Workplace Learning

 

Regulating employment relations through workplace learning: a study of small employers  John Kitching, Small Business Research Centre, Kingston University

Human Resource Management Journal, Vol 17, no 1, 2007, pages 42–57

Using data from two employer samples, the article develops our understanding of  small business employee skill formation and development processes in three main ways. First, it focuses on learning (what employees do) rather than on providing training (what employers do), as it is employee learning which influences individual and or organ ganisa isation tional al per perfor forman mance. ce. Sec Second ond,, it cha challe llenge ngess the dom domina inant nt foc focus us on external training by presenting data on employer enablement of workplace employee learning and their motives for this. The diversity of workplace learning practices and the their ir imp import ortanc ancee in sma smalle llerr bus busine inesse ssess ar aree hig highli hlight ghted. ed. Thi Third, rd, it sit situat uates es work wo rkpl plac acee le lear arni ning ng pr proc oces esse sess fir firml mlyy wi with thin in th thee co cont ntex extt of th thee em empl ploy oyme ment nt relationship, one in which employers and employees pursue distinctive interests in enabling/participating in learning. John Ki Kitc tchi hing ng,, Sm Smal alll Busi Busine ness ss Re Rese sear arch ch Ce Cent ntrre, King Kingst ston on Contact:   John University, Kingston Hill, Surrey KT2 7LB, UK. Email:  [email protected]  j. [email protected]

S

kill de kill defic ficie ienc ncie iess ar aree ar argu gued ed to li limi mitt pr prod oduc uctt an and d pr proc oces esss in inno nova vati tion on,, productivity and business growth and are cited as one of the key causes of  Britain Brit ain’s ’s poo poorr pro produc ductiv tivity ity per perfor forman mance ce com compar pared ed wit with h oth other er cou countr ntries ies,, notabl not ably y the US, Ger German many y and Fra France nce (HM Tre reasu asury ry,, 200 2002, 2, 200 2004). 4). Con Conseq sequen uently tly,, raising workforce skills has become a key public policy objective in Britain, with two White Papers recently published (Department for Education and Skills, 2003, 2005) and the of Leitch review Review Skills, 2005).established to examine the UK’s skill needs to 2020 (Leitch Small employers in particular, it is argued, provide insufficient workforce training (Natio (Na tional nal Ski Skills lls Task For Force, ce, 200 2000a; 0a; HM Tre reasu asury ry,, 200 2002). 2). Give Given n the impo importa rtance nce of  small business in the UK economy – in 2004, businesses with fewer than 50 staff  constituted 99 per cent of the UK’s 4.3 million enterprises and employed 47 per cent of the business sector workforce (www.sbs.gov.uk/statistics) (www.sbs.gov.uk/statistics)   – this alleged lack of  training is contributing to the UK’s continuing skills deficit and hampering national economic performance. Freel (2005) has noted an association between various skill indicators and training activity with innovativeness at the level of the individual small business. This article explores employee learning and training practices in small businesses. Specifically, it addresses three questions: How do employees learn in small business workplaces? What do they learn? Why do employees learn in the ways they do? To 42

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 17 NO 1, 2007

© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St, Malden, MA, 02148, USA.

 

John Kitching

answer these questions requires that employee learning be situated in the context of  the employment relationship and, in particular, that employers’ distinctive interests in pro providi viding ng or ena enablin bling g lea learni rning ng opp opport ortuni unities ties for emp employ loyees ees are re recog cognis nised. ed. In contrast with much prior research, the primary focus here is on workplace learning practic pra ctices. es. The imp import ortanc ancee of ext extern ernal al tra traini ining ng for sma small ll bus busine iness ss emp employ loyers ers and employees is not denied; rather, the aim is to counter the over-emphasis by many researchers on ‘formal’ external and the misconceptions small  business learning processes thattraining such over-emphasis generates.surrounding In the following section sec tionss I re review view the evid evidenc encee bas basee on wor workfo kforce rce tra traini ining ng in sma small ll bus busine iness sses, es, discus dis cusss the met method hodolo ology gy ado adopte pted d for the pre presen sentt stu study dy,, deve develop lop a con concep ceptua tuall framework to interpret the study findings, and conclude by summarising the main findings. EMPLOYEE LEARNING AND TRAINING IN SMALL BUSINESSES

Many studies argue that small employers provide less workforce training than larger organisa org anisations tions (e.g.   Westhe Westhead ad and Stor Storey ey,, 1997; Westhea esthead, d, 1998; Cosh Cosh   et al., al., 200 2003; 3; Kitson and Wilkinson, 2003; Learning and Skills Council, 2005), seldom participate in government training initiatives (Curran et (Curran  et al., al., 1996; Kitching and Blackburn, 2002; Matlay, 2004) and are much less likely to become recognised for the Investors in People standard (Smith et (Smith  et al., al., 2002). By June 2005 just over 23,000 UK employers with fewer than 50 employees had become recognised for Investors in People, just 1.4 per cent of businesses of this size; this contrasts with the 73 per cent of organisations with 50 or more employees that have done so. 1 Emplo Em ploye yeee da data ta ca can n be us used ed to su sugg gges estt a si simi mila larr pic pictu ture re.. Th Thee Na Natio tiona nall Adu Adult lt Learning Survey found that those working in organisations employing fewer than 25 employees were less likely to report undertaking some form of learning activity during durin g the previ previous ous three years than those working for larg larger er employ employers ers (Fitz (Fitzgerald gerald 2003 03). ). Us Usin ing g La Labo bour ur Fo Forc rcee Su Surv rvey ey da data ta,, th thee Sm Smal alll Fi Firm rmss En Ente terp rpri rise se et al., 20 Deve De velo lopm pmen entt In Init itia iati tive ve (2 (200 004) 4) es esti tima mate te th that at 14 pe perr ce cent nt of wo work rker erss in sm smal alll  businesses with 1–10 employees held no qualifications in 2003, compared with only 8 per cent of those working in businesses employing 50 or more workers. Conversely, only 12 per cent of workers in the smallest businesses held a degree, whereas 24 per cent in businesses employing ort more people did so. Argu Ar gume ment ntss al alle legi ging ng in insu sufff50 icien ici ent emplo em ploye yeee le lear arni ning ng an and d tr trai aini ning ng in sm smal alll  businesses can be criticised. First, many training studies focus on what employers do (provid (pr ovidee tra traini ining) ng) rather rather tha than n on wha whatt emp employ loyees ees do (lea (learn) rn),, yet it is the latter specifically that is important for job and business performance. Employees learn in many ma ny wa ways ys ot othe herr th than an th thro roug ugh h em emplo ploye yerr-pr prov ovid ided ed tr trai aini ning ng.. It ma may y be be bette tterr, therefore, to describe the role of employers as the broader one of  enablers of  enablers  of employee learning rather than just as providers of training. Second, and related, many studies have ha ve fo focu cuse sed d so solel lely y or pri prima mari rily ly on   formal   trainin training, g, whi which, ch, tho though ugh not alw always ays defined explicitly, appears to refer to planned, off-the-job activities prescribed by designated teachers; concentrating on  certified   training would narrow the object of  study even further. Restricting the focus in this way, however, omits much, if not most, mos t, emp employ loyee ee lea learni rning ng (Na (Natio tional nal Ski Skills lls Task For Force, ce, 200 2000b; 0b; Ful Fuller ler   et al., 2003), 3), al., 200 particu par ticular larly ly sel self-d f-dire irecte cted d or unp unplan lanned ned lea learni rning ng ari arisin sing g thr throug ough h par partici ticipat pation ion in HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 17 NO 1, 2007 © 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

43

 

