Organisational　survival today depends on adopting a learning organisation　or knowledge based approach to employee development

朱蕾

Although, many organisations has adopted the form of the learning organization or strengthen knowledge based approach to employee development in order to make survival in dynamic and turbulent environment. There are still some debates around the definition of the learning organisation since it was first introduced in 1980s.

This essay will be divided into three parts. Firstly, with the definition HRM and its link to the learning organisation concept. Secondly, changing role of manager. In the end, the barriers of the learning organisation.

HRM AND LEARNING ORGANISATION

As a control mechanism, HRM has two dimensions: soft-hard and loose-tight. Guest (1989:48) argued that the soft dimension emphasised human resources with its connotation and utilisation of individual talents, where the hard dimension stressed management strategy integration with business . Thus, for managing skilled workers, the softer HRM is used, otherwise the harder one used. The latter dimension depends on whether the definition is general or precise ( ibid:48). With respect to the loose-tight continuum, the loose dimension suggests the HRM have has distinct from personnel management. Keep (1989:110) argued that this covered the adoption by companies of almost relatively systemic approach to flexibility, deployment and utilisation of labour. The tight dimension, Keep described that it emphasised the centrality to competitive advantage of investment in the training and development (ibid:110). Consequently, the primary aim of the HRM is to secure employees commitment to organisations success.

Taylorism has some similarities with the hard HRM. Rose (1998:28) described that scientific management was a collection of work-design and control techniques. Taylor examined the whole production process to find out the disadvantages and then redesign of tasks and remove others on the grounds of efficiency. The theory of job design demands managers to divide tasks into several steps and deploy to the only one right worker. Workers should obey the managers instructions. The effects are good or not are determined by the management. It is clear that HRM is a unilateral job regulation. Both of them are unitarist perspective as they claim employers and employees have the same interests and objectives and no conflicts. For example, the teamwork is one of the approaches.

Employees are the important resource for the organisation survival. According to the human capital theory, which Becker (1975, cited by Bain 1986:271) described that employees were acted as assets that contribute to the value creating capacity of the organisation, the human capitals economy value derived from skills and knowledge which were regarded as the ultimate source of industrials competition advantage resource. Chapman ( 1993:12) described that the accumulation of human capital was a dynamic process.

The inadequacies of training and development in HRM are two fundamentally issues for the reform of institutional framework which boosting the development of LO ( Learning Organisation). Training and development is intangible and a long term benefit. Keep (1989:177) described that training and development were forms of activity aimed at the improvement of the human capital with organisations. Employee development can improve the organisation performance thought the skilful provision and learning experiences ( Harrison, 1997; cited by Stewart 1999:17). Torrington et al (1998:403) argued that employee development was about implementing business strategy. And, the importance of employee development by concept of human resource management made organisations recognise the importance of training and development ( ibid:403).

Training also has being driven by organisations business strategy to a position in main resource of competitive advantage ( Ashston and Festead,2001; cited by Storey 2001:165). It is a process which designed by managers to modify knowledge and skills through learning experiences in order to achieve effective performance inside organisations or organisation needs in the future ( MSC, 1981; cited by Stewart 1999:16). Bennet et al (1998; cited by Carey 2000:18) described that the structure of training which acted as a central element of business strategy reflected organisations commitment to employees long term development. Guest(1987; cited by Carey 2000:18) described that training function was playing an important socialisation role to reinforce company culture through specific projects in order to promote the HRM goals on flexibility, quality and strategic integration. The training policies can be influenced by political , social ,economic and demographic conditions, furthermore they can be developed by educational, vocational and financial market system ( ibid:18).

However, according to human capital theory, employeesmarketable skills and knowledge which can be improved from training and development also increased the risk of skilled employees leaving organisation. Hence, employers fear of training and staff development rather than organisation benefits which come out from them. Thus, the employers would rather turn to recruit trained workers or temporary ‘a(chǎn)gency staffs, even though during the shortage of skilled employees. Finegold and Soskice( 1988) described that the relatively low pay economy had left a low skills equilibrium. However, With globalisation increasing , intensification of competition pressure had forced market to be more multinational. And , the competition also has resulted in the international division of labour, where region specialise according to the source of competitive advantage ( Nolan and Donnell 1991). The intensification of international competition, especially the price has forced employers to changed their industrial strategies in order to match the market-leading production required. Legge(1995:77) distinguished that both the ‘a(chǎn)sset management and ‘high-value strategies require investment in human and technology capacity. The ‘hard model HRM practices are being used to ensure effective and flexibility control , at same time the ‘soft practices are being used to ensure quality customer responsiveness (ibid:77). Organisations no longer merely follow the price competition, furthermore, they consider the skills and knowledge as a source of competitive advantage (Keep and Rainbird 2000:173). The general trend for ‘higher-quality, personalised service requires organisations to learn new things (ibid:174). Pedler et al. argued that the Learning Organisation was a response to poor organisational performance (Torrington et al 1998:284).

