From training and development to learning

To understand why broad-based learning is proving an increasingly attractive proposition for business - rather than a reliance on job-specific training and employee development that is designed to meet the requirements of a particular future role - it is necessary to distinguish between training, employee development and broad-based learning.

And training might also be geared to business strategy so that the organisation "takes a long-term view of what skills, knowledge and levels of competence its employees" will need in the future.⁵ However, Pedler, Boydell and Burgoyne have highlighted what they see as a crucial difference between employee development and learning. They suggest that employee development is directed at achieving a different state of being or functioning, while learning is more concerned with increasing a person's knowledge and building on the capabilities that they already possess.⁶

In spite of the lack of clarity, classifications such as training, development and learning are a useful way to distinguish and to illustrate the different approaches that have been, and are, adopted by organisations to workplace learning.

WORKPLACE LEARNING

Traditionally, HRD has consisted of two distinct areas - training and development. The current emphasis on learning adds a further area of activity. However, training, development and broad-based learning do not operate in isolation. Successful learning will require training in specific areas, such as how to think about things differently and how to apply non-work acquired capabilities to organisational circumstances.

Training

Training is generally a reactive activity, involving interventions designed to resolve short-term operational deficiencies rather than being connected to the longer term needs of the individual or the business, or both. Training's aim is to enable the employee to complete a task to the requisite standard or to improve his or her performance in a specific area. Trainees are expected to have reached a certain standard of proficiency by the end of the training. Training in a particular area is usually a one-off event, although periodic reinforcement is common where newly acquired skills are not regularly in use.

People require training for many reasons. New recruits may need it even when they possess the necessary competencies, because the same kind of job is likely to differ from one organisation to the next. Incumbents may need training to sharpen their skills if their performance or standards decline. Training will also be necessary where a task is affected by technological advance, even though the job "may be essentially unchanged."⁷

Development

Employee development is typically designed to prepare an individual for a future role in the organisation that requires specialised skills.⁸ These skills are likely to be in the area of understanding and interpreting knowledge to assist in, for example, decision-making and problem-solving rather than to be development matters. Leadership skills and interpersonal capabilities are also important. Development tends to focus on turning specialists into generalists. Potential managers have long been developed along these lines and it is becoming increasingly common for a similar approach to be applied to other members of staff.

Learning

Learning is concerned with the general growth of the individual and is unrelated to their present or (planned) future job/role. At the individual level, it is concerned with getting staff to adopt a continuous learning approach to everything that they do. Typically, people perform a range of activities and tasks regularly and repeatedly. A learning climate encourages staff to learn from the process, so that next time they try to perform the task better.⁹

Learning, in this definition, differs from traditional T&D in a number of important ways. All training is a learning experience. Yet people learn not only from intentional teaching, as with a planned training course: they also learn from performing their everyday work activities, from observing how others deal with situations and from pursuing their own interests outside of the workplace. In the past, T&D has generally failed to harness the capabilities that people acquire from unintentional or unplanned learning experiences.

Importantly, broader-based learning also involves the acquisition of problem-solving abilities that will enable people to analyse the tasks they perform and identify solutions to difficulties. It is a widely held view that the people who carry out tasks on a day-to-day basis are best placed to detect areas of improvement. Tapping this experiential knowledge - the knowledge locked inside a person's head that they have acquired "along the way" - is therefore the key to solving problems and achieving improvement. Learning is directed at making people apply the skills and knowledge that they already possess - whether it has been acquired at, or outside of, work - for the benefit of the business. Learning is also about sharing experiences, so that knowledge is replicated throughout the organisation.

Making use of non-work related learning means identifying the features of it that can be leveraged by the organisation. Jaguar Cars, for example, are unlikely to fund an employee to take a course in scuba-diving. However, it might support a scuba-diver who wished to receive training in diving instruction. This is because the coaching skills involved would be transferable to the workplace (see case study five).

Broad-based learning also recognises that people learn in different ways and that simply sending them on training courses may not be the most cost-effective method of getting them to adopt new behaviours or to improve their performance. Thus a range of innovative and creative learning activities needs to be developed. Identifying an individual's interests and aspirations and judging how they can best be aligned with business needs is more likely to result in improved performance. Many organisations are recognising the necessity of this approach. Pearl Assurance, for example, believes that employee development "needs to accommodate individual aspirations",¹⁰ while the personal development planning process at American Express Services Europe has the following three aims:

(Training, development and learning approaches are compared in figure 2.1 .)

