute strategy through learning at both individual and systemic levels (Moon & Ruona, 2015). Creativity and teamwork are imperative to strategic thinking (Sadler-Smith, 2007). To unleash creativity, organizations require time-outs or mental breaks. This process should be embedded within organizations from a long-term perspective. Collaboration and dialog among organizational members are fundamental to this approach. Through strategic dialog and intuition, organizations can identify and capture emerging trends. However, whether organizations realize this capability depends fundamentally on whether their occupational subcultures facilitate the risk-taking pathway leading to innovation and growth, or constrain organizations along the risk-averse pathway resulting in stagnation and rigidity.

The Subcultural Foundations of Divergent Learning Pathways. To understand how SLC manifests across organizational contexts, we must examine how occupational subcultures shape the non-linear, cyclical sensemaking process of scanning, interpreting, and taking action. The cognitive perspective illuminates the mental structures individuals use to process strategic information, but the subcultural perspective reveals how collective orientations toward risk and failure fundamentally determine whether these cognitive processes support adaptive learning or defensive coping (Chiva-Gómez, 2003).

Innovative subcultures characterized by risk-taking orientation, psychological safety, treating failure as learning, and adaptability create the conditions for exploratory scanning, creative interpretation, and experimental action. Within such subcultures, occupational groups—whether engineering, sales, or operations—engage in strategic dialog that challenges underlying assumptions, practice disciplined imagination that balances creativity with structure, and pursue experiential learning that extracts insights from both successes and failures. This risk-taking pathway enables the full expression of the seven strategic learning capabilities: external focus, customer-centricity, reflective responsiveness, strategic dialog, disciplined imagination, experiential learning, and strategic engagement.

Conversely, bureaucratic subcultures marked by risk aversion, rigidity toward failure, rule-bound behavior, and status quo bias constrain sensemaking toward narrow scanning, conservative interpretation, and defensive action. Within such subcultures, occupational groups become trapped in “siloed thought worlds” (Frankwick et al., 1994) where technical expertise operates in isolation from strategic imperatives. For instance, an engineering subculture constrained by risk aversion might become so absorbed in procedural compliance that it fails to engage in exploratory scanning of disruptive technological trends, or a sales subculture dominated by rule-bound behavior might engage only in narrow scanning of established customer segments while missing emerging market opportunities.

From Coping Mechanisms to Strategic Learning. The critical distinction between these pathways lies in whether occupational groups engage in mindful strategic learning or default to coping mechanisms. Guiette and Vandenbempt (2016) distinguish between absorbed coping and mindful coping. This distinction maps directly onto the dual-pathway framework: organizations following the risk-taking pathway achieve reflective responsiveness—actively interpreting unexpected signals before formulating strategy—while organizations constrained by the risk-averse pathway default to absorbed coping, where activity continues but remains disconnected from strategic reality.

The difference lies in subcultural orientations. Innovative subcultures that treat failure as learning enable occupational groups to practice reflective responsiveness by creating psychological safety for acknowledging surprises, challenging initial interpretations, and experimenting with alternative responses. An engineering team within such a subculture can balance technical depth with strategic breadth, using disciplined imagination to translate technological capabilities into market opportunities. However, bureaucratic subcultures that impose rigidity toward failure force occupational groups into absorbed coping: engineers focus narrowly on technical compliance to avoid punishment, sales teams defensively protect existing accounts rather than experimentally pursuing new markets, and operations groups resist process innovations that carry implementation risks.

Subcultural Enablers of Strategic Learning Capability. Realizing Strategic Learning Capability requires deliberately cultivating innovative subcultures across all occupational groups. This means shifting from risk aversion to risk-taking orientation through reward systems that celebrate experimental action even when unsuccessful; from rigidity toward failure to treating failure as learning through retrospective practices that extract insights from all outcomes; from rule-bound behavior to adaptability through empowerment that allows contextually appropriate action; and from status quo bias to openness through leadership that models creative interpretation of environmental signals.

