SWTng 4: Interactive Workplace Learning Article

This next article (number 4) by Armson and Whitely (2010) reports grounded theory research on "complex integrative learning", titled "Employees' and managers' accounts of interactive workplace learning" and published in the Journal of Workplace Learning. The author-supplied keywords are workplace learning, learning methods, employees, and managers. It includes 73 references and 4 appendices. Here's the abstract:

"Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to investigate employees' and managers' accounts of interactive learning and what might encourage or inhibit emergent learning.  
Design/methodology/approach - The approach taken was a constructivist/social constructivist ontology, interpretive epistemology and qualitative methodology, using grounded theory method. Data collection included semi-structured interview, "complete this sentence" and "scenarios" from 51 respondents: 22 managers and 29 employees in four private sector organisations. As respondents' theories emerged, these informed the next round of data collection, this process named "theoretical sampling". Managers and employees were asked about perceptions of their own role and the others' roles in learning.  
Findings - Reciprocity and participative learning involving managers and employees emerged. There was dynamism to the data and evidence of both Billett's notion of affordances and Stacey's patterns of local interactions. Employees encouraged learning through peer discussions, and motivation/personal initiative. Managers encouraged learning through have a go coaching, formal training opportunities and working with company structure and resources. The data support the idea of complex and integrated learning.
Practical implications - The data informed both managers and employees in such a way as to highlight the dynamic and complex interactions around learning processes. One practical implication is employee and manager training in emergence and complexity as learning environments. Ideas of complex responses and patterns of local interaction resonated with the data more than particular typologies of learning.
Originality/value - This paper captures insights, especially from employees, into the dialogue and dynamism of their learning opportunities, whilst supporting existing theories. The need for managers to "learn" employees' local interaction patterns emerged as a future research agenda, alongside the need to penetrate the social space of employee learning more deeply."

 Let's define some terms first, starting with emergent learning. The authors state, "We conceptualized the idea of emergent learning as the capacity to act such that emergence, spontaneity and serendipity might occur." I'm still not sure what emergent learning is, but perhaps a definition from evolution will shed some light: "the appearance of new properties or species in the course of development or evolution." (retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/emergence). Thus, if the connection holds, this is merely the appearance of new ideas or concepts in the course of development or use. Spontaneity, of course, means it happens on the spur of the moment. Serendipity is more than just good fortune or luck; it is also "an aptitude for making desirable discoveries by accident." (retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/serendipity) To me, it appears this means that the learning objective is simply to learn; there is no concrete criterion that is being measured, just an increase in knowledge (perhaps) as well as comprehension. This seems to focus more on the upper levels of Bloom's (1956) Taxonomy of Cognitive Learning and probably on the upper levels of the psychomotor and affective domains as well. Learning becomes the means to its own end. The authors contrast it with "outcomes-based learning" which they say "may result in 'routine-oriented' learning where learning is repetitive and habituated and not amenable to organisational unlearning." (p. 411) Looking at the constructivist/social constructivist ontology, this means they see the learner as an agent of their own learning (self-motivated) and learning as a process and product of social interaction (peer-motivated).

The authors refer to evidence of two theories: Billet's (2004) notion of affordances and Stacey's (2005) patterns of local interactions. Affordances are defined by Billet as the "kinds of activities and interactions workplaces afford learners, on one hand, and how individuals elect to participate in workplace interactions and activities on the other." (Billett, 2004, p. 312) In Stacey's (2005) concept of local, self-organizing patterns of interactions as well as the notion of complex responses, formal and informal, predictable and unpredictable patterns of interaction may emerge at the same time, forming a paradox.

 Communication and management coaching were identified as positive contributors to emergent learning while company structure and lack of resources were identified as constraints. Peer discussions and individual motivation and initiatives were identified by employees as encouragers. Employees also identified management style and not being informed of objectives, including the "big picture," as inhibitors. Managers saw coaching, working with company structure and resources, and offering training programs as encouragers to emergent learning. Both employees and managers saw resistance to change and certain organizational elements of company structure and resources and especially managers' time (hoarding?) as inhibitors to emergent learning.

The employees saw themselves as active agents in the learning process and reflected this in their spoken desire for more interaction with their peers (and with management). While there was no report of overt conflict between the two groups, the general feeling one gets from reading the report reflects some of Seddon's (2000) position against a "command and control" view of management as opposed to a systems' view. However, if the managers can't manage because the employees are in charge, then what? How does learning occur in that scenario? Not very well, I think. The report indicates the managers in this case allowed the employees to experiment, within reason and after approval. Finally, the authors conclude that "the workplace is rich in learning activities and, within the limits of the research design, we could detect self-organising patterns of local interaction and the data strongly supported the notion of complex responses." (Armson and Whitely, 2010, p. 422)

REFERENCES

Armson, G. and Whiteley, A. (2010). Employees' and managers' accounts of interactive workplace learning.  Journal of Workplace Learning, 22(7), pp. 409-427. DOI: 10.1108/13665621011071091

Billet, S. (2004). Workplaces as learning environments. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(6), pp. 312-324.

Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Book 1, Cognitive domain. New Yourk: Longman.

Seddon, J. (2000). The case against ISO 9000. Dublin: Oak Tree Press.

Stacey, R. (Ed.) (2005). Experiencing emergence in organizations. London: Routledge.