‘Learning by talking?’ – The role of local line leadership in organisational learning

Organisational learning is the topic addressed in this qualitative comparative case study. The purpose is to investigate the role of local line leadership in professional development processes. Two kindergartens participating in the Norwegian national in-service programme Competence for Diversity were studied. A combination of inductive and deductive analyses led us to intro-duce two dimensions: leading contextual interplay , with proactive and reactive values, and practice development , with fragmented and integrated values. One of the kindergartens appeared to have organised the professional development process more productively than the other, and the findings point to a combination of integrating dialogues on practice, and proactive managers as possible keys to understanding kindergartens as learning organisations. The model seems to capture, to some extent, the holistic view of the learning organisation as a structured relationship between individual and collective learning. The managerial role as local line leader stands out as important for understanding learning in this type of organisation.


Introduction
This study employs a perspective on organisational learning that addresses the role of local line leadership in professional knowledge development relating to multicultural competence in two Norwegian kindergartens. 1 The kindergartens were participating in the national in-service programme, Competence for Diversity (CfD). Through our analysis, it soon became clear that one kindergarten appeared to have implemented more measures conducive to increased productivity in their work with CfD, than the other. Could this be interpreted as a greater ability to engage in collective learning? If so, what was the role of the local line leader in such processes? We decided to study this by formulating four research questions: 1. What are the different conditions for organisational learning in the two kindergartens?
2. How do kindergartens learn to develop practice through a development project?
3. What is the driving force for collective learning processes relating to cultural diversity in kindergartens?

What characterises the leadership role in organisational learning?
Recent research on professional development in kindergartens appears to concentrate on the role of leadership and hybrid practices in both the Norwegian and the Nordic context (e.g., Aasen, 2010;Bøe & Hognestad, 2017;Heikka, Pitkäniemi, Kettukangas, & Hyttinen, 2019;Kangas, Venninen, & Ojala, 2016). In an international context, research has typically been conducted on professional development and the role of leadership, teamwork (e.g., Fitzgerald & Theilheimer, 2013), and intercultural competence (e.g., Mascadri, Brownlee, Walker, & Alford, 2017) in kindergartens. One finding in particular from research on schools as learning organisations appears to be consistent across studies, and seems relevant for kindergartens: "the critical importance of learning-focused, transformational, distributive, and supportive leadership styles" (Austin & Harkins, 2008, p. 111). Mascadri et al. (2017, p. 231) advocate the "need for professional learning that focuses on calibrating educators' intercultural knowledge, beliefs and practice". In this study, these concepts and ideas are part of what we refer to as organisational learning. The role of local line leadership in calibrating educators' organisational learning is particularly in focus.

