Workplace Learning and Its Impact on Employee Performance

Introduction

Over the years, studies have demonstrated an inextricable relationship between workplace learning and employee performance time and again, yet many companies may not be achieving the full benefit of this aspect of employee development because they are either unaware of the benefits or fail to allocate sufficient resources to the enterprise. Indeed, in an increasingly globalized and competitive marketplace, organizations that fail to take advantage of workplace learning do so at their peril. In order to identify opportunities for improving the administration of workplace learning and how it can be used to improve employee performance, this paper provides a review of the relevant peer-reviewed and scholarly literature, followed by a summary of the research and salient findings in the conclusion.

The Case for Workplace Learning

The current global economic environment has driven home the need for identifying better ways of improving employee performance, and many organizational and governmental leaders are turning to workplace learning as a solution. In this regard, Rainbird, Fuller, and Munro (2004) emphasize that "policy-makers preoccupied with finding ways of strengthening the relationship between education systems and the economy are increasingly focusing on workplace learning as a way of improving organizational performance and, at the aggregate level, national economic success" (p. 1). The need for leaner organizations extends to both the public and private sectors. For example, Gunasekara (2003) reports that "organizations in public and private sectors are increasingly aware of the need to adapt faster than their competitors in order to cope successfully with the rapidly changing and highly competitive environment of the global economy" (p. 37).

From a purely pragmatic perspective, helping people become more effective in the workplace simply makes good business sense. Rainbird and her associates add that "from a human capital perspective, the skills and qualifications of the workforce are believed to be central to productivity. Investing in their development is assumed to result in economic dividends. The idea of investing in human beings as a form of capital has fueled a very powerful discourse of workplace learning" (p. 1). A useful definition of workplace learning provided by Gunasekara indicates that it "involves the process of reasoned learning towards desirable outcomes for the individual and the organization. These outcomes should foster the sustained development of both the individual and the organization, within the present and future context of organizational goals and individual career development" (2003, p. 37).

This definition is congruent with the observation made by Beckett and Hager (2001) that "learning is bound up with what it is to be a whole person, because experience, knowledge and skills already possessed range over all of a person's life, not just that part of it in paid employment. Yet people bring to work their entire experiential selves, and it would be odd to shape workplace learning only around the formal, or propositional, knowledge that the workplace required" (p. 6).

Although the information age has witnessed the introduction of distance learning programs for adult education, the workplace remains one of the most important venues for learning today. Evans, Hodkinson, and Unwin (2002) emphasize that "for most people the workplace is the site of tertiary socialization, after the family and the education system. It is here that workers learn to modify their performance and to understand their roles, including their gender roles, in the structures and interactions of the organization" (p. 7). In spite of its importance to the individual employee and the organization alike, workplace learning remains understudied and poorly understood by many organizational leaders, and this lack of understanding has contributed to inefficiencies across the entire spectrum of operations (Evans et al., 2002).

Types and Models of Workplace Learning

Although all organizations are unique, two general types of workplace learning typically encountered today are described by Gerber and Lankshear (2000). These can be understood through three levels of responsiveness:

Single-loop, double-loop, and triple-loop learning each represent progressively more sophisticated responses to organizational challenges. In passive or correcting forms, these manifest as idiosyncratic adaptation, adaptation to environment, and problem-solving, respectively. In active or generative forms, they produce new routines, new norms, and new values.

In order to become more effective at the provision of workplace learning, organizations may need to reformulate their corporate culture to encourage employees to become more knowledgeable about their jobs and to help identify training opportunities that can facilitate their accomplishment. These types of workplace learning suggest that in order for organizations to become proactive problem-solvers rather than reactive, an active and generative approach to workplace learning is required. Gerber and Lankshear identify three levels of responsiveness as follows:

1. Idiosyncratic adaptation, or the correction of action in relation to fixed plans, standards, norms, values, and instructions. Here, negative feedback allows for incremental steps in learning that lead to minor changes, resulting in a mechanical and self-correcting system that searches for increased efficiency.

2. Adaptation to environment, which represents the results of confrontation between existing ideas, rules, and plans for action and observations in the environment. Here, old knowledge is abandoned and new knowledge is accepted to perform new patterns of action and behavior, with the aim of increased effectiveness in response to a given work environment.

3. Learning through problem-solving, which focuses on the process of learning how to adapt — that is, improving effectiveness and efficiency under new circumstances (Gerber & Lankshear, 2000, p. 77).

Taken together, each of these approaches has something to offer organizations in search of better ways to provide employees with workplace learning opportunities. According to Gerber and Lankshear (2000), "these three forms of learning can be transformed into generative forms when the learning shapes the work environment and affects it, i.e., it focuses on generating new knowledge as an active process, thus developing new routines, norms or values depending on which form of learning is being considered" (p. 77).

These three forms of workplace learning are typically manifested in mentoring and coaching programs, project-based management, and competency structures. Beckett and Hager (2001) identify the following common examples:

1. Mentoring and coaching programs, which are most effective when they engage the sociocultural experiences of the participants. There is a personal investment in fitting in quickly; this is integrative and growth-conducive.

2. Project-based management, which focuses learning in outcome-driven ways where there is an urgent requirement to achieve outcomes before the close of the project. This drives reliance on immediate action simultaneously with an integrative purpose.

3. Competency structures for professionals, which are most effective when breadth of judgment is recognized as a vital component of performance indicators. Such judgment is best understood as an integrative experience, because in the midst of active decision-making, practitioners bring a wide range of relevant considerations to bear, focused on the most appropriate response.

Conclusion

The research showed that workplace learning is an extension of the lifelong learning that is an essential element in becoming a more productive and informed employee. The research also showed that it is important to tie workplace learning initiatives with specific organizational goals in order to obtain the most value from training investment. In this regard, a competency-based approach to the provision of workplace learning was shown to be an effective framework for organizations of all types.

Finally, while the argument can be made that more education will result in more efficient and effective workers, resources are by definition scarce, and organizations must target their most pressing needs at a given point in time in order to remain competitive. Some managers may fear that by providing workers with more workplace learning, those employees will become more valuable and seek better employment opportunities elsewhere. This is why it is important to ensure that workplace learning is tied to performance management initiatives that reward employees for their learning and that recognize when someone needs to be given additional responsibilities commensurate with their newfound abilities.

References

Beckett, D. & Hager, P. (2001). Life, work, and learning: Practice and postmodernity. London: Routledge.

Cooper, L. O. (1997). Listening competency in the workplace: A model for training. Business Communication Quarterly, 60(4), 75–76.

Evans, K., Hodkinson, P. & Unwin, L. (2002). Working to learn: Transforming learning in the workplace. London: Kogan Page.

Fischer, G. (2000). Lifelong learning — more than training. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 265.

Gerber, R. & Lankshear, C. (2000). Training for a smart workforce. London: Routledge.

Gunasekara, C. (2003). Project-based workplace learning: A case study. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 68(1), 37–38.

Rainbird, H., Fuller, A. & Munro, A. (2004). Workplace learning in context. New York: Routledge.

Rothwell, W. & Wellins, R. (2004, May). Mapping your future: Putting new competencies to work for you. T&D, 58(5), 94–95.

Turner, D. & Crawford, M. (1998). Change power: Capabilities that drive corporate renewal. Warriewood, NSW: Business & Professional Publishing.