Regulating employment relations through workplace learning

various workplace practices (Marsick and Watkins, 1987; Eraut, 2000; Eraut   et al., al., 2000).. Unplan 2000) Unplanned ned – and even planne planned d – on-th on-the-job e-job learning learning may be unrecognised unrecognised by either eith er emp employ loyers ers or emp employ loyees ees and con conseq sequen uently tly go und underer-rep report orted ed in res resear earch ch studies, particularly those relying heavily on quantitative survey data that allow little opportunity opportunity to delve deeper into respo respondents ndents’’ practic practices, es, motives for acting and the contexts of action. Most employee knowledge and skills are uncertified are  uncertified   (Coffield, 2000) quite possibly possibly uncertifiable  inmsoto faroth as ers. employees do ssions notons know possess them the m and or are unabl unable e to  uncertifiable in articu art iculat latee the them others . Suc Such h omi omissi are they particu par ticular larly ly important in workplaces where little certified learning occurs. In contrast, several studies emphasise emphasise the importance of  informal training   informal  training in small enterprises (e.g. (e.g. Johnson  Johnson and Gubbins, 1992; Vickerstaff, 1992; Abbott, 1993; Curran et al., al., 1996; Johnson, 1999; Ram  et al., al., 2000; Perren and Grant, 2001; Anderson and Boocock, 2002; Hughes et Hughes  et al., al., 2002; Kitching and Blackburn, 2003; Doyle and Hughes, 2004; Small Firms Enterprise Development Initiative, 2004). Again, such training is not always defined explicitly; in fact, it is usually defined in terms of what it is not – fo form rmal al tr trai aini ning ng – bu butt mo most st as asso soci ciat atee it wi with th va vari riou ouss ty type pess of on on-t -the he-j -job ob or 2 workpl wor kplace ace-ba -based sed pra practic ctices, es, not inv involv olving ing cer certifi tificati cation. on. Ot Othe hers rs hi high ghli ligh ghtt th thee importance of interaction with co-workers and with external actors,  e.g.  customers and suppliers, for small business owner-mana owner-managers gers and their employees (Gibb, 1997) 1997).. Learning acquired through interaction with external actors can be ‘cascaded’ through the enterprise through subsequent interaction between co-workers (Smallbone et (Smallbone  et al., al., 2000; Hughes   et al., al., 2002). Employer motives for enabling ‘informal’ learning and training are its low financial and time cost and the perceived limited quality or relevance of external training (Curran et (Curran  et al., al., 1996).

THEORISING WORKPLACE LEARNING

Human beings learn through participation in historically and socially constituted practices in the workplace, classroom and elsewhere, though the particular context will shape the process and outcomes of learning (Billett, 2004). Learning is a situated and context-dependent activity. Employee learning at the workplace results from participation in the authentic goal-directed activities of particular communities of  pra practic cticee with the 1996). aim ofSuch develo dev elopin ping g exp experti ertise se to sol solve ve rou routin tinee and non-r -rout outine ine problems (Billett, participation involves both planned and non unplanned learni lea rning ng pra practic ctices es (Ma (Marsi rsick ck and Watk atkins ins,, 198 1987; 7; Era Eraut, ut, 200 2000; 0; Era Eraut ut   et ., 200 2000). 0). et al al., Hodkin Hod kinson son and Hod Hodkin kinson son (20 (2004) 04) dis disting tinguis uish h six typ types es of lea learni rning ng in ter terms ms of  whethe whe therr lea learni rning ng is pla planne nned d or unp unplan lanned ned,, and whe whethe therr the con conten tentt is alr alread eady y known to others or aims at generating new or modified knowledge. Wor orkp kpla lace ce em empl ploy oyee ee le lear arni ning ng mu must st be si situ tuat ated ed wi with thin in th thee co cont ntex extt of th thee employment relationship, one in which private sector employers’ primary purpose is to produce goods and services for profitable sale as commodities (Rainbird  et al., al., 2004). Access to, and take up of, learning opportunities must be grounded in these material realities, the divergent interests, power asymmetries and the potential for conflict between employer and employee. This highlights the political dimension of  learning. Opportunities to learn might not be provided by employers or taken up by employees because both parties pursue goals other than enabling or undertaking 44

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 17 NO 1, 2007 © 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

 

John Kitching

learni learning ng which may limit their capacity and/or motivation motivation to provi provide, de, or partici participate pate in, particular learning opportunities. Workplaces can be defined as ‘expansive’ or ‘restrictive’ learning environments acco ac cord rdin ing g to th thee qu quan antit tity y an and d qu qual alit ity y of le lear arni ning ng op oppo port rtun unit ities ies th they ey en enab able le employees to take up (Fuller and Unwin, 2004). Employers play a central role in shapin sha ping g lea learni rning ng opp opport ortuni unities ties thr throug ough h the des design ign of wor work k ro roles les tha thatt of offer fer the their ir occupants opportunities andand incentives learn;are through access to significantvarying others at the workplace beyondtowho able toenabling guide employee learning; and through the provision of instruments and materials from which to learn, such as the Internet and equipm equipment ent manuals. Employers Employers will provi provide de learning opportunities for employees where they anticipate that the benefits of doing so – for instance, improved job performance or higher labour retention – will outweigh the likely costs, including lost working time and the risk of poaching. This raises broader issues regarding employers’ product market strategies and their demand for skills: employ emp loyers ers are unl unlike ikely ly to pr provid ovidee lear learnin ning g opp opport ortuni unitie tiess if the they y con consid sider er the them m unnecessary to achieve their business objectives (Keep and Mayhew, 1999). Employers can offer opportunities for employees to learn but employees choose whethe whe therr and wha whatt to lea learn rn (Bi (Billet llett, t, 200 2002a) 2a).. Hum Human an bei beings ngs pos posses sessin sing g pow powers ers of  agency are the efficient causes of action in the social world; structural pressures only have their effects mediated through human agency (Archer, 1995). Employers can shapee th shap thee co cond ndit itio ions ns un unde derr wh which ich em emplo ploye yees es le lear arn n by of offe feri ring ng in ince cent ntive ivess an and d threatening sanctions but cannot compel employees to learn; employers encounter a simi si mila larr pr prob oblem lem at attem tempt ptin ing g th thee tra trans nsla latio tion n of la labo bour ur po powe werr in into to ac actu tual al wo work rk perf pe rfor orma manc ncee mo more re ge gene nera rally lly.. Em Emplo ploye yees es ma may y ch choo oose se to le lear arn n ‘in ‘inap appr prop opri riat atee knowledge’ (Billett, 1996) that is irrelevant, or even harmful, to employer objectives; these the se cho choice icess are sha shaped ped by bro broade aderr emp employ loymen mentt rel relati ations ons iss issues ues whi which ch act as motiva mot ivator torss or bar barrier rierss to lea learni rning, ng, such as the pos possib sibilit ility y of hig higher her re rewar wards ds or promotion. METHODOLOGY

To address the research objectives, two samples of small business employers were studied in parallel: a large-scale telephone survey of 1005 business owners and a separ separate, ate,were face-to-fa face-to-face ce interv interview iew sample 50 and employers employ ers (Table (Tabbusiness le 1). Employ Employers ers inonboth samples selected randomly from a of Dun Bradstreet database the  basis of criteria relating to employment size, location and sector sector.. Respondents were  business owners or managers, usually with responsibility for training or personnel matter mat ters. s. All par partici ticipat pating ing bus busine iness sses es wer weree leg legally ally ind indepe epende ndent, nt, emp employ loyed ed 2–6 2–600 workers, operated in one of six specified sector groups, and were located in one of  two regions (Greater London and South Yorkshire). This yielded a quantitative data sett de se deri rive ved d fr from om th thee te telep lepho hone ne su surv rvey ey,, we weig ight hted ed to re refle flect ct th thee si size ze an and d se sect ctor or distribution of the UK business stock; and a qualitative data set from the face-to-face inte in terv rview iews. s. Th Thee pr prim imar ary y em emph phas asis is he here re is on th thee qu qual alita itati tive ve da data ta as th this is be best st illustrates employer enablement of learning opportunities for employees and their motives for such action. The issue of definition of ‘learning and training’ was handled slightly differently for the two employer samples. In the telephone survey, in order to capture as wide HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 17 NO 1, 2007 © 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

