1
Masters in Training and Human Resource Management
SAMPLE
Module 1 Assignment
QUESTION:
“It is now time that all employees took full responsibility for their own
learning and development”. Evaluate this statement in the light of your
knowledge of the ways in which people learn.
ANSWER:
In tackling this question a number of approaches could be utilised. One could argue for
example that people should take responsibility on the grounds that it is necessary for the
employee to maintain their employability ( 1990). Alternatively it could be
argued this is a more liberal or humanistic approach. However this assignment attempts
to evaluate whether giving, or allowing the learner to take responsibility, results in
effective learning. The analysis will be undertaken with reference to behaviourist,
cognitive, experiential and Symbolic Interactionist theories of learning.
In approaching the question it is first necessary to assess why, and indeed if, employees
should now be responsible for their own learning and development. This will be done
through an analysis of the factors that prevented the exercise of employee responsibility,
namely Scientific Management and behaviourist learning paradigms. The analysis will
then go on to examine changes in industry and the impact these have had on the nature
of work paradigms and training paradigms. The next section proceeds to an examination
of management development and how individuals may, or indeed are forced to, take
responsibility for their learning and development This is followed by a consideration of
two practical employee approaches, competence-based learning and open learning
approaches. Finally we turn to a consideration of how social factors may impact on the
ability for self-directedness and how this may affect the individual’s ability to learn.
In addressing the question of why all employees should now be responsible for their
own learning and development it is necessary briefly to examine the backdrop against
which this change has taken place. This will be done through an examination of
Scientific Management and behaviourist learning theory and will show how these
militated against individuals taking responsibility for their own learning and
development.
One of the characteristics of early forms of mass production was the attempt by
management to exercise greater control over the work process. in his
2
book Scientific Management argued that while workers retained ownership of
production skills they could also determine the rate and price at which work was done.
In order for management to regain control of production, he suggested, it was necessary
to redefine the very nature of the work process itself. This he suggested should be done
by the gathering up of craft skills and their redistribution in the form of simplified
repetitive tasks to the workforce (). By reappropriating
ownership of the skills of production from the workers, management had also wrested
control of the means of developing and defining these skills thus reducing the extent to
which workers could exercise developmental and learning self-direction (
1997).
The subordination of shop floor workers was further psychologically reinforced by the
workers’ lack of substantive involvement in the work processes. In this regard recent
research shows that alienation of the individual from the work process and thus a
reduction in the capacity for occupational self-direction also leads to lack of general
self-direction in personal orientation and a tendency to submit more willingly to
authority (1990).
It is clear from the preceding paragraphs that control of the process of production was
clearly premised on the ownership of knowledge and substantive involvement in the
production process. The task of the trainer under these circumstances was the
improvement of workers’ manual dexterity to perform a limited range of simple manual
tasks. Thus a theoretical approach which dealt with the imparting of basic manual skills
through behaviour modification, such as that proposed by the behaviourist psychology,
was all that was required ( 1998:).
The behaviour modification techniques employed by trainers under systems of Scientific
Management had their origins in the work of the American psychologist
( 1998:). ’s work was based on the earlier work of Ivan
Pavlov who established that all organisms could be conditioned to produce a predictable
response in the presence of given stimuli (1988). While maintaining, like ,
that all learning should be understood in terms of observable phenomena
suggested that rather than acting in response to the environment organisms act on their
environment to obtain reinforcing consequences. showed that through the
appropriate application of reinforcement an organism’s natural behaviour could be
guided towards a new desired behaviour. By using behavioural shaping techniques
trainers were thus able to build on and adapt the workers’ innate physical skills to the
efficient performance of the simple physical tasks involved in the work process (
1988).
From the preceding paragraphs a clear analogy emerges between Scientific Management
and its underpinning behaviourist training paradigm. On the one hand Scientific
Management seeks to subordinate individual autonomy to the process of production.
While on the other hand behaviourist psychological theory describes individuals, not as
autonomous self-directed beings, but as organisms at the mercy of their environment
and those who seek to manipulate it ( 1988).
In brief summary both the organising principles of Scientific Management and the
behaviourist theory, which underpinned its perpetuation, located the individual in a
3
position of passivity incapable of exercising control or self-direction over development
of their skills, in particular, and their environment in general.
