Week 9: 26th June – 2nd July (Activity: 4.3)
In Unit 2 of this module, you were introduced to the idea that there is a shift from training to learning in HRD. This shift is related to the different understandings of learning, which were covered in Unit 2; specifically the development of theory from behaviourism, through cognitivism and constructivism, towards social cognitive theory. In the constructivist view, we make active sense of our worlds, we construct our own versions of ideas and we craft our own connections between them (Burr, 2015). This means that constructivist learners are active rather than passive, and take ownership of their own learning, rather than merely being recipients of the training specified and designed by others.
In this section, you will explore the idea that learners take ownership for their learning in a little more detail, and make connections with other developments and trends in organisational theory which accompany and reinforce this shift. Although some of these ideas are quite conceptual and abstract, they do have direct relevance for the practices of learning and talent development. In particular, they signal a move away from relying only on formal training-based approaches towards seeing training as just one component in a suite of different learning experiences.
The learning organisation revisited
You will recall from Unit 2 that one of the most influential ideas in organisational research in recent years has been that of the ‘learning organisation’. This concept is associated with the classic work of Argyris and Schön (1992) and Senge (1990), and has helped to elevate the issue of skills and learning into a matter of real strategic significance. Based on the principles of modern cybernetics and artificial intelligence (AI), the learning organisation is one that builds learning into its very fabric, rather than just seeing learning as what happens when employees get sent on training courses. In a learning organisation, it is part of everyone’s everyday practices and routines to:
- scan and try to anticipate change in the wider business environment, for which the organisation needs to prime and prepare itself
- develop an ability to question, challenge and change the organisation’s normal way of doing things
- allow the organisational strategy and key priorities to emerge from within practice, not just be defined from the top.
Single- and double-loop learning
To become a learning organisation, an organisation needs to move away from what is known as single-loop learning towards developing the capacity for double-loop learning (see Figure 4.4).
Single-loop learning can be compared with a thermostat that senses when it is too hot or too cold and turns the heat on or off accordingly. The thermostat is able to perform this task because it can receive information (the temperature of the room) and therefore take corrective action based on pre-defined scripts and routines. If the thermostat could question itself about whether it should be set at a certain temperature, what the potential implications of this temperature might be, and whether this temperature is always correct under all circumstances, it would then be capable not only of detecting error but also of questioning its underlying policies and principles of operation. This more fundamental kind of questioning is seen as double-loop learning, and as a core element of a ‘learning organisation’. Double-loop learning involves doing more than just solving problems as they arise. It means developing the culture and capability to question why problems arise, and what it is about the taken-for-granted norms of the organisation that have allowed them to arise. Organisational members are encouraged to reflect not just on what has gone wrong, but also on why it has gone wrong. Double-loop learning is therefore closely aligned with business practices such as total quality management (TQM) and other initiatives designed to foster an attitude of continuous improvement.
From skills to skilfulness
Related to this idea of the learning organisation, there has been increased emphasis within HRD strategy on the need to be more agile and responsive in the face of the rapidly changing environment of work and organisations, especially with the advent of new technologies. Specific skills can easily become out of date, sometimes becoming obsolete even by the time a formal training programme has been defined, approved and implemented. This has led many learning experts to call for a shift ‘from skills to skilfulness’ (Bigelow, 1995).
Such a shift in emphasis represents a change in our understandings of the agency or responsibility for learning, too. Scholars and practitioners are increasingly focusing on the need for learners to develop a sense of ownership of their own learning objectives, methods and outcomes rather than relying on these being assessed, defined or mandated by their employer. One of the most crucial aspects of an individual employee’s skilfulness (rather than skills) is a proactive attitude and a willingness to take charge of at least some elements of their own development. This mirrors developments in other aspects of organisational strategy, such as leadership and change management approaches, with their increasing emphasis on facilitating and enabling rather than directing and mandating.
One of the motivations for these developments is a heightened focus on the ethics of organisational and institutional life, especially in the wake of recent corporate scandals – a topic you will spend more time on in Unit 5. As Vince (2011, p. 344) puts it, instructional designers now think that ‘passive approaches to learning reinforce passive approaches to managing’. So, if we want our leaders, managers and other employees to question wrong-doing, we need to encourage such questioning in the development programmes we design for them, including enabling them to take responsibility for their own learning by questioning whether a particular programme is right for them.
A broader scope of learning
All these developments and contextual factors are contributing to a move away from the assumption that formal, usually classroom-based training solutions are the best approach to learning and talent development, and towards exploring alternative approaches that both enable and rely on learners making their own connections between theory and practice, and some of their own decisions about their development priorities. The shift from training to learning – from skills to skilfulness – has quite profound implications for the scope of HRD work in this area. It means, for instance, that the TNA is only one tool in a broader suite of methods for articulating learning needs and designing and facilitating learning interventions (see Figure 4.5). Many educational theorists have started using the idea of a ‘learning needs analysis’ (LNA) to encompass this broader range. The notion of a LNA will be the focus of the next activity.