The learning organisation is different to traditional organisations in following fields such as learning approach to strategy, participative policy making and formative accounting and control. Dixon ( 1994; cited by Beardwell and Holden 2001:337) argued that the learning organisation could be acted as the intentional use of learning process at the individual or group level to continuously transform the organisation into a direction which its stakeholders feel satisfying. The learning organisation is strategic HRM which fit both ‘soft and ‘hard positions (Legge 2004:20). Decision making is no longer possessed only by managers, but also be shared with workers (Torrington et al 1998:288). The different opinions and values will become productive tensions. Widely available technology is just used to inform and stimulate employees but to control, reward or punish. Formative accounting and control is used to provide information such as budget for the internal customer. All in the organisations have both roles of customers and suppliers who act in a corporate way not competitive way. Thus the money is not the only way to reward and becomes flexible. The LO allows flexible internal boundaries for personal growth and experimentation by the new ways of project groups and transient structures, and individual encouragement to eliminate ‘barriers between units and encourage new ideas of change (ibid: 289). The LO seeks the long-term competitive advantage via the utilisation of skills and knowledge of employees which be collected by the learning organisation ( Keep and Rainbird 2000:174). Marquardt and Reynolds (1994, cited by Legge 2004:22) argued that a learning organisation should embrace uncertainty and change with systemic view; it should has a shared organisation-wide vision where creates new knowledge as part of competitive strategy; it has a culture of high trust which encouraged empowerment at all levels; it links employees and organisations development together ; managers in learning organisation acted as mentors; leaders in organisation encouraged risk-taking and experimentation. Salaman(2001, cited by Legge 2004:22) also described that learning organisation was a sanitised version of discourse of enterprise which replaced an overtly commercial, market focus with the gentler psychological developmental language of learning.

For instance, a privatised water company – Angilian Water ( AW) which delivering and removing waste water. The senior managers realized that the organisations survival must depends on a new management culture which should be more flexible and valuable for continuing change. The company encouraged the employees creativity , innovation and challenge to lead in change. Along with the organisation improvement, employees get involved in the area of technological development. The two components to transform is the Transformation Journey which was aimed at changing mindsets and creating self-awareness to promote effectiveness of team working and corporation and the University of Water which is to create and share better knowledge of customer service and to enhance commercial success. After the Journey, a survey told , 88 percent of respondents thought AW Benefited and 99 percent of the participators had a good learning experience. The university made significant resources to promote information exchange and communication.

THE CHANGING ROLE OF MANAGER

The role of manager which follows the changing of economic environment factors of organisation is important for achieving goals of organisation. Woodall and Winstanley (1998:70) distinguished that three types of managerial roles were affected at liner, middle and small private business level managers.

Liner manager level which takes managerial role at plant floor in responsibilities such as recruitment, appraisal, worker motivation has changed to be greater ( ibid:72). Moreover, more and more middle level managers has taken greater responsibilities for wider duties range. Their jobs become more generalist for wider tasks; be wider mixture worker structure acquire greater control power; information technology makes performance appraisal more visible and accountable ( ibid:72). Middle level managers has dropped in more strategic role requiring a growing awareness in other levels of organisation, and this has forced middle level managers to require more occupational skills and knowledge (ibid:72). For private small business managers, with state economic policies and environment changing such as state own corporations separation or bankrupt like MG-ROVER corporation. More and more ex-state skilled workers, professionals and women whom hitting the ‘glass ceiling in career opportunities moved into self-employment small business, this has changed small business level managerial role to be more professional, skilful and multi-gender from simple experienced and gender traditional managerial role (ibid:73).

The employee-management relationship also changed as well with the dynamic environment changing. Managers are changing to learn how to co-ordinate and advance the talents and skills of specialised workers ( Hyman,1996; cited by Towers 1996:317). Key employees need access to the information and physical resources in order to make speedy and effective solutions to problems which surfacing in spheres of activity ( ibid:317). Hence, a ‘high-trust relationship will replace the traditional ‘leader-follower relationship inside organisations. It is a part of agreed equation which managers are willing to share information resource with subordinates in order to delegate work and share responsibility or rewards on the basis of knowledge and contribution rather than through titular status ( ibid:317). Steward (1994; ibid: 317) argued that a ‘ empowered organisation was applied these principles. This type participative management should be adopted as part of organisation philosophy. In traditional organisation, managers fear of sharing valuable information resources with colleagues in order to not dilute responsibility or separate management authority( ibid:318). Keep (1989:123) argued that the greater employee self –reliance could be threatened to an under-educated and vulnerable manager team. Training can help managers overcome this fear. In a learning organisation, managers need to learn how to disclose and share knowledge and information through consultation channel with workers, and provide opportunities for individual or group workers to use their talents.