Having briefly considered the historical context of workplace organisation it is
important to examine the reasons why or indeed if, employees should ‘now’ be
responsible for their own learning and development. This will be done through an
examination of changes in the industrial paradigm and how these have lead to changes
in the nature of work and the nature of training. The changes that have taken place in
markets over the last thirty years towards more differentiated quality-oriented
production have had dramatic effects on the organisation of work. In order to flexibly
respond to the rapidly changing demands of the market organisations have been forced
to radically re-think the way in which work is organised ().
In adjusting to these changes organisations came to realise that financial incentives
alone were perhaps less important than previously thought and that in fact substantive
improvements in the nature of work itself were perhaps a more powerful motivating
factor (). Studies carried out by Elton
Mayo at the Hawthorne company in the late twenties revealed that substantial gains in
productivity could be made by allowing a degree of worker interaction and selfdirection
over work processes ( 1989). It was on this background that tentative
steps were made by some companies to broaden the range of skills deployed by workers
in their work processes and to introduce more participative working practices through
the establishment of quality circles and group working (
). In this regard workers are increasingly being called upon to exercise their
problem solving abilities in the day to day execution of their jobs (
).
Of course it should not be concluded from these preceding paragraphs that we have
entered a halcyon age where all workers are involved in substantively complex and
intellectually challenging work situations. Indeed (1995),
amongst others, has suggested that in many respects new flexible forms of working and
organisation may be ill-suited to some forms of production. Child suggests that
organisational form is very much contingent on a number of variables including size,
production technology and stability of markets. Thus, for example, attempts to introduce
flexible working practices into a large, low technology company which has a constant
market demand for the single product it produces may in fact be counter-productive to
its efficient operation (1995).
While Childs’ theory would seem to suggest that care should be taken before making
sweeping generalisations about the organisational context of modern industry the
majority of organisations have, to a greater or lesser extent, started to adopt more
participative working practices and to encourage individual problem solving in the
workplace. The concerns of the trainer lie thus now to a lesser extent in the transmission
of an objective body of skills and more in the development of the learner’s intellectual
flexibility in the solving of everyday work problems (1998).
Having examined changes in the nature of work it is perhaps useful to look at the
training paradigm that underlies the demands of the new workplace. In this section we
give a brief overview of what cognitive approaches are and then move onto a more
4
detailed discussion of two of the most important theorists in this field and examine how
their theories are being applied in the context of recent organisational change.
In examining cognitive approaches we see a deliberate attempt to try an account for
learning in terms of changes in individuals’ internal representations of their
environments through the study of ‘perception, memory, concept formation, language,
symbolisation, problem-solving and reasoning’ (1998). Such
an approach would seem to posit that the development of problem-solving is not
concerned with the acquisition of chunks of knowledge, as is suggested by behaviourist
approaches, but in facilitating individuals in their refinement of their mental
representations of the problem situation (1998). It
would thus appear that cognitive approaches to learning and development are very much
concerned with the self-constructed nature of knowledge and learner ownership of the
learning process. From these introductory remarks we now turn to focus on the work of
two cognitive theorists, , who have impacted on the development of
tools for the development of cognitive functioning. In evaluating these two approaches
we see how these theories and their practical applications have necessitated the
individual taking responsibility for the learning process in order to develop cognitive
functioning.
In considering the first of these two approaches, namely that of we see an
attempt to explain cognitive functioning in terms of individuals interaction with their
environment. Piaget argued that all individuals possess a set of mental representations of
their world and that as the individual acts on the world these schemata are subject to
alteration or change. Where new experiences could be understood in the light of existing
knowledge these experiences were assimilated into the existing schemata. If however
the experience was too incongruent with the individuals existing schemata a change
took place in the representations, this Piaget called accommodation. Furthermore Piaget
saw this process as ongoing in the development of children marked by the increasing
ability of the child to make abstract conceptions of the world around them (
1995).
work has given us a number of useful injunctions that might be applied to the
training of employees required to undertake problem solving. His theories of
assimilation and accommodation would suggest that learning best takes place through
individual self-discovery where individuals are enabled, for example via computerbased
simulation systems, to explore the area they wish to learn about through selfdirected
problem solving (Wood 1994). In maintaining consistency with Piagetian
theory these systems should also facilitate the integration of new knowledge with
existing knowledge. Furthermore such systems, in accordance with Piagetian
developmental theory should aim to lead learners towards the acquisition of abstract
knowledge through use of concrete learning examples generated by their own discovery
( 1988).