Theoretical background and perspective
There is a vast corpus of literature on collective learning in the organisational context.
Our theoretical approach is somewhat eclectic, and influenced both by the inductive part of the analysis and a wish to correspond with the literature on collective learning as well as with current research on kindergarten leadership issues. Our perspective is summarised at the end of this section.
Learning organisation or organisational learning?
Are we studying learning organisations or organisational learning? There are two main traditions in the literature, though some suggest more 2 (Easterby-Smith & Lyles, 2011;Örtenblad, 2001. The two concepts overlap, and one can ask "whether the learning organization is part of/included in the organizational learning concept, or if organizational learning is part of/included in the learning organization" (Örtenblad, 2019, p. 6). There are also differences between the two concepts. The learning organisation can be understood as "an ideal type of organization, which has the capacity to learn", whereas organizational learning is a more academic idea (Easterby-Smith & Lyles, 2011, p. 3). Edmondson and Moingeon (1998, p. 23) have developed a typology built on two dimensions: (1) the primary unit of analysis (organisational or individual level); and (2) research goals (descriptive and interventionist). This matrix is used to discuss significant contributions to the discourse on collective learning. Levitt and March's (1988) research is classified as descriptive, and the organisational level is the learning unit. Organisations are residues of prior learning in the form of routines and procedures from the past. Participation is classified as an interventionist perspective on the organisational level, with Hayes, Weelwright, and Clark (1988) as an example.
Nevertheless, it is also natural to think of the literature on organisational development in this category. In the matrix, Peter Senge's five disciplines (1990) are typed as intervention-oriented on the individual level. Learning is a question of mental models, and such models are continuously questioned and developed in the learning organisation (Edmondson & Moingeon, 1998).
We place our study along the second dimension (Edmondson & Moingeon, 1998), as a descriptive-oriented study focusing on the individual level at which individuals and groups as collectives can learn and develop (Pedler, Boydell & Burgoyne, 2019).
This category may be close to the definition of knowledge creation, defined as "the act of making knowledge created by individuals available, amplifying it in social contexts, and selectively connecting it to the existing knowledge in the organization" (Brix, 2017, p. 113).
The concepts called learning organisation and organisational learning belong to different ontological positions. Levitt and March's (1988) work has a clear link to logical positivism and behaviourism (Riccucci, 2010, p. 9-11 research tends to emphasise the observable, visible, and enduring parts of the organisation, including rules and procedures, structures, and hierarchies as repositories of past learning (Glosvik, 2002;building on Scott, 1995).
Exploration and exploitation are described as two strategies for organisations (March, 1991). By exploiting past learning, organisations might develop more productively than by exploring the unknown. The primary argument is that for external knowledge to be absorbed, the right individuals should be reached at the right time (Brix, 2019, p. 342). Organisational ambidexterity refers to organisations that can "both explore new opportunities and exploit existing knowledge" (Simsek et al., 2009;Brix, 2019, p. 339).
Emphasising the ability of individuals to learn and change could lead us to overlook the structural conditions created by different organisational settings in the two kindergartens. Moreover, if organisational structures are perceived as real, they are real in their consequences (Thomas & Thomas, 1928). How, then, do we treat both the individual and the formal dimensions in a particular study, and how do we link them? Several suggestions have been made, but mental models are often mentioned (Edmondson & Moingeon, 1998;Senge, 1990Senge, , 2006. Shared mental models could both bridge the gap and create a holistic picture of the organisation for the individual. Moilanen (2005, pp. 72-76) does precisely this, and classifies different theories of collective learning that explain the wholeness of an organisation as the mental model individuals have of themselves in the organisational context. Literature that addresses the holistic side also indicates that the combination of the management of systems and the leading of individuals is a driving force in learning organisations. It is neither formal management nor a focus on individuals, but the perception of the contextual interplay that is the driving force behind organisational learning. Thus, leadership is understood both as managing systems and leading individuals.

The local line leader and challenges in kindergartens
Peter Senge has had considerable influence on the literature regarding learning organisations, but his ideas concerning three types of leaders in collective learning (Senge, 1996) are not cited as often as his major work on the five disciplines (Senge, 1990(Senge, , 2006. The types of leaders in learning organisations are: (1) local line leaders, (2) executive leaders, and (3) internal networkers or community builders (Senge, 1996).
In our research context, the local line leader is of primary interest. The hierarchy and positions within organisations are also repositories; thus, it is necessary to describe three types of leaders roughly corresponding to different organisational positions.
Even if we call a role or a position a mental model, it is still a reality for the organisation's members. This is an argument for us not to take the difference between learning organisations and organisational learning too literally.
Local line leaders play a crucial role, namely to sanction "significant practical experiments and to lead through active participation in those experiments" (Senge, 1996, p. 46). It is necessary to connect new learning capabilities to the organisation's results.
If not, it is not possible to assess "whether enhancing learning capabilities is just an intellectually appealing idea", or if it actually makes a difference (Senge, 1996, p. 46).
The kindergarten manager is a typical local line leader, and such managers have been characterised as hybrid leaders; that is, leaders in daily life that tend to shift between different leadership styles (Bøe & Hognestad, 2017;Gronn, 2008). Hybrid leadership involves continually shifting between formal and informal work, or system-level and individual-level work. Tensions between daily life, daily operations, and development in these types of organisations have also been described as something that arises in connection with attempts to find a balance between "daily life leadership and system leadership" (Glosvik, 2019), and "operations versus development" (Irgens, 2010). Bøe (2011) makes the point that the pedagogical and professional content of early childhood education work must inform the approaches used in studies of development in kindergartens.
However, where is the balance between relational and instructional leadership strategies in educational organisations (Hallinger, 2005;Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008)? Everything points to certain dilemmas that kindergarten managers as local line leaders must face as they try to balance informal here-and-now interaction with staff and children and formal, long-term tasks as the managers of a system.