When occupational subcultures function as enablers rather than inhibitors, the cyclical, non-linear nature of sensemaking becomes an organizational strength. Action outcomes inform subsequent scanning priorities, interpretive frameworks evolve through strategic dialog across occupational boundaries, and the organization develops the dynamic capability to pursue innovation outcomes such as AI adoption, technology integration, and strategic agility. However, when occupational subcultures function as inhibitors, organizations become trapped in defensive routines that perpetuate resistance to change, missed opportunities, and competitive decline—regardless of formal strategic planning efforts or training investments.

The Seven Dimensions of Strategic Learning Capability through a Subcultural Lens. Moon et al. (2017) empirically identified seven dimensions of Strategic Learning Capability, which collectively enable organizations to develop adaptive responses to environmental demands. However, the manifestation of these capabilities is fundamentally shaped by whether occupational subcultures function as enablers or inhibitors of strategic sensemaking. In organizations following the risk-taking pathway, innovative subcultures facilitate the full expression of these seven capabilities, leading to innovation and growth. Conversely, in organizations constrained by bureaucratic subcultures along the risk-averse pathway, these capabilities remain underdeveloped, resulting in organizational stagnation and rigidity.

External Focus. This dimension involves exploratory scanning of macro-trends, competitive behaviors, and environmental shifts. Innovative subcultures characterized by risk-taking orientation enable broad, exploratory scanning that seeks novel signals and emerging opportunities. In contrast, bureaucratic subcultures constrained by risk aversion tend toward narrow scanning that focuses only on familiar, predictable information sources. Different occupational groups naturally scan different domains (R&D teams monitor technological trends; sales teams track competitor pricing), but the critical distinction lies in whether subcultural orientations encourage creative interpretation of ambiguous signals or conservative interpretation that filters out disruptive information.

Customer-Centric Strategy. The ability to sense and monitor customer value requires that all occupational subcultures—including traditionally internal functions like IT or logistics—align their sensemaking with end-customer experiences (Slater & Narver, 2000). This dimension thrives in innovative subcultures where psychological safety enables employees to voice customer concerns that challenge existing practices. However, in bureaucratic subcultures marked by rule-bound behavior and status quo bias, customer signals are often filtered through rigid protocols, leading to defensive action that protects internal processes rather than experimental action that tests new customer solutions.

Reflective Responsiveness. This capability involves actively reflecting on unexpected signals and anomalies before formulating strategy (Weick et al., 2005). It represents the difference between adaptive strategic learning and defensive coping mechanisms. Within innovative subcultures that treat failure as a learning opportunity, reflective responsiveness enables organizations to interpret unexpected data through creative sensemaking processes, thereby reframing anomalies—such as technological disruption and artificial intelligence—as opportunities for strategic innovation. Conversely, in bureaucratic subcultures characterized by rigidity toward failure, unexpected signals trigger absorbed coping—organizations remain busy with activity but detached from strategic reality, engaging in narrow scanning that confirms existing assumptions rather than challenging them.

Strategic Dialog. This dimension requires occupational members to engage in high-quality conversation that challenges underlying assumptions (Chermack et al., 2006). Strategic Learning Capability is enhanced when innovative subcultures provide the psychological safety necessary for risk-taking in dialog—voicing dissenting views, proposing experimental interpretations, and questioning established practices. The non-linear, cyclical nature of sensemaking means that strategic dialog can occur at any stage: scanning may reveal anomalies that require interpretive dialog, or action outcomes may necessitate retrospective dialog that reframes initial interpretations. However, bureaucratic subcultures suppress strategic dialog through punitive responses to failure and preference for hierarchical communication, constraining the interpretive phase of sensemaking toward conservative conclusions.

Disciplined Imagination. This dual-process dimension balances creative “imagination” (exploration and brainstorming) with “discipline” (structured evaluation of alternatives) (cf., Weick, 2012). Innovative subcultures excel at disciplined imagination because they combine adaptability (encouraging diverse interpretations) with psychological safety (allowing structured experimentation without fear of punishment). Different occupational subcultures may naturally emphasize different poles—design teams favor imagination while compliance teams favor discipline—but Strategic Learning Capability requires integrating both through cross-subcultural exchange. Bureaucratic subcultures tend to suppress imagination through risk aversion, limiting sensemaking to conservative interpretation that applies existing frameworks rather than creative interpretation that generates novel possibilities.

