Training in the Workplace: Critical Perspectives on Learning at Work

Citation

Gibb, S. (2002), "Training in the Workplace: Critical Perspectives on Learning at Work", Employee Relations, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 101-112. https://doi.org/10.1108/er.2002.24.1.101.2

Learning in the workplace is a focus of much analysis. It seems that not a day can pass without a new initiative, a new review or a new exhortation on learning and training. The performance and innovation unit in the Cabinet Office, for example, is currently working on an analysis of workforce development to help shape policy and practice. In this flux of inquiry and pursuit of the right recipe for improving training policy and practice Rainbird’s book of edited pieces is timely. Many texts about learning at work and employee development share a number of problems. These are: trying to fit in far too many topics, inevitably covered them in a thin way, and the use of conceptual frameworks (systems theory, paradigms of organisational analysis, or just the CIPD standards) that do not provide a good enough glue to hold together all the concepts and the key arguments.

While a gap exists in the literature on training and development, I was instantly suspicious about this being a collection of “critical perspectives”; for critical is often code for thinly veiled anti management exercises. While the framework adopted here moves at points towards this, it by and large avoids it; rather there are five challenges Rainbird identifies for training in the workplace that the contributors discuss and analyse in various ways. First is to “deconstruct the consensus” that training and skills should be made responsive to employers’ needs for increased productivity and flexibility. Rather, it is argued here that defining training needs in terms of responsiveness to employers’ demands is done at the expense of concerns about equity and equality. This is not because of a link between such a strategy and performance, but reflects the balance of power between capital and labour. It further goes on to argue that there needs to be more regulation and trade union involvement.

The second challenge is to explore “what happens”, in particular, to build up empirical insights into training and development, rather than being prescriptive. Key areas for exploration include evaluating whether structures and strategies reflect people as important asset and the realities of performance management. The third challenge is to take up a critical analysis of assumptions about modernisation, and the changing nature of work. This includes studies of the change from Taylorist organisation to more autonomous team working and the behaviour of multinationals in the global economy and how these impact on training.

The fourth challenge is to analyse the workplace as a site of conflict between labour and management. This provides the context, and presents a different perspective to human capital theory and HRM theories in the broader context of reward, effort and control systems and contests. The final challenge is to recognise the complexity of training. Here it is argued that work is a site of socialisation, where learning roles in communities of practice or formal training programmes include many “non traditional” learners who face problems in learning for work despite the best intentions and plans to accommodate them. This highlights how there are clearly some people with expectations of training and opportunities, while others have no such expectations and opportunities.

Rainbird’s “critical perspectives”, the contributions from various authors, are then elaborations upon questioning the belief that there are mutual interests in investing in training for employers and employees. They argue how there are disincentives to training, that training has a weak internal role in organisations, and it is not strategic. The unitarist assumption is argued to be not borne out in practice, so alternative readings of learning, the role of unions and so on, are then to be highlighted. These aspects of the text reflect a perspective that is certainly under‐developed in the employee development context. However, the most useful contributions are those that deal more directly with learning; discussing adult learning in general and the learning of engineers in particular, or reviewing the links between performance management and training.

As a bounded and focussed industrial relations form of perspective on learning at work the text reflects more of the past than the present or the future. However, there are some gaps. In particular, there is a need to evaluate the implications for unions, and for employees more generally. In addition, there is little analysis of the different strategies for pursuing performance improvements through learning, with diverse systems based on systematic training, competency, self development and so on; one chapter alone relates to these kinds of concerns. The analysis of markets is also limited to just an ideological critique, without adequate consideration regarding the issues with using external resources, consultants, FE/HE and private training providers. The central initiative of Investors in People (IiP) is not discussed, which has to be a big absence in any UK analysis. And the use of information and communication technologies to support learning at work is neglected. This is also true for a treatment of the concepts and practices of organisational learning and knowledge management.

The emphasis on an industrial relations perspective is not the problem, but what is reviewed and critiqued from that perspective is. If the problem for other texts is their weak frameworks and inclusion of too much in a superficial way, the issue is here a strong perspective but a limited coverage. But it certainly adds something useful to the continuing debate about learning at work. The flux of inquiry into policy and practice for the future needs such critical perspectives. The diet of statistics and barely disguised exhortations which is the staple fare in this field is a mix of the too dry and the too rich to swallow for most people; these well written and well grounded in case study analysis pieces may not make up all the deficiencies that exist, but they are a good and welcome addition.