Content uploaded by Eugene Sadler-Smith
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Eugene Sadler-Smith on May 11, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Deakin Research Online
Deakin University’s institutional research repository
DDeakin Research Online
Research Online
This is the authors’ final peer reviewed version of the item published as:
Smith, Peter, Sadler-Smith, Eugene, Robertson, Ian and Wakefield, Lyn 2007,
Leadership and learning: facilitating self-directed learning in enterprises, Journal of
European industrial training, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 324-335.
http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30007778
The final published version is available from
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0309-0590
Copyright : © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1
Leadership and learning: facilitating self-directed
learning in enterprises
The Authors
Peter J. Smith, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia
Eugene Sadler-Smith, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
Ian Robertson, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
Lyn Wakefield, Gordon Institute of TAFE, Geelong, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this research is to show that a key aspect of learning and
development of individual employees is that of self-directedness. This paper will consider
the role of the leader in facilitating workforce development in terms of employees' self-
directedness for learning. The research was designed to investigate the views that “learning
leaders” in organizations have towards the development of self-directedness in employees;
and to identify strategies that are feasible in developing self-directedness in operating
organizations.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper draws on a national research project
undertaken in 12 organizations in Australia, representing a range of sizes and a number of
industry sectors. Data collection involved interviewing learning and development managers
in each organization to gauge the relative feasibility of the implementation of a number of
pre-identified strategies designed to develop self-directedness among employees within
operating work environments.
Findings – The research showed that: learning managers and leaders were generally well
disposed towards the development of self-directedness, and some had already moved to do
so; and identified a number of possible strategies for implementation of varying degrees of
feasibility. The paper will consider these findings in relation to the concept of a “learning
leader”.
Research limitations/implications – Although the research was conducted in a diverse set
of 12 enterprises, applicability of the results across an even wider set of enterprises would
need to be tested.
Originality/value – The findings of this research provide guidance to learning and
2
development personnel on feasible strategies to use within their own organization to assist
with the development of self-directed learning among employees.
Article Type:
Research paper
Keyword(s):
Self managed learning; Leaders; Self development; Workplace learning; Australia.
Introduction
The recognition that self-directedness in learning among employees has an important part
to play in the competitiveness of enterprises has been developed by several writers during
the 1990s (Edwards, 1995; Calder and McCollum, 1998; Morris-Baskett and Dixon, 1992;
Robinson and Arthy, 1999). For those writers, self-directedness among workers is an
objective worthy of pursuit by organisations wishing to achieve knowledge and skill
development for a competitive edge in a rapidly changing industrial context. Smith
commented that:
…there is considerable commercial value in encouraging employees to become effective
self-directed learners such that they can develop and pursue their learning goals and
outcomes that contribute to competitiveness without the need for all learning to occur only
when there is direct training by an instructor (Smith, 2002, p. 111).
However, the evidence that the development of self-directed learning (SDL) is not well
supported in the workplace appears disappointingly compelling. Although the literature is
rich in discussion of SDL, for the purposes of this paper we have adopted the
conceptualisation put forward by Brockett and Hiemstra (1991). In developing their Personal
Responsibility Orientation model, Brockett and Hiemstra identified two dimensions of SDL.
The first of these represents the external instructional processes in which an individual
learner assumes responsibility for planning, implementing and evaluating the learning
process. The second dimension focuses on the internal desire or preference for assuming
responsibility for learning.
The research reported in this paper was the second part of a larger project focussing on
flexible learning and SDL in workplaces (see Smith, 2001). Working with apprentices in
several industry sectors, Smith showed that there was a preference for learning that was
well structured, and instructor-led, and little preference for SDL. Additionally, the
apprentices in Smith's sample were also less enthusiastic about text-based and verbally
presented learning than they were about hands-on experience and practice. These findings
were hardly surprising in relation to apprentices, but they provided a challenge to workplace
learning methods that rely on SDL developed and delivered through text or otherwise
verbally presented learning material. The suggestion that Smith made in that research was
not only that the findings in relation to apprentices needed to be accepted, but that
3
approaches to workplace learning delivered through flexible means which necessitate a
degree of SDL are here to stay. Accordingly, Smith (2001) developed a set of strategies that
could be used in operating workplaces to develop SDL among learners, and to provide
support for those learners.
Also focusing on apprentices, earlier work by Brooker and Butler (1997) has shown that
there is room to doubt the effectiveness of support for apprentice learners in the
workplace. Through interviewing apprentices and their trainers in Australian workplaces,
Brooker and Butler (1997) have shown that:
• apprentices rated highly those pathways to learning that involved structured
learning and assistance from another more expert worker, where such a person was
accessible to them;
• feedback on their work from more expert workers was valued highly; and
• learning or practising alone were not favoured pathways for learning.