The local line leader and intentions for collective learning
All individuals learn, but how does knowledge scattered among front-line staff emerge as shared mental models? Again, the local line leader's actions as a builder of collective knowledge are central, and the act or acts involved in the building of common knowledge call for active processes with a higher degree of intentionality than mere information sharing (Ottesen, 2009). Schön (1978, 1996) are often cited by researchers attempting to explain why learning does not occur in collective settings: some actions, and some ways of asking, discussing, and interpreting are more productive than others. Common knowledge is, per definition, something that is found on a collective level. Interpreted in our context, do the local line leaders ask: "where and why", "why not", "what hinders", "in what ways" and "how to know if it succeeded" (Moilanen, 2005, p

Summary of the theoretical approach
We do not make a sharp distinction between organisational learning and learning organisations. We consider them to be part of one field (Pedler, Boydell & Burgoyne, 2019), but note the different approaches and definitions behind these families of ideas (Örtenblad, 2018, p. 150). We are descriptively oriented and emphasise the individual. At the same time, we are also open to the relevance of the formal and group levels. The emphasis is on the local line leaders -as managers of systems and leaders of individuals -as the driving force in learning organisations (Moilanen, 2005;Senge, 1990). The local line leader's role in kindergartens is understood as a hybrid (Bøe & Hognestad, 2017;Gronn, 2008), and dilemmas influencing collective learning capabilities are discussed.

Methods
This is a qualitative multiple-case study analysing data from two kindergartens, here called Forest Town Kindergarten and Coast City Kindergarten, which participated in CfD (Yin, 2018).

Contextualisation
CfD was initiated by Utdanningsdirektoratet (the Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training) (2013) and took place over five years throughout Norway. CfD was implemented because research had revealed a lack of multicultural competence. The participating institutions had to define their needs and get started with workplacebased professional development. They received professional support and guidance from higher education professionals (Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2013).
One condition for the partnership between the municipalities and the universities was that the participating institutions would be willing to participate in research. We chose the two kindergartens that participated in this study for strategic reasons: their participation in CfD and our access to them (Yin, 2018). The data collection process lasted approximately two years.

Data collection methods
This study is part of a larger study that collected data in a number of ways: researchdirected process diaries filled out by individual members of the staff; individual interviews; focus group interviews with the same staff; interviews with management; interviews with parents having refugee backgrounds; and observations of informal and formal meetings between staff and parents. To answer the research questions of this article, we considered the individual interviews (n = 10) and focus group interviews (n = 2) with staff and management as the proper data set to analyse. Both the individual and the focus group interviews focused directly on our research topic, offering insight into the participants' perceptions, attitudes, and opinions (Yin, 2018, p. 114).
The individual interviews were conducted in 2017, at the end of the CfD, whereas the focus group interviews were conducted a year later, in 2018.

Ethics and the role of the researcher in the research process
The Norwegian Centre for Research Data has approved this study, and it has followed the National Ethical Guidelines for Research (NESH, 2016). The staff were informed of the study and signed consent forms. To ensure the anonymity of the participants, all names used in this text are fictional, and we have not revealed the location of the kindergartens. The issue of reflexivity has been an essential element in the research process, thus we have reflected critically on ourselves as researchers (Bryman, 2012).
One of the main concerns in the research process was that one of the researchers was also a supervisor in the district, which, among other things, involved giving lectures that staff from both kindergartens attended. Also, other university staff have contributed to lectures and supervision in the kindergartens. The data collection process itself may have caused reactive effects that influenced the responses of the participants (Bryman, 2012). Nevertheless, the kindergartens were part of CfD, aiming at the professional development of multicultural competence. Hence, the participants in this study were meant to be affected. For this reason, the study can, to a certain extent, be defined as action research, where the researcher and participants "collaborate in the diagnosis of a problem and in the development of a solution based on the diagnosis" (Bryman, 2012, p. 397). However, the kindergartens were responsible for diagnosing the problem they wanted to address in the development process, and the study described in this text was developed by the primary researcher and not in cooperation with the kindergartens.

