Internal Learning Processes — The Learning Philanthropy Framework

What Are Internal Learning Processes?

The day-to-day practices that help your philanthropy clarify strategy, make sense of evidence, and turn learning into action.

Internal Learning Processes are the day-to-day practices that help philanthropies clarify strategy, cultivate systems awareness, curate evidence, and turn insight into action. They provide the foundation for thoughtful decision-making, continuous adaptation, and long-term effectiveness.

Learning doesn't happen automatically. It requires intentional routines that help teams make sense of what they're seeing, challenge assumptions, and respond to changing conditions. When these practices are strong, learning becomes woven into how the organization operates—not just something that happens after a project or evaluation.

Shared clarity on what you’re trying to achieve.

Learning starts with knowing what you're trying to achieve and why. Clarify Strategy helps philanthropies articulate their theory of change, identify their most important learning priorities, and connect learning to strategic decision-making. When strategy is clear, learning becomes purposeful—guiding where time, attention, and resources are invested and helping foundations adapt as conditions change.

Maturity spectrum:

Not Yet Engaging	Initiating	Building	Embedding	Thriving
We do not yet have clarity on why we use our resources the way that we do.	We have a theory of change created and understood by only a few staff. The theory of change lacks critical awareness of root causes. We have identified some opportunities for learning and strategic decision-making.	We have an evidence-informed theory of change that outlines how we will work towards systems change¹. Staff across the organization understand and can explain our theory of change. We have learning priorities that support strategic decision-making, though these are not yet consistently used in practice.	Our theory of change and learning priorities are consistently used to test assumptions and inform decisions. Our learning priorities consistently guide how we allocate time, funding, and attention to learning. We have embedded processes that connect the theory of change, learning priorities, and key decision points, and these are widely understood and used by staff.	Our theory of change and learning priorities are systematically updated based on learning. We have built-in flexibility to pursue emerging learning priorities that we could not have planned for. We make difficult decisions about what to stop doing in order to focus on long-term systems change.

^{1. Systems change refers to: “the practice of confronting the causes of problems rather than treating their symptoms”}^{(Lynn & Coffman, 2024)}^.

Awareness of the systems you are part of.

Philanthropies operate within complex systems shaped by relationships, power, and context. Cultivate Systems Awareness helps foundations understand their own organization, their programs, and the broader dynamics influencing change. By recognizing assumptions, unintended consequences, and the role they play within larger systems, philanthropies can make wiser decisions and contribute more effectively to lasting change.

Maturity spectrum:

Not Yet Engaging	Initiating	Building	Embedding	Thriving
We are not yet cultivating awareness at the organizational, programmatic, or contextual levels. No structured reflection or feedback exists on organizational performance, behavior, or positionality. We overlook our presence and actions within the systems we aim to influence or change.	We recognize the need to better understand organizational, programmatic, or contextual system dynamics, though progress remains rare, limited, or ad hoc. We have developed initial plans to cultivate more systematic organizational, programmatic, or contextual awareness. Awareness may begin in one domain (organizational or programmatic or contextual), but not yet across all three. Early discussions emerge about our influence within systems, but awareness is inconsistent and not yet supported by shared concepts or routines.	Awareness practices are emerging within specific teams (e.g., more routine reflection on organizational patterns, program assumptions, or system dynamics). Awareness is developing across multiple domains (organizational, programmatic, or contextual), though unevenly across the organization. Some staff demonstrate growing awareness of our organization’s position and influence within the systems we seek to affect.	The majority of us usually apply approaches to cultivate awareness on: our organization and our position within the systems we seek to affect; our programs, including recognising assumptions and unintended consequences; and contextual factors that shape the outcomes we aim to influence.	We consistently and systematically deepen organization-wide awareness on: our organization and our position within systems we seek to affect; our programs, and equity, power dynamics, and contextual factors that shape relationships, credibility, and outcomes. Our awareness strengthens our contributions to ecosystem learning, as our understanding of dynamics is trusted and valued by others.

Not Yet Engaging

Initiating

Building

Embedding

Thriving

We are not yet cultivating awareness at the organizational, programmatic, or contextual levels.
No structured reflection or feedback exists on organizational performance, behavior, or positionality.
We overlook our presence and actions within the systems we aim to influence or change.

We recognize the need to better understand organizational, programmatic, or contextual system dynamics, though progress remains rare, limited, or ad hoc.
We have developed initial plans to cultivate more systematic organizational, programmatic, or contextual awareness.
Awareness may begin in one domain (organizational or programmatic or contextual), but not yet across all three.
Early discussions emerge about our influence within systems, but awareness is inconsistent and not yet supported by shared concepts or routines.

Awareness practices are emerging within specific teams (e.g., more routine reflection on organizational patterns, program assumptions, or system dynamics).
Awareness is developing across multiple domains (organizational, programmatic, or contextual), though unevenly across the organization.
Some staff demonstrate growing awareness of our organization’s position and influence within the systems we seek to affect.

The majority of us usually apply approaches to cultivate awareness on:

our organization and our position within the systems we seek to affect;
our programs, including recognising assumptions and unintended consequences; and
contextual factors that shape the outcomes we aim to influence.

We consistently and systematically deepen organization-wide awareness on:

our organization and our position within systems we seek to affect;
our programs, and
equity, power dynamics, and contextual factors that shape relationships, credibility, and outcomes.

Our awareness strengthens our contributions to ecosystem learning, as our understanding of dynamics is trusted and valued by others.

Quality and rigor of the information informing decisions.

Information alone doesn't create learning. Curate Evidence focuses on defining what counts as evidence, distilling insights, and ensuring the right information reaches the right people at the right time. Effective learning philanthropies treat evidence as a strategic asset, combining formal analysis with experience and using both to inform decisions and challenge assumptions.