45

 

Regulating employment relations through workplace learning

TABLE 1  Employer samples by sector Sectors

Telephone survey

Primary and construction Manufacturing Distribution, hotels and catering Transport and communications Business and professional services Other services Unweighted   N   

Face-to-face interviews

162 192 167

4 10 15

159 156 169 1005

4 13 4 50

Note:: Businesses were defined using the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC). Note

a ran range ge of act activit ivities ies as pos possib sible, le, emp employ loyer er res respon ponden dents ts wer weree inv invited ited to thi think nk of  ‘learning and training’ as including ‘any activities at all through which managers and workers improve their work-related skills and knowledge. These activities may occur on- or off-the-job. They may occur in short bursts or be over a longer period of time. They may be linked to a qualification or not.’ In the fac face-t e-to-f o-face ace inte intervi rviews ews emp employ loyers ers wer weree all allowe owed d to defi define ne ‘le ‘learn arning ing and training’ traini ng’ unpr unprompted ompted.. Wher Wheree respo respondents ndents found these issues diff difficult icult to discu discuss, ss, they were prompted using the telephone survey definition. Considerable interviewer effo ef fort rt wa wass of ofte ten n re requ quir ired ed to en enco cour urag agee el elab abor orat atio ion n of wo work rkpl plac acee lea learn rnin ing g an and d training practices as many employers, initially, did not include them. This supports prev pr evio ious us st stud udies ies th that at fo foun und d th that at em emplo ploye yers rs te tend nd to ad adop optt a na narr rrow ower er vi view ew of  training than researchers (Campanelli et (Campanelli  et al., al., 1994); a similar tendency among learners to recall formal rather than informal learning episodes is noted by Eraut et Eraut  et al. al. (2000). In th thee re rema main inde derr of th thee ar artic ticle le,, pr prima imary ry ev evid iden ence ce is pr pres esen ente ted d fr from om th thee tw two o employer employ er sample sampless to show that small business business employ employers ers purposely enable learni learning ng opport opp ortuni unities ties for emp employ loyees ees at the wor workpl kplace ace,, tha thatt the these se opp opport ortuni unitie tiess ar aree muc much h more diverse than many researchers have acknowledged, and that employer motives for ena enablin bling g suc such h lea learni rning ng opp opport ortuni unities ties can cannot not pr prope operly rly be und unders erstoo tood d wit withou houtt reference to the structure of the relationship. be stressed that these are employer samples; no employment evidence from employees Itisshould presented. In so far as small employers rely less on enabling learning opportunities outside the workplace, as pr prev evio ious us re rese sear arch ch su sugg gges ests ts,, th then en wo work rkpl plac acee pr prac acti tice cess as assu sume me a gr grea eate terr sign si gnifi ifica canc nce. e. Th Thee ne next xt se sect ctio ion n pr prov ovid ides es an ov over ervi view ew of ke key y da data ta fr from om th thee tw two o employer samples before subsequent sections explore initial learning and continuing learning respectively. EMPLOYMENT REGULATION THROUGH EMPLOYEE LEARNING

Small businesses, particularly micro businesses (fewer than 10 employees), do not tend ten d to cre create ate an int intern ernal al tra trainin ining g inf infras rastru tructu cture re to sup suppor portt emp employ loyee ee lea learni rning, ng, manifested in a dedicated ‘training manager’, separate training budgets or written training plans for employees (e.g. (e.g. Curran  Curran et  et al., al., 1996). Similar approaches are to be 46

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 17 NO 1, 2007 © 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

 

John Kitching

found in the two employer samples here. Responsibility for managing employee training often fell within the remit of managers or employees with wider duties. Though Tho ugh 52 per cen centt of tele telepho phone ne sur survey vey re respo sponde ndents nts cla claime imed d tha thatt lea learni rning ng and trai tr aini ning ng wa wass th thee re resp spon onsi sibi bilit lity y of a na name med d in indi divid vidua ual, l, fo forr mo most st of th them em th this is responsibility was a minor element of the job; only 14 per cent of employers claimed it was the whole or a significant part of the designated person’s job. Moreover, only 5a per centfigure. of respondents reported a training budget and only 4 per cent could give budget To what extent do small employers enable employee learning? Most employers in the telephone survey (75 per cent) reported the provision of workforce learning and training opportunities during the year prior to interview. But given the continuous character of learning, one has to question how useful such quantitative measures are. Similar criticisms can be made of other large-scale survey data such as the Learning and Training at Work surveys and the National Employer Skills Surveys which ask employers about the incidence of specific types of training, days training provided and expenditures incurred (Fuller et (Fuller  et al., al., 2003: ch. 3). Broader definitions of ‘learning’ and ‘training’ have to be adopted to understand how employees learn, particularly in small businesses where ‘formal’ and certified training are much less prevalent. Qualitative data from the 50 face-to-face employer interviews suggest that the telephone survey data seriously understate the quantity, diversity and significance of  employee learning and training activity at the workplace. Such learning activities were reported in all businesses except one, a vehicle repair business employer with 32 staff, providing a high level of external training; this may have encouraged a negl ne glec ectt to re repo port rt wo work rkpl plac acee le lear arni ning ng.. In co cont ntra rast st,, on only ly 26 em emplo ploye yers rs re repo porte rted d external training for any employees, mostly short courses of a day or less duration, wherea whe reass wor workpl kplace ace lea learni rning ng and tra trainin ining g occ occurr urred ed mos mostt of the tim time. e. Emp Employ loyers ers reported a wide range of employee learning practices; Eraut   et al. al. (2000) found a similar variety of practices in a large employer context, suggesting these practices are not unique to small enterprises: • learning-by learning-by-doin -doing, g, thro through ugh performance performance of rou routine tine worki working ng practic practices es • pla planne nned, d, onon-the the-jo -job b gui guided ded lea learni rning ng by act actors ors at the wor workpl kplace ace (em (emplo ployer yers, s, managers, co-workers and suppliers) • unpla nned interact interaction ion with actors actor atom themat workplace • unplanned planne pla nned d and unplan unp lanned ned learni lea rning ngs fr from materi erial al art artefa efacts cts,, su such ch as equ equipme ipment nt manuals or using a computer to search the Internet • planne planned, d, off off-the-the-job job training courses Of the these se pra practi ctices ces,, onl only y the las lastt cou could ld per perhap hapss be una unambi mbiguo guous usly ly des describ cribed ed as ‘forma ‘fo rmal’ l’ tra trainin ining g and and,, as suc such, h, lik likely ely to be cap captur tured ed by res resear earche chers rs usi using ng sur survey vey instruments. The other modes of employee learning are less structured and more likely to be described as ‘informal’ or possibly not to be defined as learning at all. Emplo Em ploye yers rs en enab able led d a ra rang ngee of le lear arni ning ng op oppo port rtun uniti ities es fo forr em emplo ploye yees es at th thee workplace and elsewhere, and often in combination. This was particularly the case for employers displaying a strategic orientation to employee learning and training, unde un ders rsto tood od in te term rmss of an un unde derl rlyi ying ng lo logi gicc or st stra rate tegi gicc in inten tentt un unde derp rpin inni ning ng employ emp loyer er act activit ivity y rat rather her tha than n as a blu bluepr eprint int tha thatt is sub subseq sequen uently tly tra transl nslate ated d int into o HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 17 NO 1, 2007 © 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

47

 

Regulating employment relations through workplace learning

TABLE 2  Employer reasons for preferring in-house workforce learning and training Percentage reporting as a reason

Relevance Convenience Low cost Other reason No data Total Weighted  N  Unweighted   N 

   