Figure 2.1: Comparing the three areas of workplace learning

FLAVOUR OF THE MONTH?

Linking HRD to the achievement of corporate objectives has been supported at a national level by initiatives such as Investors in People (IiP) and the National Training Awards. The four main principles of the IiP national standard are:

Similarly, one of the six elements making up the National Training Awards' "training cycle" - organisational need - stipulates that entrants must show that training needs are clearly part of organisational needs.¹³

More recently, the Labour government has established a Minister for Lifelong Learning, whose brief includes promoting the extension of IiP. The government is also committed to establishing a University for Industry (UfI) in order to provide opportunities for employed people to continue their vocational education. (A range of employers' views on these proposals can be found in figure 2.2 . The organisations are those participating in this Management Review study.)

Figure 2.2: Employers' views on the proposed University for Industry (UfI)

A third national initiative - the National Education and Training Targets - also illustrates a commitment among government ministers and industry bodies to greater workplace learning. In terms of IiP, the national target is for 50% of all organisations to have the standard by the year 2000.¹⁴ The goal for NVQs is 60% penetration of the workforce at NVQ level three, and 30% at level four or above, by the same date.¹⁵

In addition, 35 industries, including chemicals, pharmaceuticals, printing and information technology, have established their own sectoral training targets and goals. Companies in these sectors have been canvassed about the employee skills they require to raise their performance to a world-class level, and the gap between aspirations and current realities forms the basis for the learning targets.¹⁶ A further initiative, the Campaign for Learning, was supported by more than 130 organisations, including Rover, J Sainsbury and BP, at its launch in 1996. The campaign's main aims are to achieve:

At a transnational level, the European Quality Foundation's business excellence model contains the following provision under the "People management" enablers criteria:

"How the company releases the full potential of its people to improve its business continuously".¹⁸

The European Union (EU) has also highlighted the need for greater workplace learning. It designated 1996 the "European Year of Lifelong Learning" with the aim of publicising its commitment to "the fundamental importance of education and training."¹⁹ In addition, the European Commission's Leonardo training support initiative, launched in 1995, provides some funding for organisational learning programmes that contribute to the achievement of the Commission's policy objectives in terms of innovative training practice and pan-European approaches to learning, among other aims.²⁰

CHANGING TIMES

In terms of continuing learning opportunities for staff, the UK has traditionally not had a very favourable record compared with its more highly-regulated competitors, such as France and Germany.²¹ Times are changing, however. A 1997 study by Eurostat, the European Commission's statistical office, reported that the UK - together with Scandinavian member states and the Netherlands - was more likely than other countries to provide training for employees over the age of 30.²² In the UK, 11.8% of employees over this age received "education or training during the four weeks preceding the survey", which was more than twice the EU average of 5.6%. UK businesses are also spending large sums of money on workplace learning activities. A report by IFF Research found that UK employers with 10 or more employees spent a cumulative £10.6 billion on training in 1993.²³ The study estimates that training courses and on-the-job instruction cost these employers, on average, more than £580 for each member of staff. The Industrial Society claims that the average UK organisation employs one trainer for every 450 employees.²⁴

Employers are also adopting a range of initiatives to foster greater learning among employees. The IFF Research study reported that 72% of employers provided on-the-job training in 1993, while 28% offered their staff open learning opportunities.²⁵ It is estimated that one in four of all employees are in workplaces where NVQs have been made available by employers.²⁶ A 1993 survey of 884 organisations found that more than a quarter used development centres,²⁷ while EDAPs are increasingly common in a variety of organisations - for example, UK operations of motor manufacturers, BMW (Rover), Ford, General Motors (Vauxhall), and Peugeot - and including those pioneered by Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) such as Heart of England TEC, Kent TEC and Sheffield TEC.²⁸