While Piagetian theory would seem to suggest that learning takes place exclusively
through the development of internal cognitive functioning the work of
(1978) ascribes far greater importance to the role of social interaction in the learning
process.
5
Fundamental to Vygotskian thought is that all individuals possess two levels of
development, that which is achievable independently and that which can be achieved
through expert or peer assistance. He called the gap between these two levels the Zone
of Proximal Development (ZPD). Vygotsky argued that through the establishment of
collaborative problem solving exercises teachers could assist learners in achieving their
potential development level, which in time would be internalised into their cognitive
functioning to become their actual developmental level.
In practice Vygotskian theories have given a powerful illustration of how social
interaction can assist learners to move towards a higher state of development using their
own objective circumstances as the basis for learning.
(1987), in his research on the training of small business people to
become more financially strategic, showed how this approach might be used. Brotherton
argues that by creating analogies between the participants’ everyday experience and the
need to be financially strategic the trainers were able to create a context for the
developmental process (read ZPD).
Having jointly created this ZPD the trainers were then able to lead the participants
through to a better understanding of what the abstract concept of financial mangement
meant for them. By utilising individual experience Brotherton argues that participants
are made responsible for their own learning and gain ownership of the means for its
resolution (1998).
In concluding this section we can clearly see that workers under new forms of
organisation are in a position of taking limited responsibility for their learning and
development. To the extent that job roles have been broadened and problem-solving
skills are being increasingly called upon a degree of self-direction would seem
conducive to the intellectual functioning of the employee (1990).
This would not however suggest that workers are in a position to take full control for
their learning and development. Organisations do, after all, have certain organisational
goals, which will limit the extent to which all employees may exercise self-direction
(1996b).
These limitations would also seem to be reflected in the new cognitive learning
paradigms that have emerged recently. While cognitive theories would seem to posit a
more central position for the learner in developing problem-solving skills they are more
concerned with facilitating the learner’s perception of the problem situation than
necessitating the learner taking responsibility. Although as we have seen from the work
of Brotherton, Vygotskian theory posits that learner ownership of the problem-solving
process would seem to be accorded at least equal status with the role of the teacher in
the development process.
Having examined the historical shifts in organisational paradigm and the general
theoretical changes in learning theory concomitant on this, the focus of the argument
now turns to a specific consideration of recent approaches to management development.
In this section it will be argued that the changing nature of management competence,
concomitant on the changes in production paradigms, have in fact necessitated managers
taking responsibility for their own learning and development. This has been due to the
fact that management development can now primarily be seen in terms of the adaptation
6
of individuals to their environment. Such adaptive processes are in fact best served by
experiential methods which place the starting point for learning as lying in the
experience of individuals themselves. While the majority of literature on employee
development in the UK and USA has focused on management development (
) the discussion will be broadened to the development of other
employees later on in the paper. The following section on management development
provides a brief account of the changing nature of management competence and
proceeds to analyse three contemporary learner-centred approaches and the extent to
which these may allow effective learning to take place.
The changes in patterns of work, as outlined in the earlier section of the assignment,
have also had dramatic effects on the nature of management competency. While even
under systems of Scientific Management management had a wider remit of competence
and responsibility, their position and status was still relatively sharply defined by the
rigidity of organisational structure (1996). Within such
traditional hierarchical organisational forms management competencies were seen in
terms of ensuring quotas were met, organising, defining roles and tasks and the issuing
of instructions (1989).
While these bureaucratic forms of organisation and management seemed to work well
where demand was predictable and stable, their inability to respond flexibly to more
market-oriented production lead to a degree of loosening of traditional notions of
hierarchy (Perrow 1989). With no hierarchy to define their job or legitimise their
position within the modern flexible organisation the manager’s role became far more
nebulous and vague.
Management theorists reflect this state of affairs in their descriptions of the new job
roles of the manager. (1988) argues a manager’s job roles are now essentially
chaotic and fragmented. He suggests that managerial functions can be categorised in the
following way: in terms of interpersonal roles liasing with customers, authorities and
peers in their outside environment; as a monitor of information relevant to his
department or company; as an initiator and developer of ideas; as a problem-solver and
allocator of scarce resources within the organisation. Even this list is not exhaustive.