Experiential Learning. The ability to use lived experiences to address new challenges depends on whether subcultural orientations enable learning from both successes and failures (Casey & Goldman, 2010). Innovative subcultures that treat failure as learning create “occupational memory” that preserves insights from experimental actions, even unsuccessful ones. This supports the cyclical nature of sensemaking where action outcomes inform subsequent scanning and interpretation. However, bureaucratic subcultures characterized by rigidity toward failure suppress experiential learning by avoiding documentation of unsuccessful experiments, leading organizations to repeat mistakes rather than learn from them. The result is that organizations following the risk-averse pathway lack the experiential foundation necessary for adaptive responses to novel challenges.

Strategic Engagement. The ability to operationalize strategy across the entire workforce requires translating strategic intent into the “local languages” of various occupational subcultures. Successful strategic engagement depends on whether subcultures enable or inhibit the action phase of sensemaking. Innovative subcultures facilitate strategic engagement through adaptability and openness to experimentation, allowing diverse occupational groups to translate strategic direction into contextually appropriate experimental actions. Conversely, bureaucratic subcultures constrained by rule-bound behavior resist strategic engagement when it conflicts with established procedures, leading to defensive action that maintains status quo bias rather than adaptive implementation that pursues innovation and growth.

Strategic Learning Capability as a Dynamic Sensemaking Mechanism. While traditional strategic planning is often criticized as overly simplified or rigid (Vanttinen & Pyhalto, 2009), contemporary scholarship reconceptualizes strategy as a complex, learning-intensive process shaped by ongoing sensemaking (Arend et al., 2017). Strategic Learning Capability functions not as a linear planning mechanism but as a cyclical, non-linear process through which organizations scan environmental signals, interpret their strategic implications, and take action—with each stage informing and reshaping the others. This dynamic process creates an “open system” capable of adaptive responses to strategic change (Grundy, 1994), but only when occupational subcultures enable rather than inhibit the sensemaking cycle.

The effectiveness of Strategic Learning Capability as a dynamic mechanism depends fundamentally on whether organizations follow the risk-taking pathway or the risk-averse pathway. In innovative subcultures characterized by psychological safety and treating failure as learning, the seven strategic learning capabilities facilitate emergent strategy-making through exploratory scanning of novel opportunities, creative interpretation that challenges existing assumptions, and experimental action that tests new possibilities. This iterative process enables both learning (integrating new insights) and “unlearning” (abandoning outdated assumptions) (Moon, 2013), as action outcomes continuously inform subsequent scanning and interpretation phases.

Conversely, in bureaucratic subcultures marked by risk aversion and rigidity toward failure, Strategic Learning Capability degenerates into a defensive coping mechanism. Narrow scanning reinforces existing mental models, conservative interpretation filters out disruptive signals, and defensive action maintains status quo bias. In this constrained state, the organization engages in absorbed coping—remaining busy with strategic activities while detached from strategic reality. The result is not emergent strategy-making but procedural conformity that leads to stagnation and rigidity.

The dual-pathway framework reveals that the synthesis of “unique insights from different occupational subcultures into a coherent organizational response” is not automatic but mediated by subcultural orientations. When diverse occupational groups operate within innovative subcultures, their distinct scanning domains (technological trends, customer behaviors, competitive actions) and interpretive lenses contribute to disciplined imagination and strategic dialog, enriching the organization’s collective sensemaking. However, when occupational groups are siloed within bureaucratic subcultures, their insights remain trapped in isolated “thought worlds,” preventing the cross-functional integration necessary for adaptive strategic responses. Therefore, cultivating Strategic Learning Capability requires not merely implementing the seven dimensions but fundamentally shifting occupational subcultures from inhibitors to enablers of dynamic, cyclical sensemaking that drives innovation and growth rather than perpetuating organizational inertia.