Analysis
We used thematic analysis with a combination of deductive and inductive approaches (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Hence, we were able to identify, analyse, and report interesting themes in the data set, which helped us interpret different aspects of the research topic while using relevant theory to shed light on the empirical findings (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 79). Furthermore, meaning condensation, based on phenomenology, underlined the thematic analysis. We used Kvale and Brinkmann's (2009, pp. 205-207) five-step method for shortening formulations. We read through the entire material, case by case, and wrote down immediate reflections, "to get a sense of the whole" (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009, p. 205). We coded the material and simplified and restated the coded statements in line with our understanding of the participants' viewpoints. After that, cross-case conclusions were drawn (Yin, 2018).
Moreover, we questioned the statements in keeping with the purpose of the article, before we tied together relevant themes into descriptive statements (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). We illustrate this condensation process through tables and figures.
Through the analysis, elements of individual and collective work, and systematic and unsystematic work became evident.

Results
The kindergartens were situated in two relatively similar municipalities. group consisting of the manager and the pedagogical leaders. These structural differences are significant, as they probably explain some of the differences found between the two kindergartens.

Differences that make a difference
In our analysis, Coast City Kindergarten appeared to work more productively with CfD but we will continue the work".
The integrated-fragmented categories reflect the discourses on practice development. The categories will be further elaborated on in the discussion section.

Figure 1. An image of the differences between the two kindergartens
Two differences are striking: there were far more statements about integrating practice in Coast City Kindergarten than in Forest Town Kindergarten, and there was also less passive talk. This led to the introductory remark about more productive work. It may be relevant to ask how sensible it is to quantify qualitative statements, but in this context, it has been done to visualise the observed differences between the two kindergartens. It is, however, an image that needs further elaboration.

Coast City Kindergarten appeared to have an active manager
The manager of Coast City Kindergarten, Sofie, appeared to take an active role in her kindergarten's work with the project. She used active language, describing clearly how she led the project and how she had planned to spend the funding. She organised a steering group with regular meetings and a study group for the assistants. Moreover, they tried out peer-counselling sessions (which, however, were not successful), and went on a study trip to Poland to reflect on their practices.
The pedagogical leaders also expressed a wish to continue to work on multicultural issues and said that their practice had changed due to CfD. Line said: "I think it is good for us to shift our focus, and we are learning a lot from the processes we are Even though the manager appeared quite active, there were elements of passivity among other staff members. The pedagogical leaders said they had too much to do during the workday, something that prevented them from following up on the CfD project as much as they would have liked. Johanna (pedagogical leader) said, "The head wants more than the arms can handle", and Trine (pedagogical leader) admitted that the manager had taken on most of the responsibility concerning CfD.

Towards integrated practice, but also fragmented elements
Sofie emphasised that from the start: Statements by the staff revealed that they were on board. They talked about working on the project collectively, discussing issues and challenging each other. Johanna (pedagogical leader) said: "It is important to work on an issue over time and then consider what changes need to be made. So that we work properly on it and get different inputs from different people." Alex (assistant) stated that by being better at discussing challenging issues in the staff group, it was easier as an individual to know how to act in practice.
However, it became clear that not all the staff had been included in the design of the project. It was Sofie (manager) and Johanna (pedagogical leader) who made the project plan, and Alex commented: "I do not really feel that I have been involved". Sofie admitted that, generally, they could have been better at knowledge sharing. It was a challenge to organise the workdays for the entire staff so they could work on the project. Even though Sofie organised and directed the study circle for the assistants, it was evident that the pedagogical leaders did not reflect on the knowledge gained by the assistants.
Johanna did not know what the study circle discussed. Even though the pedagogical leaders had learned a lot, they still discussed how their complex leadership roles made it difficult to put new learning into practice: "I have a job that is very comprehensive (…) So there are certainly things I can become better at, but perhaps don't have time for" (Johanna). "I see that what will be challenging is the practice" (Trine).