The question that must thus be asked is if the skills needed for those functions are
“teachable” or are they only learnt through the interpretation and utilisation of
experience? Much contemporary thought on management development would seem to
suggest that the latter is probably the case. (1989) argues that the failure of
past, and to a greater or lesser extent present, management development has been to
place too much emphasis on formal development methods. He argues that the overuse of
methods such as lectures, case studies and simulation exercises divorces development
processes from the frenetic reality of the modern manager’s job ( 1989).
Mumford also criticises the tendency of those involved in traditional management
development for their assumptions that management consists of a set of generalisable
skills capable of easy transfer back to the work place. Current research suggests they are
not and that skills are, in fact, closely tied to the context in which they are first learnt
(). If this is the case, he continues, management development
should be very much concerned with the contextual particularities of the manager’s job.
7
Conversely, Mumford also criticises the inefficiency of informal development processes
for ignoring the fact that very few learners are able to efficiently extrapolate the lessons
that might be learnt from their informal experiences.
Ultimately Mumford proposes an experiential theory of learning which seeks to
facilitate the extraction of abstract knowledge from the experience of the individual
(1989). In analysing how this approach might theoretically and practically
work the focus now shifts to a more detailed discussion of experiential theories of
learning and their role in developing the manager in the light of the changes to the
manager’s role discussed earlier. This will be attempted through an examination of the
work of , the principles of Andragogy and the Action Learning of
In the work of (1998) we see a deliberate attempt to
analyse learning in terms of individuals’ adaptation to their environment which would
appear to be in line with the demands of model. believes this process
takes place through the continuous process of individuals having experiences, reflecting
upon these, conceptualising knowledge from the experience and the application of
knowledge to new situations. In this regard theory bears striking similarities to
(1995) developmental model. , however, does not believe
development to be a wholly internal process but a transactional process “whereby
individual experience can alter external circumstances and visa versa” (
1998:). This would seem to suggest that the epistemological root of
knowledge is, in fact, in the interaction of individuals with their environment. Teacher’s
may also have a role here in mediating the process of transaction, by inputting new
knowledge or helping individuals to avoid defective problem-solving strategies (
1998).
Kolb would not only seem to provide a theoretical basis for assumptions on
the nature of management learning but maintain that the unity of experience with
abstract knowledge is the very root of adaptive knowledge itself.
Though arguably more concerned with providing injunctions of good practice rather
than providing a theoretical base for learner-centred development Andragogy
nevertheless seems to echo many of the concerns of Mumford’s model of management
development by locating learning firmly in the experience and responsibility of the
learner.
Whereas KoIb develops a theoretical model for experiential learning Andragogy
manifests a more methodological approach to learning and development. In Andragogy
we see a specific recognition of the self-directed orientation of adults, the role that their
life experience may play in the learning process and how this experience may be
employed in the learning of new life skills (1995). The assumptions
that Andragogy makes specifically about the self-directed nature of adulthood in turn
impact on the form that learning takes. Therefore, in establishing an Andragogical
learning programme responsibility for the diagnosis of learning needs, course planning
and content and evaluation reside to a large degree in the learners themselves (
1998).
It is easy to see why such an approach would seem attractive in the light of recent
8
developments in management learning but what does Andragogy offer us a from a
learning perspective? While perhaps lacking the theoretical rigour of approach
Andragogy’s emphasis on the primacy of learner needs in the learning process would
seem to have important ramifications for the learning process. Brundage and
(1995) point to the fact that individuals may learn better in
adult learning situations when they have formulated their own learning objectives and
when the learning process is conducive to the raising of self-esteem. In this respect the
work of Huam and Jewson (1995) suggests that the maintenance of learner self-esteem
and the framing of learning within the learner’s own life context promotes a selfdirected
attitude to further learning. This would seem to be of particular importance in
respect of the continuous ongoing adaptive approach to management development that
Mumford’s model proposes.