3. Theoretical Propositions

3.1. A Framework for SLC

Based on this study’s conceptual framework, we suggest that the development of Strategic Learning Capability (SLC) is governed by a complex, non-linear sensemaking process model. Within this framework, sensemaking serves as the primary engine for generating strategic knowledge, with its effectiveness fundamentally moderated by the occupational subcultures in which it is embedded.

Occupational Subculture. While external market shifts represent macro-level changes, this research identifies occupational subcultures as a constructive conditions varied by grid-group dimensions that shape organizational responses. These subcultures—defined by shared beliefs, values, and task-specific assumptions—act as either enablers (+) or inhibitors (−) of strategic sensemaking. Innovative subcultures, characterized by risk-taking orientation, psychological safety, and treating failure as learning, enable exploratory sensemaking processes. Conversely, bureaucratic subcultures, marked by risk aversion, rigidity toward failure, and rule-bound behavior, constrain sensemaking toward conservative interpretations.

Sensemaking then functions as a mediating process through which subcultural orientations translate into organizational outcomes. The cyclical, non-linear sensemaking process—involving scanning, interpreting, and action—determines whether the organization follows a risk-taking pathway leading to innovation and growth, or a risk-averse pathway resulting in stagnation and rigidity. This dual-pathway framework reveals how occupational subcultures fundamentally shape whether organizations develop strategic learning capabilities or default to defensive coping mechanisms in response to environmental demands.

The dynamics of this interplay are twofold:

Subcultural Enablers (Autonomous): Occupational groups with low grid that value risk-taking and transparency facilitate “Strategic Dialog” and “Disciplined Imagination,” leading to high SLC.

Subcultural Inhibitors (Regulated): Hierarchical or risk-averse subcultures may trigger “Coping Mechanisms” (detached or absorbed coping) rather than learning. In these contexts, groups with high grid may prioritize the preservation of existing routines over the interpretation of new, disruptive signals.

SLC vs. Coping Mechanisms. The organizational response to these stimuli follows two distinct paths based on the quality of sensemaking:

• Path A. Strategic Learning Capability (Innovation Pathway): When sensemaking is facilitated by an innovative subculture characterized by risk-taking orientation, the organization develops strategic learning capability through exploratory scanning, creative interpretation, and experimental action. This risk-taking pathway enables the organization to achieve innovation and growth through adaptive responses including external focus, strategic dialog, customer-centricity, disciplined imagination, experiential learning, strategic engagement, and reflective responsiveness. The cyclical, non-linear sensemaking process produces emergent strategy-making that embraces AI adoption, new technology integration, and organizational agility in response to environmental demands.
• Path B. Organizational Coping (Conservative Pathway): Conversely, when sensemaking is constrained by a bureaucratic subculture characterized by risk aversion and rigidity toward failure, the organization follows a conservative pathway marked by narrow scanning, conservative interpretation, and defensive action. This risk-averse orientation leads to organizational stagnation and rigidity, manifesting as resistance to change, missed opportunities, and competitive decline. In this state, the organization defaults to a coping mechanism where strategic learning capabilities are inhibited, and the organization remains detached from innovative possibilities, maintaining rule-bound behavior and status quo bias.

3.2. Sensemaking Model for SLC

Based on this study’s conceptual framework, we propose an enactment-based sensemaking model (i.e., Figure 2) for understanding Strategic Learning Capability (SLC) development. Departing from linear stimulus-response logic, we draw on Weick’s (1995, 2001) theory of enactment, which posits that organizational members do not passively respond to environmental stimuli but actively construct their strategic realities through ongoing sensemaking practices.