Maturity spectrum:

Not Yet Engaging	Initiating	Building	Embedding	Thriving
We don’t yet have a definition of or philosophy related to evidence. We have a significant amount of evidence coming in, but do not know what is most relevant to our needs. Decisions are made in the absence of evidence.	We have an initial definition and philosophy for evidence and evidence generation, though internal alignment is limited. We have identified what evidence would be most useful for strategic decisions, but there is not always sufficient time, resources, or know-how to distill it effectively and in line with users’ needs. We may select evidence that most supports our perspective rather than being open to what evidence reveals.	We have a shared understanding of our evidence philosophy and have begun generating evidence in line with it. We have begun analysing and distilling evidence in line with users’ needs. Evidence distribution is starting to meet evidence users’ needs in line with learning experience design principles, beginning to enable more evidenced-informed decision-making.	Our evidence philosophy drives our evidence-generation, distribution, and use practices.. We have mostly regularized routines to distill actionable insights from a range of evidence sources. We seek out and distill disconfirming evidence to challenge our thinking. We do not make strategic decisions without considering evidence. Curated and actionable insights are usually distributed to the right users in varied, user-friendly formats, and increasingly used in decisions. Learning staff evolve beyond service providers, acting as thinking partners to programmatic teams.	Our evidence philosophy influences others outside our organization. We consistently and systematically analyse and distill evidence to produce actionable insights that directly inform decision-making. Our evidence products are routinely recognized by internal and external stakeholders as shaping strategic thinking The philanthropy avoids extractive practices and does not collect information it will not use.

Routines and experiences that turn insight into action.

Learning only creates value when it influences what happens next. Sensemaking helps teams interpret what they're seeing, surface different perspectives, and translate insights into action. By creating regular opportunities to reflect, discuss, and adapt, philanthropies turn experience into better decisions and continuous improvement rather than letting lessons sit on the shelf.

Maturity spectrum:

Not Yet Engaging	Initiating	Building	Embedding	Thriving
Evidence is shared in a one-way flow, but there is no active sense-making. Decisions and actions are disconnected from learning.	Sensemaking opportunities are identified, but most don’t come to fruition. Adaptation is rare and typically occurs only when problems become unavoidable.	Some of us organize and participate in sensemaking focused primarily on single-loop learning (e.g., identifying what worked/didn’t work). Participation in sensemaking is expanding, though not yet inclusive of all staff or perspectives. Sensemaking activities are beginning to connect to design, partner selection, and workplanning, but alignment remains inconsistent.	We usually: Host and attend a variety of relevant sensemaking activities that enable both single- and double-loop learning². Integrate sensemaking into design, partner selection, workplanning, budgeting, and implementation schedules so insights emerge when they are most usable. Facilitate sensemaking using participatory approaches that encourage candid and inclusive dialogue across stakeholders. Use sensemaking outputs to inform decisions about whether to continue or adapt approaches and take follow-through actions with increasing reliability. Sensemaking becomes a recognized, valued, and widely-acknowledged highlight of people’s work.	We consistently and systematically: See each meeting and conversation as an opportunity for sensemaking–to reflect on learning and adapt in real time. Sensemaking is thought of as both formal sessions and a way to have everyday interactions. Use sensemaking to directly inform the big picture (e.g., strategy, design, partner selection, workplanning, and budgeting), and everyday decisions. Facilitate sensemaking with the right internal and external stakeholders, using participatory approaches that center equity and attention to power dynamics. Take timely, iterative, and sustained action based on learning in real time. Staff - without support from the learning function - actively organize their own sense-making, demonstrating that sensemaking is a distributed cultural practice and core to how the organization operates.

Not Yet Engaging

Initiating

Building

Embedding

Thriving

Evidence is shared in a one-way flow, but there is no active sense-making.
Decisions and actions are disconnected from learning.

Sensemaking opportunities are identified, but most don’t come to fruition.
Adaptation is rare and typically occurs only when problems become unavoidable.

Some of us organize and participate in sensemaking focused primarily on single-loop learning (e.g., identifying what worked/didn’t work).
Participation in sensemaking is expanding, though not yet inclusive of all staff or perspectives.
Sensemaking activities are beginning to connect to design, partner selection, and workplanning, but alignment remains inconsistent.

We usually:

Host and attend a variety of relevant sensemaking activities that enable both single- and double-loop learning².
Integrate sensemaking into design, partner selection, workplanning, budgeting, and implementation schedules so insights emerge when they are most usable.
Facilitate sensemaking using participatory approaches that encourage candid and inclusive dialogue across stakeholders.
Use sensemaking outputs to inform decisions about whether to continue or adapt approaches and take follow-through actions with increasing reliability.

Sensemaking becomes a recognized, valued, and widely-acknowledged highlight of people’s work.

We consistently and systematically:

See each meeting and conversation as an opportunity for sensemaking–to reflect on learning and adapt in real time. Sensemaking is thought of as both formal sessions and a way to have everyday interactions.
Use sensemaking to directly inform the big picture (e.g., strategy, design, partner selection, workplanning, and budgeting), and everyday decisions.
Facilitate sensemaking with the right internal and external stakeholders, using participatory approaches that center equity and attention to power dynamics.
Take timely, iterative, and sustained action based on learning in real time.

Staff - without support from the learning function - actively organize their own sense-making, demonstrating that sensemaking is a distributed cultural practice and core to how the organization operates.

^{2. Double-loop learning is an organizational learning process in which individuals or systems respond to feedback not only by adjusting their actions, but also by examining and potentially altering the underlying assumptions, goals, or policies that guided those actions. In essence, it’s about questioning whether the right things are being done, not just whether things are being done right (Argyris & Schön, 1978).}

Link copied