Interestingly, in the light of our question, Andragogy also raises some general issues
about the nature of learner responsibility in the learning process in that self-direction
may, in fact, be counterproductive to learning in certain situations. (
1998) illustrates this shortcoming of the theory in his description of an
andragogical counselling course for supervisors. Woodward observed that while
Andragogical theory fully encouraged the supervisors’ experience to bear on the
learning process their lack of self-direction in determining the aims and methods of the
course lead to a less than satisfactory course. These observations would lead us to the
conclusion that self-direction should not be applied thoughtlessly without regard to the
specific characteristics of the participants involved.
In considering the work of the third of the above-mentioned theorists, Reg Revans, we
see an even more radical manifestation of the desire to place management development
in the realm of individual responsibility. Revans (1998)
argues that learning should take place within the context of real risk-bearing work
projects. Managers, he maintains, should learn not just to recommend action but to take
action. In this regard he believes that as instructors/teachers bear no responsibility in the
problem-solving process itself their role should be limited to assisting in the
establishment of the action learning groups.
Action Learning posits what is essentially an extreme form of experiential learning.
Revans believes managers learn not through the acquisition of new knowledge but
through joint critical reflection on past experience and taking action to remedy
problems. This takes place through periodic group meetings where participants bring
their experiences to the table and engage in mutual questioning seeking to expose
strategies towards solutions of members’ problems. Participants are then required to
marshal resources for the problem and implement its solution (1978).
In many senses Action Learning is very similar in its theoretical scope to other
experiential theories however it differs in its use of double-loop problems solving. In
problem-solving learners usually employ single loop problem-solving strategies. While
these are sufficient for simple problems they may be less effective in dealing with more
complex problems where the assumptions that inform the reasoning process itself may
lead to an inappropriate solution to the problem (1995). Double loop learning
by contrast helps to expose the personal, social or cultural factors that might affect
decision making and thereby allow the learner to come to a correct solution (
1996).
Stopping briefly for reflection is obvious that we have a theoretical disjuncture in our
original proposition. While Action Learning posits the learning and development
process in the responsibility of the individual, it is not the individual alone that activates
the learning process. Clearly double loop problem-solving in Action Learning is part of
social process of learning (1989). In this regard, simple injunctions about the
nature of self-directed learning would appear to be erroneous and a more inclusive
definition must be drawn up to include the possibilities for social learning in the
learning process.
While the support and alternative viewpoints that the group may provide offer new
perspectives on problems it has been suggested that the neutral outsider may also play a
useful role in the functioning of the set. In this respect Smith (CLMS 1995g:1355)
suggests that sensitive expert outside may help to avoid erroneous problem-solving
strategies and introduce fresh perspectives that group members may not have
considered. Again while an approach such as Action Learning posit the learner as
primarily responsible for their own learning and development it is necessary to
remember the complementary role a teacher may play in intervening in the learning
process.
It is clear from the above accounts that by placing management development in the
experience of the individual, and thus conferring ownership of the learning process on
the learner, experiential models provide a powerful self or socially constructed means
for managers to generate knowledge about their own environment and how it might be
best adapted to.
The focus of the next section shifts to a consideration of practical attempts to allow all
employees to take responsibility for their own learning and development in the
workplace through an investigation of competence-based learning and open learning
approaches. In analysing the first of these specific practical attempts at employee
development, competence based education and training we can perhaps see an answer to
the conundrum of allowing non-management employees to take responsibility for their
learning and development. In that competence-based training attempts to give objective
measures of employee skills in a particular area they are detached from the
organisational needs of a specific company or organisation. This will be explored in
further detail in the next section.
The emergence of competency-based education and training in the last thirty years has
provided all employees with a means of taking charge of their own learning and
development. Fundamental to the CBET philosophy is that competency be expressed in
terms of clearly stated learning outcomes which contain a description of the function to
be performed and the criteria by which their successful performance is measured (Wolf
1998:). This provides a publicly acknowledged point of
reference which learners can work towards in the pursuit of recognition of competent
performance in their occupational field.
While from a personal and moral stand point this approach may seem to be an “open,
honest and democratic thing to do” (1988) the issue of whether CBET is
effective as means of learning is somewhat less clear. On the one hand the CBET
10
approaches have been criticised for their tendency to concentrate on job-specific
technical skills ignoring other job-role related skills which enable the employee to use
these skills flexibly and transfer them to other contexts (Jessup in CLMS 1995h). On the
other hand the bestowal of competence may perform an important role in improving
learner self-image and encouraging the individual to become more self-directed in their
learning (1998). It is with an examination of
the first of these perspectives that the analysis begins.