Percentage reporting as MAIN reason

73.1 66.8

55.2 37.5

7.1 1.1

3.7 3.4 0.2 100 273 330

– 100 1005 1005

Note: Data have been weighted to reflect the size distribution of UK businesses at the time of interview. Note: Source:: Telephone survey. Source

action. Indicators of such an approach were a written plan (or a systematic approach withou wit houtt a wri writte tten n plan plan)) for emp employ loyee ee lea learni rning, ng, a ded dedica icated ted tra trainin ining g bud budget get and explicit linking of workforce skills and learning to broader competitive strategy. Such appro app roach aches es wer weree not con confine fined d to ‘kn ‘knowl owledg edge-i e-inte ntensi nsive’ ve’ bus busine inesse ssess or to spe specifi cificc sectors. For example, one removals business employer decided to raise workforce skill levels in order to compete in the more lucrative office removals niche market; another employer, selling surface protection products, adopted a formal training plan and budget and was particularly keen to raise workforce skills through workplace and external training in order to cope with intensified product market competition. These employers were more likely to plan employee learning and training, at the workplace and elsewhere. Nor should workplace learning and training activities, in their full variety, be  judged   a priori   to be inf inferi erior or to plan planned ned,, of off-t f-thehe-job job tra trainin ining g cou course rses. s. Ind Indeed eed,, an argument will be proposed that workplace practices are essential to employers and cannott be subs canno substituted tituted by nonnon-workp workplace-ba lace-based sed learn learning. ing. Employers contribute to these diverse processes by enabling employees toisparticipate in particular activities. For learning many small employers, the ‘default position’ to enable employees to learn at the workplace unless there are very specific reasons why this is infeasible or undesirable, e.g. undesirable,  where new skills and knowledge are required that cannot be learned  e.g. where at the workplace. Employer perceptions of the importance of workplace learning were very evident in both samples. Telephone survey data suggested the primary  benefit for employers of providing learning opportunities for employees at the workplace was their perceived ‘relevance’ (Table 2). But how is ‘relevance’ to be interpreted? Billett (1996) suggests that the relevance of wor workpl kplace ace lea learni rning ng opp opport ortuni unities ties lies in per permit mitting ting acc access ess to aut authen hentic tic wor work k activities and to expert others. But, more than this purely technical goal of enabling employees to acquire the skills and knowledge required for competent and safe job performance, employers have a second, political, objective: to encourage employees to ex exer erci cise se th thei eirr kn know owled ledge ge an and d sk skil ills ls in a ma mann nner er co cong ngru ruen entt wi with th em emplo ploye yerr 48

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 17 NO 1, 2007 © 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

 

John Kitching

purposes. In short, enabling employee learning is intended to produce a labour force  both able able   and  willing to work in accordance with employer objectives. and willing A distinction can be drawn between the knowledge and skills needed to perform a par partic ticula ularr wor work k ro role le and the spe specifi cificc sta standa ndards rds tha thatt con consti stitut tutee ‘co ‘compe mpeten tent’ t’ job perf pe rfor orma manc ncee (a (ass defi define ned d by th thee em empl ploy oyer er). ). Ev Even en wh wher eree jo jobs bs re requ quir iree si simi mila larr knowledge and skills, work performance standards vary between employers and therefore can onlyand be learned in specific workplaces. By enabling toopenlearn these work roles performance standards, employers attemptemployees to close the ended employment contract, by harnessing employees’ subjectivities and capabilities to employers’ specific objectives. These arguments will be illustrated in the next two sections using data on initial learning for new employees and on continuing learning for established employees.

INITIAL LEARNING FOR NEW EMPLOYEES

Employers use the initial period of employment to enable new staff to learn their work wor k obl obliga igatio tions ns – the spe specifi cificc job kno knowle wledge dge and ski skills lls and wor work k per perfor forman mance ce standards – to ensure workers’ efforts and creativity are channelled in ‘productive’ ways wa ys.. Th Thes esee is issu sues es ar aree rel elev evan antt to em empl ploy oyer erss and em empl ploy oyee eess in al alll wor ork k organisations although the precise learning processes and outcomes will vary within and between organisations with the specific – and often changing – job and business context con text.. Suc Such h a find finding ing casts doubt on the oft-cited oft-cited ‘recrui ‘recruitt or tra train’ in’ dilemma dilemma –  between recruiting workers already skilled and recruiting less-skilled workers and training them. Employers simply do not have the option of recruiting skilled staff  and an d th then en do doin ing g no noth thin ing; g; ev even en wi with th ex expe perie rienc nced ed ne newc wcom omer ers, s, em emplo ploye yers rs mu must st encourage them to adapt what they already know to the new organisational context  learn new knowledge and skills. or learn or In the 50-employer sample, all employer enablement of initial learning by new employees employ ees took place at the workp workplace. lace. Employees learned through through intera interaction ction with important import ant others at the workp workplace, lace, including employers, employers, manag managers, ers, co-workers co-workers and, on occasion, suppliers. This included both planned instruction or guidance,  e.g.  e.g. being  being shown how to operate equipment or use software, and learning arising unplanned throug thr ough h obs observ ervati ation on of, and and/or /or list listeni ening ng to, oth others ers.. For ins instan tance, ce, dis discus cussin sing g the creation of a marketing brochure for a client, a graphic design employer stressed the import imp ortanc ancee of gu guidin iding g lea learni rning ng for new new,, esp especia ecially lly you young, ng, rec recrui ruits. ts. The pla planne nned d charac cha racter ter of su such ch pra practic ctices es beli belies es the lab label el ‘in ‘infor formal mal’; ’; the they y ar aree del deliber iberate ate,, goa goalldirect dir ected ed act activit ivities ies (Bi (Billet llett, t, 199 1996), 6), tho though ugh whe whethe therr emp employ loyees ees the themse mselves lves wou would ld perceive them as ‘training’ is debatable. You’re constantly looking very closely at what they’re doing. And you have to direct them more than you would the experienced designers. What we normally do if someone wants a brochure is we’ll do a few ideas, a few visuals. Now with the other three [employees],3  by looking at what the job is and talking to the client, they’ll know what’s going to work wo rk an and d wh what at’s ’s no nott go goin ing g to wo work rk.. Wh Wher erea eass a le less ss ex expe peri rien ence ced d desi de sign gner er ca can n co come me up wi with th so some me id idea eass th that at ju just st ar aren en’t ’t pr prac acti tica call sometimes. So you have to direct them a bit more closely, to try and stop HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 17 NO 1, 2007 © 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

49

 

Regulating employment relations through workplace learning

them before they get too far down the line, before they’ve spent three days doing ideas that aren’t going to work. (S19: graphic designer, six workers)

Employees Employ ees als also o lear learn n thr throug ough h inte interac ractio tion n wit with h coco-wor worker kerss at the wor workpl kplace ace.. Potentially, such approaches offer at least two advantages for employers. First, staff  may be more knowledgeable in respect of certain tasks than employers themselves, particularly in highly skilled work roles or where the employer lacks experience. Second Sec ond,, emp employ loyers ers can devo devote te tim timee to oth other er act activit ivities ies whe where re re respo sponsi nsibili bility ty for enabling or supervising employee learning is delegated. One café employer, having recently bought an existing business, makes both points: I rely on the other staff, really, to a certain extent because (a) they have – a lot of them – more experience than I have because they’ve been doing it a lot longer, and (b) because I’m not always here. . . . Because I’m not just in one particular place, I have to rely on the other girls showing them what to do. (S5: café, 13 workers)

New recruits can learn their work obligations – work tasks and work performance standards – in unplanned activities and interactions. This means that participants in such suc h pra practic ctices, es, both lea learne rners rs and trainers, trainers, might not define the them m as lea learni rning ng or training. haseeimplications for researchers regarding how to re capture measur mea suree This employ emp loyee learni lea rning, ng, par particu ticular larly ly in sma small ll ent enterp erpris rises es best where whe re resea searc rch h and has show sh own n su such ch pr prac acti tice cess to be pr prev evale alent nt.. Th Thee fo foll llow owin ing g co comm mmen ents ts fr from om a de desi sign gn  business employer highlight the importance of co-workers as a source of learning for new ne w re recr crui uits ts,, th thee un unpl plan anne ned d ch char arac acte terr of in inter terac actio tion, n, its im impo port rtan ance ce,, an and d th thee invisibility of the learning to which it gives rise. The main training on how we actually achieve what we do is   in   the hoc   basis. So a new member of staff coming office on a pretty much ad much  ad hoc  into the office would be being trained without realising it. . . . You give the basics to the people coming in and you expect that every 10 minutes for the next three months months or so they’re going to have a quest question. ion. And the answer will come from anybody else in the office. . . . There could be no other way, way, I don’t think, think, to do our mains mainstrea tream m training. . . . (S6: interior interior designer/architect, 12 workers, bold italic denotes respondent emphasis)