A similar wide range of learning initiatives have been introduced over the past two years among the 97 organisations surveyed as part of the original research conducted for this issue of Management Review (see figure 2.3, below). These include: 38% of respondents using NVQs, including Tarmac Quarry Products, Lancashire Constabulary and Ulster Bank; 37% using competencies, including ISS Mediclean, the contract facilities services group, North Ayr Council and South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust; 37% using personal development plans, including investment bankers, Flemings, Ipswich & Norwich Co-operative Society and Translink, the Belfast-based public transport organisation; 23% with open learning programmes, including Perth & Kinross Council, finance company Provident, and engineers Messier-Dowty; and 21% operating a work-based accredited learning system, including the kitchen and bathroom manufacturer Spring Ram Corporation, Doncaster Healthcare NHS Trust and financial services business Royal & SunAlliance.

Figure 2.3: Reasons for adopting new learning initiative

WHY LEARNING?

A number of special factors have recently fuelled a greater interest in broad-based and innovative workplace learning activities in addition to the aims of traditional job-specific training and development. Organisations have responded to a continually evolving business environment by embarking on corporate restructuring and re-engineering; by introducing business strategies such as continuous improvement, total quality management (TQM) and customer focus, and by elevating people management to strategic importance. The upshot of these policies and manoeuvres is that workplace learning has moved up the business agenda.

It was noted above that a number of respondents (80%) to the survey conducted for this issue of Management Review had introduced one or more new learning strategies over the past two years. The aims of these initiatives, which in one way or another are designed to help organisations respond to change, are as follows:

Corporate change

Change has been at the forefront of many business strategies over the past decade. The economic circumstances in which the majority of enterprises operate have altered radically since the 1970s and, with them, the pace of change. Globalisation of the economy has resulted in intensified competition. Customers now have a greater choice of the products and services that they buy. This is true of both individual consumers and corporate customers.

The success or otherwise of corporate change programmes often hinges on training and development.²⁹ Participants to a previous Management Review study reported that IiP initiatives, training to develop a multiskilled workforce, and the development of management skills and competencies were the most common T&D strategies used to support cultural change.³⁰ The quid pro quo, as far as employees are concerned, for accepting that change is necessary is the offer of transferable skills that will enhance the individual's future employability.

All change programmes have had an impact to a greater or lesser extent on training, development and learning initiatives. Business process re-engineering and corporate restructuring exercises have usually resulted in a sharp reduction in numbers of staff, as organisations seek to focus on their core activities. In addition, management hierarchies are generally condensed to make organisations less bureaucratic and more responsive to their customers. The effect of workforce reductions and flatter organisational structures is that the staff that remain, particularly those at the lower level, are required to take on a wider range of tasks and responsibilities. Hence the increasing use of multiskilling and employee empowerment.

Figure 2.5: Learning circle

By way of example, after a cultural change programme that was linked to a corporate restructuring and that resulted in large-scale job losses and organisational delayering the Portsmouth-based Fleet Maintenance and Repair Organisation (FMRO) moved to:

"an empowered multiskilled workforce based on teamworking."

The principal differences between that and the previous system were described in the following terms:

"less command and control; delegation of responsibility to the lowest possible level; more open communication with trade unions; and more involvement by employees in business objectives."³¹

In these changed circumstances, workplace learning becomes a high priority. Staff not only need to master the new abilities and knowledge required of a multiskilled workforce: they also have to develop problem-solving and decision-making capabilities so that they can successfully manage their own activities, and to develop the interpersonal and communication competencies necessary in a teamwork environment. In traditional workplaces, any training that takes place - and it is, by and large, infrequent - is generally limited to teaching people how to do a specific job in a prescribed way. In contrast, organisations that are pursuing a quality-driven agenda, such as TQM or continuous improvement, need to provide frequent and regular training to update their employees' skills. The emphasis, moreover, is on analytical competencies: skills that enable employees to analyse and solve problems on their own.

For many employees, these requirements are a big undertaking. Learning how to develop different behaviours and skills will be a relatively new experience for some who will not have engaged in this kind of activity since they were in full-time education. It was a commonplace, particularly in manufacturing, that once an employee was proficient in a particular activity (either via apprenticeship training for skilled employees or induction training for semi-skilled staff) they received no further training, unless circumstances, such as the introduction of new machinery, dictated otherwise. As was noted earlier, continued broader-learning opportunities were all too often targeted at a small minority of staff who had demonstrated management or supervisory potential. As the 1987 Vocational Education and Training (VET) Funding Study made clear, the receipt of training fell dramatically with age, except for managerial and professional grades.³² Indeed, traditional employee development programmes were primarily based on the idea of vertical career progression. Changing times have rendered such notions redundant.