Organisational learning seemed to happen
Sofie stated that the steering group had been of great importance to her. The CfD project had not been her responsibility alone: "It is not me leading all this on my own; all the pedagogical leaders are involved". She described her role as a facilitator rather than as a motivator. The motivation for change, however, needed to come from the inside, and apply to "things they are enthusiastic about or want to be better at". Johanna reflected on the process they had gone through during the CfD project: We remind each other of things during the day. This was a story of organisational learning. Several others also stated that by addressing a challenging issue directly (i.e. different religions) and getting a professional angle on it, they were able to change their practice straight away.

Forest Town Kindergarten faced challenges
Pernille, one of the pedagogical leaders, was assigned the role of project manager for CfD in Forest Town Kindergarten. Silje, the manager, wanted Pernille to participate in the interview. The general principle for the division of labour in Forest Town seemed to be a flat organisational structure. The CfD project was organised in the same manner, regardless of formal qualifications or formal positions. It was mainly Pernille and the project leader in the municipality that had worked on the CfD project. Silje explained: "I have not been directly [involved] other than by organising the meetings, staff meetings and such, and I decided when people [external] were allowed to come, and so on".
Throughout the interview, Silje relied on Pernille to answer questions related to the project.
The other staff at Forest Town Kindergarten also appeared quite passive, both when talking about their work with the CfD project, and, to a certain extent, their collaboration with parents with refugee backgrounds. Marte (pedagogical leader) said that some of these parents had said they needed information in their own language, or through using pictures and other communicative tools. However, she added: "all these things that we should do ourselves; they take time, they get delayed". One of the assistants, Kari, said that if there were challenges in terms of communication with parents, she sent them to the manager, "so that she can spend time on it, because we can't stand around for very long explaining stuff". The staff and management in Forest Town Kindergarten had not discussed how they would continue to work with the development of multicultural competence after CfD. Furthermore, the staff said that they wanted more outside lecturers, and that the municipality would have to take more responsibility. It was as if that responsibility was not theirs to take.
The manager at Forest Town Kindergarten seemed quite passive, insofar as she had delegated the project to Pernille. Pernille emphasised that it was important that everyone received the same information, and in the development process she stressed that "for us as leaders, I think it is important that we are positive (…) that we set a good example". Lena, one of the assistants, exemplified this attitude. It was essential to allocate time to work on the project, and she stated: "If it had been arranged so that we could do it outside of working hours, then I would have been on board, because it is exciting". She appeared to have the inner motivation, but there was no one to facilitate a learning process.