Inculc Incu lcat atin ing g wo work rk ob obli liga gati tion onss am amon ong g ne new w re recr crui uits ts mi migh ghtt in invo volv lvee em emplo ploye yerr attempts attemp ts to encou encourage rage employees to un to  unlearn learn previously acquired work attitudes and  behaviours. Again, this emphasises the specificity of work roles and performance standards; they can only be learned within the particular workplace where those roles ro les an and d st stan anda dard rdss ap appl ply y. Em Emplo ploye yers rs re requ quir iree ne new w em emplo ploye yees es to le lear arn n th thes esee part pa rticu icula larr ro roles les an and d st stan anda dard rdss if th they ey ar aree to de defin finee th them em as co comp mpete etent nt.. Pr Prio iorr experience in similar work roles elsewhere can be as much a  barrier  to competent work performance in the new job as an aid. One employer, a publican, stresses the importance of learning specific service standards and the ambiguous relevance of  previous experience. Either me or my wife shows them what to do and how we want it to be done. don e. For Forget get how the they’v y’vee bee been n wor workin king g any anywhe where re els else, e, wha whatt the they’r y’ree 50

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 17 NO 1, 2007 © 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

 

John Kitching

used to, how they pull a pint somewhere else. We get them to pull it how we want them to serve a drink. . . . We train them the way how we serve behind a bar and how we want it done. (S21: public house, 14 workers)

Similarl Simila rly y, wi with th re rega gard rd to wo work rk per perfo form rman ance ce st stan anda dard rdss in ma manu nufa fact ctur urin ing, g, employers will attempt to foster a new sense of work obligation among employees and to dis discou courag ragee wor work k atti attitud tudes es acq acquir uired ed in pr previo evious us emp employ loymen mentt if the these se are perc pe rcei eive ved d to be a hi hind ndra ranc ncee to co comp mpet eten entt wo work rk pe perf rfor orma manc nce. e. Th This is re requ quir ires es a conscious effort by employers to instill new work standards in new recruits. What happens is: we show them how to do the job and get the best out of that person, which may be more or less than what they’ve been doing  before. In other words, we don’t want anybody with preconceived ideas  because it does limit production. We want people to do the best they can. (S1: engineering, 10 workers)

Fostering a willingness to learn on the part of new recruits is just as important an employer task as enabling the opportunity to learn. Whether employees exercise their agency to learn what employers want them to learn depends both on their ability   and   willin willingn gnes esss to lea learn rn.. Im Impli plicit citly ly,, em empl ploy oyer er at atte temp mpts ts to en enco cour urag agee employees to learn acknowledge the political dimension of learning: that employees might not share employer objectives regarding the take-up of learning opportunities. I thi think nk we pr provi ovide de all the tra traini ining ng tha that’s t’s needed. needed. We’v e’vee got enough enough expe ex pert rtis isee wi with thin in th thee or orga gani nisa sati tion on.. Th Ther ere’ e’ss no on onee ou outs tsid idee th thee organisation that can give us any more. . . . If we get the right people, we can train them, yes. It’s a matter of attitude really. (S27: construction, 10 workers)

In summary, new recruits learn their new work roles and performance standards in diverse ways, many of which would be described as ‘informal’ by researchers. But such a description often obscures the planned character of much of this learning. The learni lea rning ng is sig signifi nifican cantt bec becaus ausee emp employ loyers ers hav havee dis distin tinct ct patt pattern ernss of wor workin king g and specific standards of acceptable work performance; to be a ‘productive’ worker in a particular workplace means learning these very specific work roles and standards. Prior experience can be a necessary but never a sufficient condition for learning a new work role and employer-defined standards of acceptable work performance, as even in lower-skilled work roles new employees will need to transfer, and adapt, prio pr iorr le lear arni ning ng to th their eir ne new w wo work rk en envir viron onme ment nt;; in inde deed ed,, in so some me ca case ses, s, pr prio iorr knowledge can hinder work performance. New recruits can only learn their specific work obligations within the new workplace.

CONTINUING LEARNING FOR ESTABLISHED EMPLOYEES

Much of the initial learning undertaken by new recruits in small enterprises occurs at the workplace. But what about learning and training for more experienced staff? HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 17 NO 1, 2007 © 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

51

 

Regulating employment relations through workplace learning

Is workplace learning important for them too, or do employers rely on external learning and training opportunities for these employees? The distinction between ‘new ‘n ew’’ an and d ‘e ‘est stab ablis lishe hed’ d’ em empl ploy oyee eess is of ofte ten n dif diffficu icult lt to dr draw aw in pra practi ctice ce,, pa part rtly ly  because the skill levels demanded by different jobs and employee learning capabilities vary; but, conceptually, the distinction refers to those learning to become compet com petent ent mem members bers upo upon n ent entry ry to the ent enterpr erprise ise and tho those se exi existi sting ng emp employ loyees ees looking add to,ee-qua orquarte upgrade, post-entry skill res set. More Mo re totha than n thr threerters rs oftheir teleph tel ephone one sur survey vey respon ponden dents ts rep report orted ed tha thatt the training provided for established staff was ‘mostly specific to their own businesses’ (60 per cent) or a ‘mix of specific and general training’ (16 per cent); only 25 per cent descri des cribed bed the their ir wor workfo kforc rcee tra traini ining ng as ‘ma ‘mainly inly gen genera erall tra trainin ining’. g’.4 Da Data ta fr from om th thee face-to-face interviews reinforces the view that continuing workplace learning for established employees is important to employers. Learning to become multi-skilled can be organised in more or less planned ways. Perhaps the most planned approach was evident in a digital media service company wher wh eree wo work rkfo forc rcee de deve velo lopm pmen entt wa wass ac acco cord rded ed a hi high gh pr prio iorit rity y by th thee Ma Mana nagi ging ng Director. Employment expansion and corresponding organisational changes had led the emp employ loyer er to intr introdu oduce ce mon monthl thly y ‘kn ‘knowl owledg edgee ses sessio sions’ ns’ inv involv olving ing fou fourr to five employees in different functional areas,   e.g.   technical and marketing staff to share knowledge; routine workplace interaction was no longer perceived by the employer as su sufffic icie ient nt to en enab able le em empl ploy oyee eess to le lear arn n ad adeq equa uate tely ly ac acro ross ss de depa part rtme ment ntal al  boundaries. Such knowledge transfer was perceived as essential if the company was to remain competitive in a turbulent market-place. The Managing Director felt there were few outside the business able to provide new knowledge to employees. The firm’s rapidly changing knowledge base and its competitive importance, combined with business growth, led the employer to adopt a planned approach to enabling knowle kno wledge dge tra transf nsfer er and ski skill ll dev develo elopme pment, nt, albe albeit it one tha thatt cen centre tred d pri primar marily ily on workplace-based activities. When we st When star arte ted, d, wh when en we we were re 12 pe peop ople le,, yo you u we were re li list sten enin ing g to conversations across the room. Now, with 27, you can’t do that. So we have to have a more formal way of doing that training, that dispersal of  knowledge. So now it’s very important to grab people from different dep depart and them togeth tog who wouldn ’tys.   naturally  7: talk and chat ch atartmen inments theets sa th same me put way wa ythe asmth they ey ether did di der in theewou th oldldn’t days da . . . . (L3 (L37: digit dig ital al communications consultancy, 27 staff, italics used to denote respondent emphasis)