The tendency of many of the earlier, and some of the more recent, forms of CBET to
atomise skills into their fundamental technical components has come in for a great deal
of criticism from those writers and practitioners involved in their development and
application. Such an approach, Jessup (1995) argues, neglects
other vital functions of the work role such as priontising, co-ordinating and problem
solving. To illustrate this let us take the work role of a chef. The chef may be very
competent at preparing individual components of a menu but without the coordinatory
skills to time the preparation of the individual dishes or the problem-solving abilities to
deal with somebody else’s substandard preparation he cannot perform the task.
Psychologically this behaviourist tendency towards the atomisation of skills does not
allow for the creation of flexible plans, units of behaviour, which are generalisable to
new situations or flexible enough to deal with contingency (
).
Increasingly academic debate in the field of CBET is centred on the search for a fuller
definition of competence which seeks to integrate other job-role functions into
descriptions of competency. In this regard the work of (1997) in his Job
Competence Model goes some way to addressing this problem. suggests that
competency should be conceived not only in terms of the technical skills of the job but
also in the ability to manage contingencies, to co-ordinate work tasks and to relate the
individual’s role to the external environment. Clearly such an approach would seem to
redress the balance between the needs of the employer and competence as a means of
enabling employee occupational mobility.
While the debate on the nature of competency is of central importance to its future
relevance CBET has also been praised for its role in recognising and certifying of
workplace learning (). In this regard CBET can
play an important role in reintroducing those with negative experience of formative
education to learning by bestowing recognition for their achievements in workplace
learning (1998). in her work with health sector
NVQ learners, notes that by conferring recognition on learners’ achievements negative
self-images can be transformed and learners enact a tendency to further educational selfdirection
seeking out new learning opportunities of their own accord. This “virtuous
circle of learning” (1989) that describes has obvious parallels
with that of the (1995) research into the training of Singaporean
taxi drivers. In this case the recognition of taxi drivers’ job competencies lead to a boost
in the taxi drivers’ self-image of what it meant to be a taxi driver and motivated a
considerable number of them to become more self-directed in their learning and go on to
take the initiative to obtain further qualifications. In both of the above cases the
conferring of competence on individual’s workplace learning played an important role
11
in transforming the individual’s negative self-image and ‘kickstarting’ their learning
self-direction.
In evaluating the second of the general approaches to employee development, open
learning, it is necessary to make some preliminary comments about the nature of open
learning itself. Open learning can be seen to operate on two levels. Primarily it is
concerned with the breaking down of geographical and temporal barriers to educational
participation. Secondly, and perhaps less obviously, it should also attempt to offer
learners the opportunity to determine the direction and content of learning itself (
1990).
The tendency in the majority of open learning programmes, at least within, the UK has
been to concentrate on the first of these dimensions, namely openness to access. Under
these circumstances learning is primarily concerned with the dissemination of
knowledge as valuable commodity in itself ( 1987).
While seemingly offering little more than the transfer of classroom didacticism to the
learner’s own home situation this approach can in fact offer a number of advantages
over traditional classroom learning. In this regard Brooke suggests that the very noncontiguity
of the learner and teacher necessitates that the student engage in active
assimilation and understanding what is to be learnt (). Furthermore Race
argues that learners can be assisted in this process by the use of self-test exercises
which, rather than providing the learner with a correct or incorrect answers, seek to
expose the reasoning that leads to a particular response (). It is
clear from the above comments that the very non-contiguity of the open learning
situation may in its own right bring substantive benefits to the learner in the open
learning environment.
Even if we are to maintain a rigid experiential critic of open learning, the line between
disseminatory and experiential paradigms is becoming increasingly blurred. This is
evidenced by the growing realisation amongst open educators of the transactional nature
of the learning process. Thus with the emergence of new telecommunications and
computer technology the open learner is increasingly in a position where they are able to
adopt a critical dialogue on the materials presented to them (1989).