Fragmented practice with elements of integration
Forest Town Kindergarten did not receive funding directly. It had to use its regular staff meetings for CfD tasks, which caused some friction among staff. As Nina (pedagogical leader) noted, "If it gets too much, they say 'Oh, do we have to do that tonight as well?' So, there is a sort of balance to be found here; there are so many other things we have to discuss as well". Furthermore, Silje and Pernille stated that CfD had taken up too much of their time and too many staff meetings, and it appeared that CfD interfered with their regular practice. Using what we classify as passive language, Silje said: "Perhaps I feel that we could have worked more holistically with it. But it probably has to do with us feeling that there have been so many other things that we have needed to focus on this year".
The CfD project was designed by Pernille and the project manager at the municipal level, and the design process did not involve the staff nor the manager. Throughout the interviews, it was evident that the objectives of the CfD project were neither clearly stated nor understood. Kari, one of the assistants, was quite clear that the leaders should have informed the staff about CfD much earlier. When they received information, "they [the leaders] had already said yes, and we didn't really know anything until then". She had not been involved in the planning process and said that she had not increased her multicultural competence. Lena, the other assistant, noted that they were probably a bit negative in the beginning because they felt that other things were just as important at that time.
It was challenging for several of the staff members to differentiate between the kindergarten's CfD project and the research study of the primary researcher. The assistant, Lena, shared several reflections regarding cultural differences between herself and the parents in her interview. These reflections were not discussed among the staff, however. What the staff discussed mostly concerned the researcherdirected diaries.
In the focus group interviews, the staff shared some of their concerns and challenges one year after CfD, and a admitted that they were still uncertain regarding multicultural issues. Marte, one of the pedagogical leaders, stated that they still lacked information and knowledge about the families with refugee backgrounds, and their cultural origins. Nina, the other pedagogical leader, was afraid to do or say anything embarrassing when asking about the parents' backgrounds. Language and culture were acknowledged to be the main challenges to cooperation with parents.
Not much new practice seemed to have been developed; even so, almost the entire staff suggested that professional development processes needed to involve them all.
The researcher-directed diaries were used as an example several times as something that was beneficial in the reflection process. In the focus group interviews, it was agreed that they talked more about multicultural issues than before. For instance, Marte (pedagogical leader) said, "We talk much more about these things now than before, naturally. I feel that many of us are interested". Talking together made it easier to ask for help in challenging situations, for instance in communication with parents.
"I don't really know if there is so much more" The use of regular staff meetings for working with the CfD project caused frustration, illustrated by Pernille's statement: "One sometimes feels that one should have spent time on other kids and not just on talking about those with a second language". In Nina's (pedagogical leader) department, they struggled with a mother who did not enter the department facilities when dropping off her child in the mornings, leading to a lack of communication. This situation was discovered during the first round of diaries and was still the case when the focus group interview was conducted one and a half years later. Kari (assistant) stated in the individual interview that something should have been done earlier; nevertheless, "it is not my job to explain this to her [the mother]". It was the pedagogical leader's responsibility. Kari continued by stating that "I could have said 'You have to talk to her', but I cannot meddle with everything".

Answers to the research questions
The following section sums up our results by addressing our research questions. It is relevant to note that the results illustrate extremes, and that nuances existed in the two kindergartens.
The different conditions for organisational learning in the two kindergartens Some differences in structural conditions between the two kindergartens were evident. Only seven (12%) of the children had a refugee background in Forest Town Kindergarten, as opposed to fourteen (52%) in Coast City Kindergarten. An organisational learning perspective might suggest that multicultural issues are significantly less relevant for Forest Town Kindergarten and that the CfD project did not need to be given a backgrounds. This is especially the case when they are participating in CfD.

Learning to develop practice through a development project
In Coast City Kindergarten, organisational learning appeared to depend on prioritising a specific set of clarified objectives. Time and resource allocation seemed important.
As these are formal organisational issues under the manager's domain, they highlight the local line leader role. The understanding and internalisation of the CfD project as something connected to the kindergarten's general professional practice development process appears to be the key to success. In a less productive learning process, as visible in Forest Town Kindergarten, vague and unclear objectives obscure the project in daily operations. There appears to be less internalisation of the CfD project, and individual learning seems connected mainly to the research study carried out by the primary researcher. By emphasising the intentions of the CfD project, the manager at Coast City Kindergarten made it possible to extend individual learning into collective knowledge building in practice.

The role of local line leadership in organisational learning
How, then, could the empirical findings be developed further with the help of the theoretical approach?

Fewer dilemmas when sharing and focusing
When trying to further develop an understanding of the role of local line leadership in organisational learning, the concept of hybrid leadership (Bøe & Hognestad, 2017;Gronn, 2008) seems to be a useful starting point.
There is, however, an ontological challenge here. As observed in the two kinder-  (Brix, 2019;March, 1991).

A contextual interplay behind organisational learning
One of the central topics in the general leadership discourse is the role of content knowledge in leadership, or, in our context, whether the manager should be involved in inclusion and diversity questions, or leave it to the staff or specific roles in the organisation? As we observed, the manager of Coast City Kindergarten was more occupied with the task questions on the agenda, and hence applied a more constructive leadership approach. In a sense, she balanced a concern for people with a concern for professional development (Moilanen, 2005). We ask whether this might be a necessary style for leading organisational learning in kindergartens. It creates a productive learning context for staff members.
A contextual interplay driving organisational learning in Coast City Kindergarten can be exemplified by the statement of Alex, who said that it was easier to act in practice as an individual because they had become better at discussing challenging issues in the staff group. This reflection of the collective was not visible when Kari from Forest Town Kindergarten stated that it was not her job to solve problems belonging to the manager. One of Moilanen's (2005) main points was that a combination of managing systems and leading individuals could be understood as the driving force in learning organisations. The combination of formal leadership and individual perception creates the whole. A collective project that facilitates learning at the organisational level makes sense at the individual level, as illustrated by Alex's statement.