Senge( 1996:216) described that the role of managers in learning organisation had changed from traditional ‘decision maker to designer, teacher and steward. Torrington et al ( 2002:408) argued that employers should consider the new knowledge and skills in order to achieving effectively performance of organisations. Firstly, while acts as a designer, Senge(1996:217) argued that the first task of managers was to design the management purposes or values by realistic workers and organisation development or survival environment. For instance, the planner who changed their basic task as foster learning rather than devising plans has made NOKIA to be the strongest. Secondly, Max de Pree (1989:9) argued that the important responsibility for managers who acted as teacher was to define reality of organisations. Managers should help and regain insightful views of reality ( Senge 1996:217). It is developed further by virtue of explict attention to workers mental models and influence of system perspective in LO( ibid:217). Moreover, Senge ( ibid:219) described that acting as steward was the subtlest role of managers. Stewardship for workers and organisations purposes build up two level of this type managerial role. Managers efforts should make more productivity in order to achieving higher organisational success and personal satisfaction than traditional organisations ( ibid:222).

THE BARRIERS OF LEARNING ORGANISATION

The learning organisation also faces barriers in its development . The mainly strength of the LO is the systemic learning, however, Keep and Rainbird ( 2000:175) argued that learning increasingly focused on responsibility for individual employee which was less likely to benefit the employers as unreliable information from the individual and the demands of wider economy of current and future employers. It is important to build learning and reflection into the routines or culture of management activities. However, Keep and Rainbird (ibid:176) argued that training in UK was regarded as marginal activity which was not an activity integral to the process of production. Thus, although the final stage of the learning organisation development-transfiguration in UK is perfect, the organisation still faces the harsh realities, Keep and Rainbird (ibid:176) argued that which managers would not entitle to do inside the industries include people came first and the organisation was driven by a concern for societys general welfare and betterment; The organisation should emphasised on allowing individual worker development to what needs rather than what be appropriated.

Keep and Rainbird (ibid:175) argues that the central problem inside the learning organisation was to change single-loop learning into double or triple-loop learning in order to manage the collectivisation of individual learning through cultural norms and new organisation structure forms. The assumption of the learning organisations literature was argued by Keep( ibid:175) that managers in the learning organisation would have capability to master these basic technologies and processes. However, it is opposite to the assumption for the reason that managers are not either capable or interested in mastering during management process. For instance, the south west train company( SWT) , the management offered an enhanced redundancy to the drivers to save long-term costs. However, after the drivers left, management recognized that the staffs were not sufficient to train services. The company had to cancel numerous trains which resulted one million pounds fine according to franchise agreement. In order to avoid the same incident happening again, SWT had to offer 6,000 pounds bonuses to attract drivers to work more.

There are two issues concerning with learning. Firstly work organisation and job design and secondly power. Dench et al ( 1998: 184) argued that employers wanted workers just get on with jobs. The elements of work are designed and controlled by managers. Secondly, learning is a political process which leads to the disorganisation of existing patterns of influence and control ( Keep and Rainbird 2000:184). And, result in making managers lose power and hierarchies changed. The traditional roles of the managers such as policemen and women, controllers changed to facilitator, resource controller under the new model of management.

Keep and Rainbird (ibid:178) argued that organisations aimed more for enhanced organisational learning; Managerial decisions making such as leadership style, development systems, can not exceed the prevailing HRM norms when they attempt to towards higher levels of organisational learning (ibid:178). Moreover, managers think learning is not necessary for most time when they are not managing and know how to manage unless in terms of underemployment and under-usage of existing qualifications. The structures of work organisation and job design in the UK determine that British organisations prefer workers work more rather than smarter. The result which is a barrier for the LO concept is workers have no enough time and energy to learn. The outside competition trend is another factor. The competitive advantage in the service sector is low price of simple goods and services with the high skills, employees should not be creativity and discretion, such as TESCO supermarket group. Furthermore, Keep and Rainbird (ibid:185) described that learning organisation was a long term venture which organisations needed to maintain commitment to invest with a strategy for several years. However, few organisations processed in UK. Keep and Rainbird (ibid:184) argued that the LO tended to be unitary which emphasised on employers and workers mutual interest in learning, and ignored the fundamental conflict in the employment relationship . For instance, Marx recognised the resistance from workers due to tacit skills of the workforce. While management attempts to tap into the tacit skills through some HRM approach such as quality circles, workers are not willing to share. A KPMG survey of 100 leading businesses shows that the barrier is partly because no reward for the knowledge sharing. This is the problem between employees and management commitment which is contributed by employees to organisation in turn without any reciprocity.