The removal of layers of management poses obvious problems for those managers and staff who remain. The levelling off of the old hierarchical structure limits the scope for upward progression. In the past, high performers, or those who had been with the enterprise for a number of years, could expect to move steadily up the organisational ladder, but the emergence of leaner and fitter enterprises has now removed some of the rungs. This means that the promotional "step" is now higher, and harder to take, than before and that there are in any case fewer jobs into which people can be promoted.

Lateral career moves are increasingly being seen as the only alternative to vertical career development in organisations that have swept away whole layers of management. A survey conducted by the Institute of Management found that sideways and downwards moves for managers were increasing, while upward mobility was in decline.³³ Lateral career development allows people to move across the organisation into areas that are either growing or are well suited to the individual's capabilities, values and interests. Learning activities should therefore aim to provide the individual with a broad range of skills and knowledge that are applicable in a number of roles.

LEARNING TO CHANGE

Businesses have attempted to prepare employees for the end of the "jobs-for-life" culture and the advent of limited vertical career opportunities, and the other challenges posed by continual change, with a variety of learning initiatives. Figure 2.4 shows the approaches to learning that are being pursued by the 97 organisations taking part in the survey carried out for this report.

Figure 2.4: Organisational learning strategies

n = 97.

The three most common methods were: personal development plans (81%); NVQs (80%); and open learning arrangements (75%). This suggests that employers are predominantly promoting self-development initiatives and employee ownership of learning as a way of responding to change. This is in tune with the IiP national standards which stipulate that "all employees are encouraged to help identify and meet their job-related training and development needs."³⁴

Employee development and assistance programmes, personal development plans, open learning and resource centres all have employee ownership of learning in mind. Personal development plans, which support self-development in line with organisational and individual aspirations, are an integral part of contemporary performance management systems. Rank Xerox UK, for example, devolved development to individuals in 1994 as part of the company's performance planning and appraisal process. Staff themselves now have responsibility to develop their competencies to the levels required by corporate objectives. The company established 12 learning resource centres with the message: "You take control and we'll supply the materials."³⁵

In 1993, Eastern Group, too, began a five-year process to move from a training to a development culture that involves employees taking greater responsibility for their own learning.³⁶ This has included investment in personal development centres - described as vocational libraries cum open learning centres. ScottishPower, the larger of the two Scottish-based electricity companies, has followed a similar path by establishing open learning centres. The company's group open learning manager explains the rationale behind the move as follows:

"[The company] were looking for a new approach which would empower employees and get them to share responsibility for their own development . . . we have seen a good deal of change in the organisation, a lot of restructuring and reorganisation. To help people cope, we wanted to provide them with the resources to develop as whole people, not just in their jobs."³⁷

EDAPs are also used to encourage employees to consider training and their own personal development as the key to making fuller use of their innate potential.³⁸ Typically such schemes provide participants with a choice of learning opportunities, and offer careers counselling and/or free or subsidised development. Ford Motor UK launched its pioneering EDAP in May 1989 with the key objective:

"To provide opportunities for personal development and training outside of working hours for all employees."³⁹

Other learning initiatives in operation among surveyed organisations include: collaboration with TECs (71%); competencies (68%); resources centres (51%); initiatives aimed at bringing employees back into learning (48%); work-based accredited learning (47%); EDAPs (33%); learning partnerships with trade unions (29%); development centres (27%); and management qualifications - tailored MBAs or DMS (27%).

In addition, 63% say that IiP forms part of their approach to training and development, although only 34% of respondents actually have accreditation.

(The employers' varied approaches to learning are discussed in more detail in subsequent chapters).

Box 2.1: Employee development at Mitel Telecom

Training and development at Mitel Telecom, the Canadian-based manufacturer of telecommunications equipment and semiconductors, are intended to drive the company's performance management system - appropriately called the Performance Development process. The rationale behind the emphasis on development is to be found in the company's belief that individuals must learn faster than the speed of change if Mitel is get ahead and stay there.

