Learning agility has gained significant traction within organizational talent management. This trend is not surprising, given that meta-analytic reviews have indicated that learning agility is a strong predictor of leadership performance and potential. Yet, despite significant empirical findings, critics have argued that learning agility is conceptually unclear and lacks a solid theoretical basis. This study aimed to add conceptual clarity to the learning agility construct by examining learning agility's relationship to the theoretically connected concept of informal learning. It also investigated motivation to learn, reflective thinking, and personality as antecedents of learning agility and modeled the relationship between these constructs, learning agility, and informal learning. By modeling these variables' relationships, this study provided a better understanding of learning agility's nomological network. The following research questions guided this study: (1) To what extent, if any, does learning agility predict informal learning behaviors? (2) To what extent, if any, does learning agility predict informal learning behaviors beyond personality factors? (3) What is the relationship between and among motivation to learn, reflective thinking, personality, learning agility, and informal learning behaviors? This study analyzed secondary self-report survey data from 310 participants. Data analysis procedures entailed simple and multiple linear regression and path analysis. The study findings indicated that learning agility predicts informal learning behaviors and that learning agility predicts informal learning above and beyond personality factors. The hypothesized path model among study variables had poor model fit; however, a revised, more parsimonious path model consisting of openness to experience, extraversion, emotional stability, learning agility, motivation to learn, reflective thinking, and informal learning behaviors exhibited a favorable model fit and explained approximately 35.9% of the variation in informal learning behaviors. The study concluded that learning agility, as currently understood, lacks conceptual clarity and robust measurement. While learning agility predicted informal learning behaviors, the relationships were weak, and subdimensional relationships among study variables deviated from conceptual understanding. Therefore, the study results underscore the importance of developing more precise conceptual frameworks and measurement tools for learning agility. Overall, this research contributes to a more nuanced understanding of learning agility by providing a model elucidating the learning-from-experience process. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2222/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]