Within this framework, occupational subcultures constitute the interpretive repertoires and enactment scripts that enable differential modes of strategic knowledge construction. These subcultures provide the taken-for-granted, embodied frameworks that remain tacit until moments of breakdown—when phenomena become conspicuous, obtrude as absent, or obstinate as obstacles (Heidegger, in Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2011; Weick, 2012)—thereby triggering differential modes of sensemaking as members attempt to recover their equipmental balance through culturally shaped interpretive inquiry. In innovative subcultures that embrace experimentation and treat failure as learning, members engage in exploratory enactment—actively seeking and amplifying weak signals, constructing novel interpretations of disruptions (e.g., AI, technological shifts) as strategic opportunities through creative sensemaking. Conversely, conservative subcultures promoting efficiency and risk aversion foster confirmatory enactment, wherein members selectively attend to cues validating existing frames, thereby constraining adaptive learning.

This process operates through recursive cycles of enactment, selection, and retention (Weick, 1979), wherein emergent strategic knowledge feeds back into both sensemaking practices and subcultural evolution. Holt and Cornelissen (2014) emphasize that sensemaking transcends instrumental, cognitive, and retrospective dimensions, arising also through phenomenological conditions of ‘absence, mood, and being open.’ Our model integrates these insights, demonstrating how occupational subcultures shape the enacted environments through which SLC emerges as a mutually constitutive, non-linear learning process rather than a mechanistic response pattern.

4. Implications for Practice and Research

4.1. Implications for Research

This study advocates for an integrative socio-cognitive approach to investigate the antecedents of Strategic Learning Capability (SLC) by positioning occupational subculture as a critical determinant of organizational learning pathways. While “meaning-making” is often treated as an individual cognitive process, this research explicates sensemaking as a collective, non-linear social learning mechanism shaped by subcultural enablers and inhibitors.

Future research should focus on:

Empirical Validation of the Dual-Pathway Model. There is a critical need to test the proposed conceptual framework through structural equation modeling (SEM) or comparative case studies to validate the divergent pathways from innovative versus bureaucratic subcultures. Research should identify which specific subcultural characteristics (e.g., risk-taking orientation, psychological safety, rigidity toward failure) exert the strongest influence on sensemaking processes and their subsequent outcomes—innovation and growth versus stagnation and rigidity.

Mechanisms of Risk Orientation in Sensemaking. Future studies should examine how occupational subcultures shape the transition from scanning to interpreting to action, particularly focusing on the conditions under which organizations follow exploratory versus narrow scanning patterns, and creative versus conservative interpretation. Longitudinal research could track how risk-taking and risk-averse pathways emerge and evolve within organizations facing technological disruption, such as AI adoption.

Subcultural Dynamics Across Organizational Contexts. As organizational structures flatten and incorporate diverse professional roles, researchers must investigate how different occupational subcultures coexist and interact within single organizations. Multi-level studies should examine whether certain subcultures serve as innovation catalysts while others act as stabilizing forces, and how organizations can strategically leverage this diversity.

Qualitative Depth in Sensemaking Processes. Future inquiry should utilize ethnographic or real-time case-study methods to observe the cyclical, non-linear interplay between subcultural factors and sensemaking stages. Particular attention should be paid to critical incidents where organizations shift between risk-taking and risk-averse pathways, revealing the mechanisms through which subcultures enable or constrain strategic learning capabilities.

4.2. Implications for Practice and OD

For practitioners and Organization Development (OD) professionals, these findings reveal that Strategic Learning Capability cannot be mandated through top-down directives; it must be cultivated by intentionally shaping the occupational subcultures that enable risk-taking pathways to innovation rather than risk-averse pathways to stagnation.

Cultivating Innovative Subcultures. Organizations must deliberately shift from bureaucratic subcultures characterized by risk aversion and rigidity toward failure, to innovative subcultures that embrace risk-taking orientation, psychological safety, and failure as learning. This requires fundamentally reimagining performance management systems, reward structures, and leadership behaviors to incentivize experimental action rather than penalize unsuccessful attempts. Leaders should model creative interpretation of challenges and celebrate exploratory scanning that uncovers new opportunities, even when immediate results are uncertain.