Higher intentions and more penetrating questions
Individual knowledge was developed in both kindergartens. The element of knowledge building at the collective level was, however, a more visible pattern in Coast City Kindergarten: funding allocated at the kindergarten level, all pedagogical leaders formally involved, resources allocated to assistants, the competence of staff and management, a hands-on manager, and a clear idea about how to continue the work are all features that point to a higher degree of intentionality than mere information sharing (Ottesen, 2009). Leadership might be a question of who asks the questions that build common knowledge (Moilanen, 2005, p. 75). Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the staff in Coast City Kindergarten met specific demands. The manager appeared to present the project information more in concert, clarifying problems that the staff found to be testable and discussable (Argyris & Schön, 1978, 1996. The nature of the conversations in Coast City Kindergarten seemed productive as they confronted their prejudices and standard procedures.
To sum up: The role of local line leadership for organisational learning We have found ample evidence that shifting between solo and distributed leadership is a fruitful approach for a manager, but it also seems reasonable to ask whether we should merge this hybrid leadership model with the local line leader type when discussing organisational learning (Gronn, 2008;Senge, 1996). Local line leadership emerges as a combination of a concern for people and a concern for tasks and content in everyday situations. Thus it might also be described as a hybrid. However, in a practical world, managers like Sofie must say, "Yes, both". This study implies that the hypothesis stands: the combination of managing systems and leading individuals is a driving force in collective learning (Moilanen, 2005). The act(s) of building common knowledge around practice development seem(s) to demand active processes that reflect a high degree of intentionality at the collective level, something that in effect is achieved by the local line leader over time (Ottesen, 2009;Senge, 1996). The concept of knowledge creation as purposive acts of connecting new ideas to existing knowledge in the organisation might be a useful path for future research (Brix, 2017, p. 113).
To sum up, our findings can be illustrated by the local line leader combining systems and individuals, people and content productivity, and daily operations and development (Glosvik, 2019;Irgens, 2010;Moilanen, 2005;Senge, 1996).

Figure 2. Local line leadership as organisational learning in kindergartens
The act of balancing staff and tasks, systems and individuals, daily operations and development appears to be a very concrete challenge in kindergartens rather than an abstract one, and the CfD project was only one of many concrete activities. How then do kindergartens, in general, integrate new tasks with the rest of their activities? We propose two dimensions: One dimension we call leading contextual interplay, and we use the values proactive and reactive -somebody acts on a specific challenge or a problem and contextualises it in the kindergarten. As we have seen, the manager is essential, but she is not alone. The notion of distributed leadership is a useful one as it indicates a more proactive attitude than mere delegation of project responsibility. This dimension also emphasises the acts of the local line leadership as a driving force, and we note that management for learning in kindergartens is a question of both facilitating learning at an individual level and collective knowledge building.
The second dimension is called practice development, with the values integrated and fragmented. This dimension reflects the tension between the whole and the parts. The whole is a development of practice where new ways of working and thinking about diversity and inclusion become integrated into existing activities and are not left as fragments disconnected from the rest. Development is then a question of new connections in existing, daily operations. The role of local line leadership in knowledge creation seems like a promising path for future analysis (Brix, 2017;Senge, 1996).
The observation that integrating talk about practices in the kindergarten much more resulted in more learning, also leads to a hypothesis for the future: that organisational learning in kindergartens depends on language, words, and dialogues. Hence, organisational learning in kindergartens is a question of local line leadership talk.

About the authors
Anne Grethe Sønsthagen is a PhD-candidate in pedagogy, exploring how Norwegian