While theoretically a vigorous defence can be mounted for the use of open learning, the
employee development organisations have, in practice, focussed to a far greater extent
on the cost-benefits of open learning than on its usefulness as a learning tool. Open
learning, as in the case of the UK Post Office, has been widely used as a means of costeffectively
targeting training resources to facilitate adjustment to technological and
cultural changes within their industries and marketplaces ( 1990). It is such a
preoccupation with cost-saving to the detriment of what can actually be achieved using
systems of open learning that can lead industry ‘to do less with more’ (1990:
). Thus, open learning should be planned not only with an eye to the financial
benefits but also with a commitment to the learner. This includes ensuring that not only
are open learning programmes directly relevant to the learner’s job but also that learning
receives some form of official certification and if possible should be linked to
developing the employment potential of the employee (1990
). This last section brings us back, yet again, to the argument that by bestowing
12
competence on the learner we also motivate them to become more self-directed in their
learning.
So far the overriding assumption of the analysis has been that all individuals, given
sufficient support, are able to assume responsibility for their own learning and
development. The final section however turns to a consideration of the extent to which
social factors such as class, ethnic origin, gender and lack of basic skills may impact on
the individual’s ability to take responsibility for their own learning and development.
Before proceeding to an examination of two of these factors, namely the lack of basic
skills and ethnic origin, a brief account will be given of the general factors which impact
on this problem. Whist the majority of literature concerning the impact of social factors
in the work environment focuses on the school environment there is no reason to
suppose that these do not apply equally to learning in the workplace (
).
The capacity for self-directed learning is bound up with perceptions of self as can be
seen in the work of (1995). It was shown how positive self-image
preceded the further self-direction of these learners and that the raising of participant’s
self-image made effective framing possible.
The creation of self-image is not a process that carries on in isolation in the individual
but takes place through interaction with others “How we perceive others to see us, as
well as how we relate to a generalised other, has a bearing on our self-conception”
(1995). It can be inferred from this assumption that the experience
of discrimination would thus have a negative effect on an individual’s self-image.
Bearing in mind (1995) observations about the role of self-image in
the exercise of self-direction, we could thus conclude that the experience of
discrimination would also lead to a reduction in the capacity for individual self-direction
and thus willingness to take responsibility for their own learning and development.
The factors that have been outlined above would seem to have particular relevance to
individuals with low basic numeracy and literacy skills. Recent research into the
relationship between lack of basic skills and employment prospects suggests that there is
a strong link between low basic skills and low self-esteem (1994). Such a lack in
self-worth may lead individuals themselves, and their superiors, to under estimate their
potential for achievement ( 1998). Low basic skills
would thus seem to locate individuals in the double bind of neither being self-motivated
nor receiving support from their employers which might prove an incentive to develop
themselves.
The effect of labour market position, contingent on the lack of basic skills, may also
militate against the individual from taking responsibility for their own learning and
development. In his research (1994) also notices the tendency for individuals
with low basic skills to go into unskilled occupations. From a psychological perspective
the lack of substantive job complexity in such a situation reduces the exercise of
employee self-direction and intellectual flexibility (1990).
Clearly, the situation faced by workers with low basic skills has strong parallels with the
deskilling of the worker under Scientific Management.
In contrast to the Symbolic Interactionist model, and the problems faced by those with
13
low basic skills, the experience of discrimination for ethnic minorities has in many
senses developed a stronger sense of learning self-directedness amongst these groups.
This has been particularly noticeable in patterns of continuing education. The pattern of
ethnic minority attainment in comparison to white people is neither clear nor very
consistent in the UK and if anything shows bigger differences between life circumstance
than any clear ethnic divisions. What, however, is clear is that whether because of a
greater desire for self-improvement or because of the experience of racial discrimination
both Asians and West Indian minorities are significantly more likely to pursue further
study than their white counterparts (1989).
The phenomenon of the individual using educational self-direction as a means of
overcoming prejudice can also be seen in Mac and Ghaill’s account of ‘The Black
Sisters’ Response: Resistance Within Accommodation’. While rejecting the white
middle class values of school the black sister’s instrumentally valued education, and
particularly, exams as a measure of objective success (1988). Self-directedness and the
imperative of taking responsibility for their own learning, in this context can be seen as
a survival strategy and means of protection against the double danger of economic
uncertainty and discriminatory practices of the labour market. This approach would also
seem to satisfy our original proposition from the point of view that by taking
responsibility for their own learning and development were also facilitating their entry
to further development and learning opportunities (1988).