Facilitating Exploratory Sensemaking. OD interventions should focus on enabling the full sensemaking cycle—from scanning to interpreting to action—rather than constraining it through narrow procedural frameworks. This includes designing “Disciplined Imagination” workshops that encourage creative interpretation of market signals, establishing cross-functional strategic dialog forums that challenge conservative interpretations, and creating rapid experimentation processes that allow action to inform cognition. Organizations should recognize that sensemaking is non-linear and cyclical, requiring iterative learning rather than linear problem-solving.

Breaking Down Subcultural Barriers. As organizations pursue horizontal integration, HRD initiatives must actively bridge occupational subcultures that may operate along different risk orientations. This involves identifying where bureaucratic subcultures create inhibitors to learning, and strategically introducing practices from innovative subcultures to enable strategic learning capabilities. Cross-functional teams should be designed not merely for task completion but as vehicles for subcultural exchange that expands collective scanning capabilities and enriches interpretation diversity.

Strategic Investment in Learning Capabilities. To achieve the innovation and growth outcomes associated with strategic learning capability—including AI adoption, new technology integration, and organizational agility—management must make sustained investments in external focus, customer-centricity, experiential learning, strategic engagement, and reflective responsiveness. This requires moving beyond defensive coping mechanisms and status quo bias toward adaptive responses that embrace environmental demands as opportunities for strategic renewal.

5. Conclusions

This paper explored the relationship between occupational subculture, sensemaking, and strategic learning capability by developing a dual-pathway framework explaining divergent organizational outcomes. Drawing on Weick’s (1995, 2001) enactment theory, we demonstrate that strategic learning is not information processing but an enactment-based process where organizational members actively construct strategic realities through culturally embedded sensemaking practices.

Our theoretical contribution explicates how occupational subcultures function as interpretive repertoires and enactment scripts that enable or inhibit recursive sensemaking cycles—scanning, interpreting, and action—determining whether organizations develop seven strategic learning capabilities: external focus, strategic dialog, customer-centricity, disciplined imagination, experiential learning, strategic engagement, and reflective responsiveness. Rather than viewing SLC as mechanistic response, our framework reveals how SLC emerges through iterative enactment-selection-retention cycles (Weick, 1979), wherein emergent strategic knowledge feeds back into sensemaking practices and subcultural evolution.

The model reveals two pathways: innovative subcultures enable exploratory enactment leading to innovation and agility, while conservative subcultures foster confirmatory enactment resulting in stagnation. Understanding how to shift subcultures from risk-averse to risk-taking orientations—cultivating phenomenological conditions of ‘absence, mood, and being open’ (Holt & Cornelissen, 2014)—remains pivotal for building resilient organizations capable of thriving amid environmental volatility.

Limitations and Future Directions

The primary limitation of this study is its conceptual nature; the specific mechanisms through which subcultural characteristics (risk-taking orientation, psychological safety, rigidity toward failure) influence each stage of the sensemaking cycle (scanning, interpreting, action) and subsequently shape strategic learning capabilities have not yet been empirically quantified. While the dual-pathway model provides a theoretically robust framework distinguishing innovation from stagnation pathways, several empirical questions remain unanswered.

First, the relative strength of different subcultural enablers and inhibitors requires empirical validation. Future research should employ structural equation modeling or fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) to identify which specific subcultural characteristics exert the strongest influence on sensemaking pathways and their subsequent outcomes. Second, the model’s generalizability across different organizational contexts—industries (manufacturing vs. high-tech), organizational sizes, and cultural contexts—remains to be established. Comparative case studies could reveal whether the dual pathways manifest similarly across diverse settings or whether contextual factors moderate these relationships.

Third, the dynamic nature of the non-linear, cyclical sensemaking process suggests that organizations may shift between risk-taking and risk-averse pathways over time. Longitudinal studies tracking organizations through critical transitions (technological disruption, leadership changes, environmental crises) could illuminate the conditions under which subcultural orientations evolve and how organizations can be deliberately guided from stagnation pathways toward innovation pathways. Finally, qualitative research employing ethnographic methods could provide rich insights into the real-time interplay between subcultural factors and sensemaking processes, particularly during moments when organizations face decisions between exploratory experimentation and conservative conformity.