In conclusion, the LO is an attractive organisational development literature. The usage of this concept is a strategic aim to adapt the changeable external economic environment and find out their own competition advantages. The LO cares about the needs from internal. Inside the LO, workers are encouraged by the mechanism system to learn and improve. Employers and employees depend on each other to create the success of the organisation. Hence, management is no more a controller in turn to be a information servant. The boundaries between employers and employees is not clear so as to reduce competition between them and enhance the corporation. In particular, the LO concerns much about the individual development which is ahead to the organisation. However, all these assumptions are too ideal. Actually, learning for managers is another way to manage workers well rather as a opportunity which supported employees to enhance managers power. It is hard for employers to share same benefits and management resources with employees. Consequently, the capability of the managers to master the learning is variable which will bring the failure of the LO.

Bibliography：

[1]Ashton, D. & Felstead, A. (2001) From Training to Lifelong Learning: the Birth of the Knowledge Society. In: Storey, J.ed. Human Resource Management.

[2]Becker, G.S. (1975) Human Capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis. National Bureau of Economic Research. New York.

[3]Beardwell, I & Holden, L. (2001) Human Resource Management, A contemporary approach. 3rd Ed. Prentice Hall. London

[4]Carey, S. (2000) The organization of the training function in large firms. In: Rainbird. H.ed. Training in the Workplace: Critical perspectives on learning at work. Macmillan, Basingstoke.

[5]Chapman, P. (1993) The economics of training. Harvester. Wheatsheaf.

[6]Dench,S. Perryman,S. and Giles,L. (1998) Employers perceptions of key skills. In: IES Report 349, IES, susses.

[7]Finegold, D. and Soskice, D.(1988) The failure of training in Britain : analysis and prescription , Oxford .

[8]Guest, D.(1989), ‘Personnel and HRM: can you tell the difference?. Personnel Management, January.

Harrison, R. (2002) Learning & Development. 3rd Edition. London. CIPD.

[9]Honey, P. (1998) ‘The debate stats here. People Management. Vol.4, No.19. 1 October.

[11]Keep, E. (1989) A Training Scandal? In : Sisson, K. ed. Personnel Management in Britain. Blackwell. Oxford.

[12]Keep, E and Rainbird, H. (2000) Towards the learning Organisation? In:

[13]Rose, M.(1998), Industrial Behaviour. 2nd Edition. Penguin, Harmondsworth.

[14]Bach, S. & Sisson, K. des. Personnel Management A Comprehensive Guide to Theory and Practice. 3rd Blackwell. Oxford

[15]M.de Pree, Leadership is an Art (New York: Doubleday, 1989)

[16]Pedler, M., Boydell, T. and Burgoyne, J. (1988) Learning Company Project Report, Sheffield: Manpower Services Commission

[17]Pedler, M. Boydell, T. & Burgoyne, J. (1996) The Learning Company. 2nd ed McGraw Hill. Maidenhead

[18]Scarborough, H. & Elias, J. (2002) Evaluating Human Capital. Research report. CIPD

[19]Senge, P.M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation. Century Business. London

[20]Senge, P. (1996) The leaders new work building learning organizations. In: Starkey K.ed. How organizations learn. Thompson. London

[21]Senker, P. (2002) Education and training for small and medium-sized enterprises. In: Evans, K. Hodgkinson, P.Unwin, L.ed. Working to learning - Transforming learning in the Workplace, Kogan. London

[22]Sisson, K. & Storey, J. (ed.) (2000) The Realities of Human Resource Management: Managing the Employment relationship. OU Press.

[23]Stewart, J. (1999) Employee Development Practice. Pitman. London

[24]Torrington, D. and Hall, L. (2002), Human Resource Management, 5thedition, Prentice Hall, London

[25]Legge, K. (1995), Human Resource Management: Rhetorics and Realities, London: MacMillan.

[26]Hyman, J.(1996), ‘Training and Developmet: the employers responsibility? in Tower, B.(ed)( 1996) , The Handbook of Human Resource Management, 2th edition, Blackwell, Oxford .

[27]Woodall, J. & Winstanley, J. (1998) Understanding managerial work roles and competencies. In: Management Development Strategy and Practice. Blackwell. Oxford.