Employers Employ ers fre freque quentl ntly y rep report orted ed the ena enablem blement ent of lea learni rning ng opp opport ortuni unitie tiess for establ est ablish ished ed sta staff ff thr throug ough h the cr creat eation ion of lea learni rning ng path pathway wayss whe where reby by emp employ loyees ees develop expertise by engaging in increasingly demanding tasks. Employers make work wo rk al allo loca cati tion on de deci cisi sion onss wi with th a vi view ew to de deve velo lopi ping ng pa part rtic icul ular ar em empl ploy oyee ees’ s’ capabilities; capabil ities; though, again, whether the recip recipients ients of these learning opportunities opportunities would consider them ‘training’ can be doubted. So, the training never really ceases because every repair job is a different repair job. So you’re always learning. So you can say that, initially, after 52

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 17 NO 1, 2007 © 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

 

John Kitching

six mon months ths,, the they y can cop copee wit with h the sim simple ple [jo [jobs] bs].. . . . Aft After er,, I sho should uld think, three to six months, they’ve got the basic skills on what to do and you can let them get on with it. . . . As they stay, we just give them more and mor moree dif diffi ficul cultt job jobs. s. . . . (S2 (S29: 9: man manufa ufactu cture/ re/re repai pairr of ant antiqu iquee lig light ht fittings, nine workers)

Small employers often provide training to enable employees to become multiskilled (Hughes   et al., al., 2002). For several reasons, smaller employers often design work wo rk ro roles les th that at st stra radd ddle le mu mult ltipl iplee co conv nven entio tiona nall jo job b ter terri rito tori ries es,,   e.g.   combining techni tec hnical cal and sal sales es fun functi ctions ons wit within hin a sin single gle job job.. Fir First, st, in sma small ll bus busine inesse sses, s, the absence of a single employee can have severe consequences; multi-skilling can solve problem pro blemss ari arisin sing g fr from om abs absenc encee or lab labour our tur turnov nover er.. Sec Second ond,, emp employ loyers ers mig might ht not requi re quire re a ful full-ti l-time me emp employ loyee ee for cert certain ain acti activiti vities; es; cre creati ating ng bro broadly adly defi defined ned job jobss might justify a full-time post. By providing on-the-job, guided learning, employers (orr co (o co-w -wor orke kers rs)) ca can n en enab able le em empl ploy oyee eess to be beco come me mu multi lti-s -ski kille lled, d, in incr crea easi sing ng th thee collective flexibility of the workforce. I want them to be able to work every machine. . . . They need to be able to work, maybe, a copy-router, an end-miller [and] be able to hang. They need to be good all-rounders. But you don’t get them. You have to bring them in, put them on one machine and take them round, move them round. And when they’re proficient at everything, they generally bugger off! (S23: manufacturer of PVC windows, 17 workers)

In ad addi ditio tion n to en enab ablin ling g wo work rkpla place ce lea learn rnin ing g op oppo port rtun uniti ities es fo forr es esta tabl blis ishe hed d employees, employers also provided external learning and training opportunities, usua us uall lly y to ac acqu quir iree kn know owle ledg dgee no nott av avai aila labl blee wi with thin in th thee bu busi sine ness ss or to me meet et regulatory regu latory requ requirem irements, ents,   e.g.   health health and saf safety ety,, or for Con Contin tinuin uing g Pr Profe ofessi ssiona onall Develo Dev elopme pment. nt. Dat Dataa fr from om the 50 emp employ loyers ers sug sugges gests ts tha thatt exte externa rnall trai trainin ning g was provide pro vided d les lesss fre freque quentl ntly y tha than n wor workpl kplace ace lea learni rning ng opp opport ortuni unitie ties. s. Few emp employ loyers ers attached importance to certified learning, as their primary purpose was to enable empl em ploy oyee eess to ac acqu quir iree jo jobb-re rela late ted d kn know owle ledg dgee an and d sk skill illss ra rath ther er th than an to ob obta tain in qua qualifi lificat cation s.sider W orkpla ork cee lea learni rningng-byby-doi doing and learni rningng-byby-int intera eractin cting g were wer e routi ro utinel nely y ions. consid con ered ed place more mor importa impo rtant nt than tha nngexte externa rnally llylea provi pr ovided, ded, and partic par ticula ularly rly certified, certifi ed, traini training. ng. In su summa mmary ry,, the wor workpl kplace ace con contin tinues ues to be an impo importa rtant nt sit sitee of lea learni rning ng for esta es tabli blish shed ed em emplo ploye yees es af afte terr th thee in initi itial al pe perio riod d of em empl ploy oyme ment nt.. Sm Smal alll bu busi sine ness ss employees continue to add to their skill sets through participation in a variety of  workpl wor kplace ace pra practic ctices es and int intera eractio ctions. ns. Emp Employ loyers ers req requir uiree emp employ loyees ees to lea learn rn new knowledge and skills, and new performance standards over time. There is some eviden evi dence ce of emp employ loyers ers act activel ively y att attemp emptin ting g to con constr struct uct an ‘exp ‘expans ansive ive’’ lea learni rning ng enviro env ironme nment nt for est establi ablishe shed d emp employ loyees ees whe where re the they y per perceiv ceivee thi thiss wil willl gen genera erate te  business benefits. This is clearly influenced by the particular industry within which  businesses operate and the need for employers to ensure that employees update knowledge and skills to meet the demands of the competitive environments within which they work. That employers require employees to continue learning and enable HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 17 NO 1, 2007 © 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

53

 

Regulating employment relations through workplace learning

them to do so are widespread, although the precise form, content and outcomes of  such learning will, of course, vary. CONCLUSIONS

This study has aimed to rebalance discussion of small business employee learning and tr trai ning . tive It at atte mpted ted this th is,, yers first fir st,,as bypr shif sh ifti ting ngrsth the focu fo cus s aw away ay, and from fr omtow trai tr aini ning ng, , wh whic ich h ce cent ntre res onaini the th eng. activ ac e temp role ro le of emplo em ploye rs prov ovide iders toeemp employ loyees ees, toward ards s lea learni rning, ng, which whi chs places the learner centre stage. In this view, the role of employers is explicitly widened to being one of  enabler of  enabler  of employee learning rather than the narrower role of training provider. The methodological approach adopted encouraged employers to consider a wider range of practices and interactions as learning opportunities than have been considered by many, particularly quantitative, researchers. But it was only in the face-to-face interviews that the diversity and significance of learning practices became clearr. Lar clea Largege-sca scale le su survey rvey res resear earch ch ins instru trumen ments ts may be inc incapa apable ble of det detecti ecting ng the quantity and quality of learning and training experiences reported here: employers and an d em emplo ploye yees es mi migh ghtt si simp mply ly ha have ve no nott re repo port rted ed th them em.. Su Such ch su surv rvey ey fin findi ding ngss ha have ve gi give ven n rise to the misconception that small employers do not provide sufficient training, nor their the ir emp employ loyees ees eng engage age in suf suffi ficie cient nt lea learni rning. ng. Nar Narro rower wer defi definit nition ionss of ‘tra ‘trainin ining’ g’ centring on certified on  certified learning  learning paint an even more one-sided picture. Employees learn in many ways, some of which employers and/or employees may be unaware of, yet which are important to job and business performance. Second Sec ond,, in con contra trast st to stu studie diess whi which ch tre treat at wor workpl kplace ace lear learnin ning g and tra traini ining ng as ‘informal’ and, by implication, inferior, it is argued that the ‘default position’ for most small employers is to enable learning opportunities at the workplace for both new recruits and established staff unless there are strong reasons to do otherwise. Employer Employ er motive motivess for enabl enabling ing workplace learning opportunities opportunities extend beyon beyond d the usual arguments of low financial and time cost to the crucial issue of relevance, unders und erstoo tood d in ter terms ms of enc encour ouragi aging ng emp employ loyees ees to lea learn rn kno knowle wledge dge,, sk skills ills and attitudes congruent with employer objectives. Employers often feel they are able to exert greater influence over the content and process of employee learning where this takes place at the workplace. The incidence and importance of externally provided training is not denied; but it is recognised as just one source of employee learning. Emp Employ loyees ees learn lear n pri primar marily ily thr throug ough h par partici ticipat pation ion in a wid widee ran range ge of wor workpl kplace ace practices and interactions. Third, previous studies have understated or ignored the political dimension of  work wo rkpl plac acee lea learn rnin ing. g. Em Emplo ploye yeee lea learn rnin ing g an and d em empl ploy oyer er en enab ablem lemen entt of le lear arni ning ng opportunities must be understood within the broader context of the employment relationship. It cannot be assumed that employers and employees share the same intere int erests sts in pro provid viding ing or tak taking ing up lea learni rning ng opp opport ortuni unitie ties. s. Emp Employ loyers ers hav havee an intere int erest st in ena enablin bling g emp employ loyees ees to lea learn rn the spe specifi cificc wor work k ro roles les and per perfor forman mance ce standa sta ndards rds the they y per percei ceive ve as re releva levant nt to bec becomi oming ng com compete petent nt wor worker kerss with within in the their ir  businesses. Employers have greater power than employees to design jobs and struct str uctur uree wor workpl kplace ace re relati lations onship hipss to ena enable ble or re restr strict ict lea learni rning ng opp opport ortuni unitie tiess for employ emp loyees ees.. Con Conseq sequen uently tly,, emp employ loyers ers exe exert rt a str strong ong,, tho though ugh not det determ ermina inate, te, influence over how and what employees learn. This inevitably shapes employees’ attitu att itudes des to, and exp experi erienc ences es of, lea learni rning. ng. Ulti Ultimat mately ely,, emp employ loyers ers can cannot not com compel pel 54