In summary the picture is somewhat mixed. The transition from production under
Scientific Management to newer flexible forms of production has had different
implications for different groups. Shop floor workers have experienced considerable
change in their forms of working and the need to increase employee flexibility and
problem-solving skills has necessitated workers taking a limited degree of responsibility
in their learning. This is reflected in the new cognitive approaches to employee
development, where even if the employee is not made entirely responsible for their own
development they are seen as the starting point for development. Vygotskian theory
extends this notion in premising development partly on learner ownership of the
development process. However the degree to which learners may take responsibility is
ultimately limited by organisational objectives of the company or organisation. In
contrast, it has been shown that in the absence of hard and fast maxims of management
management development has started to concern itself with developing individual’s
ability to learn from experience, thus locating the learning process of necessity, in the
responsibility of managers themselves.
It has also been shown that by providing clearly stated standards of achievement CBET
has enabled the learner to take charge of their learning. While not providing any
particular new insights into the learning process it has been shown that by bestowing
competence, and thus increasing self-esteem, these approaches may facilitate further
individual learner self-directedness.
Open learning would also seem to support the assertion that learner responsibility is
central to the learning process. While it does not provide any new insight into the
learning process, its very non-contiguity seems to involve the student in systematic
learning through assimilation of materials and periodic personal interaction with tutors.
14
Finally in the section on the impact of social factors it has been demonstrated that while
these factors may create barriers to learning in certain situations these barriers may lead
to a considerable degree of self-direction which have lead learners on to explore
opportunities in further and higher education.
In final conclusion, the need to devolve employee responsibility is clearly a two faceted
argument. On the one hand devolution of learning and development has been widely
advocated through out industry on the grounds of costs. It has not been in the scope of
this discussion to give a full account of this. It would however, in the light of the
observations made in this paper, be worth organisations to momentarily set the financial
cost benefits aside and try to see how this process may also facilitate the development of
a better prepared more intellectually flexible workforce to meet the challenges of the
future.
University of Leicester
Centre for Labour Market Studies
Module 1 Assignment Report
Masters in Training and Human Resource Management
Course Member: Agent:
Intake: Grade: B 65%
Essay Construction:
This is a good paper. You have approached the question in a thoughtful and
considered way – beginning with a concise yet effective introduction. It was pleasing
to see you open the discussion with a consideration of the different interpretations
that could be placed on the question, e.g. “employability” or “humanism”? The
discussion then unfolded with a broad exploration of the changing industrial
paradigms and the nature of the workplace, e.g. the limitations imposed by scientific
management techniques.
You then explored more contemporary theories of learning and how these relate to
self-development – utilising examples from management development practice to
make important points about the influence of “contextual particularities” and the need
to take these into account. This message was reinforced by a critical analysis of
CBET and Open Learning, finally pointing out that social, class and gender are also
important influences. Could this issue of ‘individual characteristics have been
expanded upon even further’?
Your conclusion pulled the main strands of the discussion together and you (rightly)
concluded that the issues of responsibility for self-development was not a clear-cut
one and essentially contingent on the situation facing the individual and the
organisation. However which in this situation would you see as being more
important/more powerful? Is the relative power of individuals versus organisations
worthy of more consideration in a question such as this?
Style and Expression:
You write and express yourself well and in a manner that is appropriate to Masters
18
study.
Knowledge and Understanding:
Echoing the above comment, you are clearly aware of the key issues implicit within
the question and have explored them in an interesting and insightful way.
Quality of Argument and Level of Analysis:
There was some good critical material in this paper. The general thrust was apparent
from the outset and that was to present a critical yet balanced debate. Your main
argument revolved around the need for employees taking responsibility for their
personal learning and development. However, this can only be effective if the
organisation considers carefully all of the influencing variables and acknowledges
that any leaning approach has to be contingent on a range of factors which
themselves have to be managed to create a favourable climate. But equally, to press
ahead and encourage or even force employees down this road may be ‘counterproductive’.
This was an important observation to make.
Use of Sources and Referencing:
Good use of a range of CLMS and other source material in support of the discussion.
Overall, this was an interesting paper and a pleasure to read. You have obviously
given the question a great deal of consideration and highlighted a range of important
issues but presented them in a critical and yet balanced way. To improve your marks
still further, ensure that your argument is fully explored.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Click to see the code!
To insert emoticon you must added at least one space before the code.