The company uses training centres to facilitate its employee development strategy. Assessment and development centres had been used regularly by Mitel in the past for managers and others seeking job advancement, but the accent is now on involving all staff. Moreover, "assessment" has been dropped from the title because of the negative connotations of judging and assessing strengths and weaknesses. The personal ownership of development meanwhile means that any assessment that is deemed necessary is performed by the individuals themselves. The most important aim of the development centres is to make sure that every individual, after one day's training, has constructed a personal development plan for their Performance Development portfolio. Other aims include the following:

Each participant receives six 40-minute coaching sessions during the day, as well as performing exercises designed to test and enhance understanding in a range of areas, including Mitel's business and product strategies, future technology needs, team skills, psychometric profile and 360-degree feedback. The one-to-one nature of the development centres has been singled out by participants as of particular benefit, because it helps to break down communication barriers. Mitel concludes that it is "developing a company that is more concerned with measuring abilities to grow the skills needed for tomorrow than simply having the skills needed for today."

Source: IRS (1996), Performance management, IRS Management Review 2, July, pp. 42—43.

Box 2.2: HOW PEOPLE LEARN

People learn from observation, practice, mistakes and by setting goals and working towards their attainment. Reinforcement is an important element in the learning process, as are an individual's beliefs and values. People will tend to adopt a specific behaviour if they are attracted by the rewards being offered for doing so, while a person's values and assumptions are likely to influence the course of action he or she will pursue under certain circumstances.

There are three distinct areas of learning in relation to work:

However, the learning process is far from simple. Formal or intentional learning generally involves the learner/trainee attending a specified training course in order to accomplish a predetermined learning objective, but evidence suggests that people learn more from informal or incidental learning events.⁴⁰ Moreover, successful learning is also more likely to occur where the individual has control over the learning process (hence the growth of self-managed learning).⁴¹ In addition, people are more inclined to be enthusiastic about acquiring new skills and knowledge for outside activities and interests than about workplace learning. This could be because work-related training is invariably linked to financial reward and/or career progression, which puts pressure on the individual to attain a certain degree of competence, usually within a designated timescale. Such forces are generally absent from learning that is unrelated to work.

There are three contrasting theories about the process of learning: the behaviourist or stimulus-response approach; the cognitive or information-processing approach, and the humanistic approach. Each is based on a different model of the human being.⁴²

Behaviourist theories

Behaviourism tends to equate human beings with machines, holding that behaviour can be altered by introducing new inputs (the stimulus) and controlling how the person processes them in order to achieve the desired output (the response). Advocates of the behaviourist approach, such as Skinner, believe that learning is principally influenced by the consequences of adopting certain modes of behaviour.⁴³ For example, people will strive to learn and master the skills required to pass a driving test if other forms of transport do not meet their needs. Thus, the rewards associated with the ability to drive, such as freedom, mobility and flexibility, stimulate the individual to learn to drive in the first place, while the wish to retain one's driving licence counteracts any desire to contravene traffic laws thereafter.

At work, financial incentives, career progression and praise, among other inducements, are all used to reinforce a desired behaviour (the response) on the one hand, while disciplinary procedures are in place to prevent unwanted conduct on the other. This view assumes that "nice" or "nasty" factors, such as rewards or punishment, can influence a person's disposition to adopt, and continue to use, certain behaviours and skills. Competency-based pay is one example of the use by employers of a stimulus to induce staff to learn and embrace certain modes and standards of behaviour.

The behaviourist approach is simply concerned with altering observable behaviour rather than attitudes and personality traits. The rationale is that employers pay staff for their behaviour, not for their attitudes. Indeed, attitudes and personality traits cannot be observed, so there is little to be gained from attempting to explore them, so the argument goes. Behaviours are also more easily altered than attitudes, and personalities cannot be changed.