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 17 NO 1, 2007 © 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

 

John Kitching

emp employ loyees ees to lear learn n ‘ap ‘appro propri priate ate’’ kno knowle wledge dge;; emp employ loyees ees can cho choose ose to tak takee up learning opportunities or not and this raises broader employment relations issues which act as motivators or barriers to learning. Further research, drawing directly on dataa fr dat from om emp employ loyees ees the themse mselves lves,, cou could ld bett better er illu illumin minate ate the their ir per percep ceptio tions ns of, attitudes towards, and motivations to take up learning opportunities. Acknowledgements

The au The auth thor or wo woul uld d li like ke to ac ackn know owle ledg dgee th thee De Depa part rtme ment nt fo forr Ed Educ ucat atio ion n an and d Employment (now the Department for Education and Skills) and the Small Business Council for funding the research upon which this article is based. Notes

1. I am grateful to Sarah Poulton (IiP UK) for data on recognitions by size of  organisation (email communication 5 September 2005). Percentage calculations made using data on business size for 2004 were drawn from the Small Business Service website (www.sbs.gov.u (www.sbs.gov.uk). k). 2. Some avoid using the formal/informal distinction in relation to learning and training. Billett (2002b) suggests that describing workplace learning practices as informal fails to recognise their intentionality, authenticity and significance and privileges, explicitly or implicitly, learning activities occurring in other settings, e.g.   educational organisations. Colley  et al. e.g. al. (2003) argue that all learning activities involve both formal and informal aspects – location/setting, purpose, content and process – and that therefore reference to formal and informal training as distinct types should be avoided. 3. Bracketed words and phrases have been added by the author to retain the sense of verbatim quotations. 4. Categories do not sum to 100 per cent due to rounding. REFERENCES

Abbott Abbo tt,, B. (1 (199 993) 3).. ‘T ‘Tra rain inin ing g st stra rate tegi gies es in sm smal alll se serv rvic icee se sect ctor or fir firms ms:: em empl ploy oyer er an and d employee perspectives’, Human perspectives’,  Human Resource Management Journal,   4: 2, 70–87. Anders And erson, on, V. and Booc Boocock ock,, J. (20 (2002 02). ). ‘Sm ‘Small all firm firmss and int intern ernati ationa onalis lisati ation: on: lea learni rning ng to manage and managing to learn’,  Human Resource Management Journal,   12: 3, 5–24. Realist st So Soci cial al Th Theo eory ry:: Th Thee Mo Morp rpho hoge gene neti ticc Ap Appr proa oach ch,, Cam Arch Ar cher er,, M. (1 (199 995) 5)..   Reali Cambri bridge dge:: Cambridge University Press. Billet Bil lett, t, S. (19 (1996) 96).. ‘T ‘Towa owards rds a mod model el of wor workpl kplace ace lea learni rning: ng: the lea learni rning ng cur curric riculu ulum’, m’, Studies in Continuing Education,   18: 1, 43–58. Billett, S. (2002a). ‘Workplace pedagogic practices: co-participation and learning’,   British  Journal of Educational Studies, Studies, 50:  50: 4, 457–481. Billett, S. (2002b). ‘Critiquing workplace discourses: participation and continuity at work’, Studies in the Education of Adults,   34: 1, 56–67. Billet Bil lett, t, S. (20 (2004) 04).. ‘Le ‘Learn arning ing thr throug ough h wor work: k: wor workpl kplace ace par partic ticipa ipator tory y pra practi ctices ces’, ’, in H. Rain Ra inbi bird rd,, A. Fu Full ller er an and d A. Mu Munr nro o (e (eds ds), ),   Workpl Workplace ace Lea Learni rning ng in Con Contex textt, Lon London don:: Routledge. Campan Cam panell elli, i, P., Cha Channe nnele, le, J. wit with h McC McCaul auley, ey, L., Ren Renouf ouf,, A. and Thom Thomas, as, R. (19 (1994) 94).. Training: An Explanation of the Word and Concept with an Analysis of the Implications for Survey Design, Design, Research Series No. 30, London: Employment Department. HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 17 NO 1, 2007 © 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

55

 