Cognitive theories

Cognitive learning theories are based on the view that the human ability for "critical thinking and problem-solving" distinguishes us from other animals.⁴⁴

Consequently, learning should be geared to developing these capabilities. Moreover, the cognitive approach holds that an individual's behaviour is determined by their "memory, cognitive processes and expectations".⁴⁵ Changing behaviour, therefore, entails altering an individual's existing assumptions by providing them with alternative options for achieving their objectives. Under such circumstances, a new behaviour must be confirmed rather than reinforced (as with the behaviourist approach). For example, a person's goal may entail spending less time on a monotonous task. Although learning a new method will realise this objective, the individual concerned, according to the cognitive view, will need to experiment to confirm that this is so before adjusting his or her future behaviour.

Humanistic theories

Humanistic learning theories view the potential of each human being as unique and hold that they have a natural desire for growth and development. Learning should seek to develop this potential to the full. The humanistic approach to learning suggests that "people will only learn (and change) if they want to" and that the role of the instructor/trainer should be geared towards creating the conditions that encourage learning (hence the increasing use of the "facilitator").⁴⁶ Self-development and self-managed learning stem from the humanist school. They entail individuals controlling their own learning - identifying their own learning objectives and the best way of achieving them. Intentional learning experiences, such as planned courses, are entered into only when they meet the person's requirements. Organisational and individual objectives should therefore be aligned so that employee development not only supports overall business goals, but also meets the needs of the individual.

Contemporary performance management systems apply this concept in practice by cascading corporate goals down throughout the organisation so that staff are better able to identify their own objectives in relation to business needs. (IRS Management Review 2 examines performance management initiatives.)

Each of the learning theories described is applicable in particular circumstances. For example, behaviourist learning is pertinent when learning a mechanical operation such as typing; cognitive theories are appropriate when analytical skills, such as problem-solving, need to be learned, and humanistic learning is relevant where people are attempting to develop and enhance their levels of understanding.⁴⁷

THE LEARNING PROCESS — MODELS OF LEARNING

The following two models explain how the learning process operates at an individual and an organisational level.

Individual learning

Learning Cycle

The Learning Cycle model suggests that the learning process consists of four stages (see figure 2.5). These are:

Goals that reflect a person's needs provide the basis for the learning process and an individual pursues experiences that assist the realisation of these goals. However, if the goals are not clear from the outset, the learning process will be erratic. Learning is only considered to have taken place if a person goes through all four stages of the learning cycle. There is a tendency for people to gravitate to, or become "stuck" at, one stage of the process as a result of their personal preferences. For example, a mathematician will focus on abstract conceptualisation.⁴⁹ The originators of the learning cycle - Kolb and Rubin - have identified four kinds of learners or learning styles to explain the tendency to favour one stage of cycle over another.

Honey and Mumford have simplified these four categories into the following:

Although people generally prefer their own learning style, they should be encouraged to try each of the styles in turn, so that they develop the ability to "learn how to learn" under various circumstances and conditions. An intentional learning experience should seek to encompass all the styles, so that the learner is taken "systematically around the learning cycle".⁵²

Organisational learning

Single-loop/double-loop learning

Organisations can encourage learning (and become learning organisations) through the management style that they adopt. There are two strands to the model. First, single-loop learning depicts how organisations prevent staff from realising their full potential because people are encouraged to maintain the existing organisational norms and values (the status quo). Creativity is discouraged and mistakes are punished. This type of organisation responds to problems by tackling the symptoms and not the causes. Consequently, its ability to change is severely limited. In contrast, a double-loop learning organisation responds to difficulties by altering its existing assumptions and analysing why a problem developed in the first place and is consequently able to move forward and adapt to its changing environment.⁵³

Argyris, the originator of the model, uses the following analogy to illustrate the distinction between the two approaches:   

"a thermostat that automatically turns the heat on when a room drops below 68 degrees is a good example of single-loop learning. A thermostat that could ask, 'Why am I set at 68 degrees?', and then explore whether or not some other temperature might more economically achieve the goal of heating the room would be engaging in double-loop learning."⁵⁴

Argyris and Schon suggest that the two approaches are governed by the actions of managers.⁵⁵ The authors have identified two distinct modes of managerial behaviour. The first acts as a barrier to learning, while the other allows organisational learning to occur.

LEARNING TYPES

There are three basic types of learning: instrumental, dialogic and self-reflective.⁵⁷