Regulating employment relations through workplace learning

Coffield, F. (2000). ‘The structure below the surface: reassessing the significance of informal learning’, in F. Coffield (ed.), The (ed.),  The Necessity of Informal Learning, Learning , Bristol: Policy Press. Colley, H., Hodkinson, P. and Malcolm, J. (2003).   Informality and Formality in Learning, Learning , Repo Re port rt fo forr th thee Le Lear arni ning ng an and d Sk Skil ills ls Re Rese sear arch ch Ce Cent ntre re,,   www.lsda.org.uk/files/pdf/ 1492.pdf. Cosh, A., Hughes, A. with Bullock, A. and Potton, M. (2003).   The Relationship Between Trainin rainingg and Busine Business ss Perfor Performance mance,, Df DfES ES Re Rese sear arch ch Re Repo port rt RR RR45 454, 4, De Depa part rtme ment nt for Education and Skills. Curran,, J., Bla Curran Blackb ckburn urn,, R.A R.A., ., Kit Kitchi ching, ng, J. and Nor North, th, J. (19 (1996) 96)..   Establishin Establishingg Small Firms Firms’’ Training Practices, Needs, Difficulties and Use of Industry Training Organisations, Organisations, Research Studies RS17, London: DfEE/HMSO. Department for Education and Skills (2003).   21st Century Skills: Realising Our Potential, Individuals, Employers, Nation, Nation, Cm 5810, London: Stationery Office. Department for Education and Skills (2005).   Skills: Getting on in Business, Getting on at Work , Cm 6483, London: Stationery Office. Doyle, L. and Hughes, M. (2004).  Learning Without Lessons: Supporting Learning in Small Businesses,, Learning and Skills Development Agency,   http://www.lsda.org.uk/files/ Businesses pdf/1685.pdf. Erau Er aut, t, M. (2 (200 000) 0).. ‘N ‘Non on-fo -form rmal al le lear arni ning ng,, im impl plic icit it le lear arni ning ng an and d ta taci citt kn know owle ledg dgee in Learning, Bristol: Policy professional work’, in F. Coffield (ed.),  The Necessity of Informal Learning, Press. Eraut, M., Alderton, J., Cole, G. and Senker, P. (2000). ‘Development of knowledge and skills at work’, in F. Coffield (ed.),  Differing Visions of a Learning Society, Society , Vol. 1, Bristol: Policy Press. Fitzgerald, R., Taylor, R. and LaValle, I. (2003).   National National Adult Learning Survey (NALS) 2002,, Research Report 415, London: Department for Education and Skills. 2002 Freel, Fre el, M. (20 (2005) 05).. ‘Pa ‘Patte tterns rns of inn innova ovatio tion n and ski skills lls in sma small ll firm firms’, s’,   Technovation,   25: 2, 123–134. Full Fu ller er,, A. an and d Un Unwi win, n, L. (2 (200 004) 4).. ‘E ‘Exp xpan ansi sive ve le lear arni ning ng en envi viro ronm nmen ents ts:: in inte tegr grat atin ing g organisational and personal development’, in H. Rainbird, A. Fuller and A. Munro (eds), Workplace (eds),  Workplace Learning in Context, Context, London: Routledge. Fuller, A., Ashton, D., Felstead, A., Unwin, L., Walters, S. and Quinn, M. (2003).  The Impact of Inform Informal al Learn Learning ing at Wor Workk on Busin Business ess Productivity Productivity,, London: Department of Trade and Industry. Gibb, Gib b, A. (19 (1997 97). ). ‘Sm ‘Small all firm firms’ s’ tra traini ining ng and com compet petiti itiven veness ess:: bui buildi lding ng upo upon n the sma small ll  business as a learning organisation’, organisation’, International  International Small Business Journal,   15: 3, 13–29. HM Treasury (2002).   Developing Workforce Skills: Piloting a New Approach, Approach, London: HM Treasury. HM Treasury (2004). Skills (2004).  Skills in the Global Economy, Economy , http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/ 8F5/94/pbr04skills_410.pdf. Hodkin Hod kinson son,, P. and Hod Hodkin kinson son,, H. (20 (2004) 04).. ‘Th ‘Thee com comple plexit xities ies of wor workpl kplace ace lea learni rning: ng: problems and dangers in trying to measure attainment’, in H. Rainbird, A. Fuller and Context, London: Routledge. A. Munro (eds), Workplace (eds),  Workplace Learning in Context, Hugh Hu ghes es,, M. M.,, Ke Keddi ddie, e, V., Web ebb, b, P. an and d Co Corn rney ey,, M. (2 (200 002) 2)..   Working Working Toward owardss Skill Skills: s: Perspe Per specti ctives ves on Wo Workf rkforc orcee Dev Develo elopme pment nt in SME SMEss, Lea Learni rning ng and Ski Skills lls Dev Develo elopme pment nt Agency,   http://www http://www.lsda.org.uk/files/PDF/1 .lsda.org.uk/files/PDF/1307R.pdf. 307R.pdf. Enterprises , Skills Task Force  Johnson, S. (1999).   Skills Issues for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, Research Paper 13, Middlesex University Business School, London.  Johnson, S. and Gubbins, A. (1992). ‘T ‘Training raining in small and medium-sized enterprises: lessons from North Yorkshire’, in K. Caley, E. Chell, F. Chittenden and C. Mason (eds), Small Enterprise Development: Policy and Practice in Action, Action, London: Paul Chapman.

56

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 17 NO 1, 2007 © 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

 

John Kitching

Keep, E. and Mayhew, K. (1999). ‘The assessment: knowledge, skills and competitiveness’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy,   15: 1, 1–15. Kitching, J. and Blackburn, R. (2002).  The Nature of Training and Motivation to Train, Train, DfES Research Report 30, Nottingham. Kitching, J. and Blackburn, R. (2003).   Measuring Training in Small Firms, Firms, London: Small Business Council. Kitson, M. and Wilkinson, F. (2003). ‘Labour mobility, training and labour force flexibility’, in A. Cosh and A. Hughes (eds),   Enterprise Challenged, Challenged, Cambridge: ESRC Centre for Business Research, Cambridge University. National Emp Employ loyer er Ski Skills lls Sur Survey vey 200 2004: 4: Mai Main n Rep Report ort,, Learni Lea rning ng and Ski Skills lls Cou Counci ncill (20 (2005) 05)..   National http://readingroom.lsc.gov http://readingroom.ls c.gov.uk/lsc/2005/re .uk/lsc/2005/research/commissioned/national search/commissioned/national-employers-skills-survey-main-report-2004.pdf. Leitch Review of Skills (2005).   Skills in the UK: the Long-term Challenge, Challenge, Interim Report, http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/leitch_review/ review_leitch_index.cfm. Marsick, V. and Watkins, K. (1987). ‘Approaches to studying learning in the workplace’, in V. Marsick (ed.),  Learning in the Workplace, Workplace, London: Croom Helm. Matl Ma tlay ay,, H. (2 (200 004) 4).. ‘C ‘Con onte temp mpor orar ary y tr trai aini ning ng in init itia iati tive vess in Br Brit itai ain: n: a sm smal alll bu busi sine ness ss perspective’, Journal perspective’,  Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,   11: 4, 504–513. Agenda , Final National Skills Task Force (2000a). Skills (2000a).  Skills for All: Proposals for a National Skills Agenda, Report of the National Skills Task Force, London. National Skills Task Force (2000b).  Tackling the Adult Skills Gap: Upskilling Adults and the Role of Workplace Learning, Learning, Third Report of the National Skills Task Force, London. Perren, L. and Grant, P. (2001). Management (2001).  Management and Leadership in UK SMEs: Witness Testimonies  from the World of Entrepreneurs and SME Managers Managers,, London: Council for Excellence in Management and Leadership. Rain Ra inbi bird rd,, H. H.,, Mu Munr nro, o, A. an and d Ho Holl lly, y, L. (2 (200 004) 4).. ‘T ‘The he em empl ploy oyme ment nt re rela lati tion onsh ship ip an and d workplace learning’, in H. Rainbird, A. Fuller and A. Munro (eds),  Workplace Learning in Context, Context, London: Routledge. Ram, M., Sanghera, B., Abbas, T. and Barlow, G. (2000). ‘Training and ethnic minority firms: the case of the independent restaurant sector’,   Education and Training,   42: 4/5, 334–341. Smallbone, D., Supri, S. and Baldock, R. (2000). ‘The implications of new technology for the skill and training needs of small- and medium-sized printing firms’,  Education and Training, 42: Training,  42: 4/5, 299–307. Small Firms Enterprise Development Initiative (2004).  Small Businesses: Skills Assessment 2004,, Sh 2004 Sheeffie ield ld:: Sm Smal alll Fi Firm rmss En Entter erpr pris isee De Deve velo lop pme ment nt Ini niti tiaati tiv ve,   http:// www.sfedi.co.uk/ourWork/ourWork.htm. Smith, A., Boocock, G., Loan-Clarke, J. and Whittaker, J. (2002). ‘IiP and SMEs: awareness,  benefits and barriers’, barriers’,   Personnel Review,   31: 1, 62–85. Vick ickers erstaf taff, f, S. (19 (1992) 92).. ‘Th ‘Thee tra traini ining ng nee needs ds of sma small ll firm firms’, s’,   Human Resource Management  Journal,  2: 3, 1–15. Westhead, P. (1998). ‘Factors associated with the provision of job-related formal training  by employers’,   Internat Internation ional al Jou Journa rnall of Entr Entrepr eprene eneuri urial al Beh Behavi aviour our and Res Resear earch, ch,   4: 3, 187–216. Westh esthead, ead, P. and Store Storey, y, D. (1997 (1997). ).   Training Provision and the Development of Small and  Medium-sized Enterprises Enterprises,, DfEE Research Report No. 26, London: DfEE/HMSO.

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 17 NO 1, 2007 © 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

57