However, their research indicated that being left to learn on their own was a common
experience for apprentices, and that workplaces seldom had put into place the policies,
practices or personnel to support learning on the job. While practices prevalent in
workplaces assumed (or at least required) a considerable degree of self-directed learning
(SDL) among learners, there were seldom any processes to support learning outside
structured and more formal learning activities. Smith's (2001) research indicated that the
problem here was not so much an unwillingness to move towards a learner-centred
paradigm that provides effective support to learners, but that it was more a problem of not
knowing how to do it. Similarly, Berge (2001) has pointed out that moving learning within an
organisation away from the more traditional management-determined and instructor-led
contexts into a more learner-centred form may sometimes challenge the existing skills, role
perception and confidence of human resource development (HRD) specialists and managers
more generally (Sadler-Smith, 2006). This is likely to require the realisation of employees'
potential via employee development in a supportive environment (Holton and Naquin,
2000), through leaders acting both as “catalysts and servants” (Bolman and Deal, 2003), and
through the leaders encompassing the activities of educating, caching and facilitating in
their roles (Dyer, 1995).
The rapid accessing and acquisition of new knowledge, the recognition of its relevance and
the willingness to share it for the benefit of other individuals and the organisation are
amongst the characteristics of knowledge workers, and also among the characteristics of
self-directed learners (Brockett and Hiemstra, 1991). Breaking out of the confines of the
individually-focused acquisition and storage of knowledge which often typifies an
individualised conception of learning is sometimes a considerable challenge for some
learners and human resource development (HRD) practitioners, and also for organizations
which may need to unlock and effectively use knowledge assets in a shared way. For
organizations this means the development of a culture that rewards the surfacing, sharing
and codifying of knowledge and an emphasis on building capacity of knowledge workers,
other individuals, and the organisation. As Jurie (2000, p. 265) puts it, “Organisations which
4
hamper or stunt the free development of their members or constituents…limit their own
effectiveness”.
This paper will consider the role of the leader in facilitating workforce development in terms
of employees' self-directedness for learning. A number of researchers have suggested the
notion of the “learning leader” as a useful framework around which to conceptualise some
of these issues (e.g. Sadler, 2001; Sadler-Smith, 2006).
An important issue here is how management views and values HRD. The extent to which
managers, and especially senior managers and directors, “buy into” the significance of
learning and development is a key determinant of the strategic impact of HRD. Whilst many
writers, for example Bartlett and Ghosal (1993), have argued that learning and HRD are
crucial contributors to enterprise performance and growth, well-being, and overall
competitiveness, as Smith and Sadler-Smith (2006) have observed, there are enterprises
where learning and HRD are seen only as cost, rather than as investment. Within an
investment conceptualisation of HRD resources are dedicated to the development of
human, intellectual and social capital and are seen as part of a strategic approach to
organisational capacity building. It indicates an alliance between business strategy and HRD
strategy that many writers (for example, Boxall, 1996) have argued is essential to effective
HRD. At the same time, though, there may still exist the conceptualisation in the minds of
some managers of it as a cost only – a burden that has to be borne in order to provide
people with the skills necessary to carry out their work.
In a previous investigation of the same organizations involved in the current study, there is
also evidence (Smith et al., 2002) that it is not uncommon for organisations to take an
investment view of HRD among its professional and managerial staff, but a cost burden view
when it comes to their operator and lower level staff. This attitude may be related to the
human resource management strategy consciously put in place by an organization,
consistent with the HRD strategies of utilisation, innovation and accumulation. However,
the same diversity can come from some much less strategic positions such as a belief that
some groups of employees are in less need of HRD, or less capable of providing a return
from it, a habit because “that's the way things are done around here”, or a failure to
understand the significance of knowledge and skill development for a range of jobs beyond
those that are technical, managerial or professional (Sadler-Smith, 2006; Smith and Sadler-
Smith, 2006). The suggestion was made by Snell and Dean (1992) that HRD needs to
recognise the knowledge component of a much broader range of occupations as part of its
planning processes. It has been argued by Smith and Sadler-Smith (2006) that this more
complex HRD planning in highly diversified environments is not the maintenance of a
sophisticated machine, but a much more complex and ever-moving mosaic of
interdependent and unpredictable events.
In the present paper we draw on research conducted across twelve enterprises in Australia.
The data were analysed to explore the views that learning leaders in organizations have
towards the development of self-directedness in employees; and to identify strategies that
are feasible in developing self-directedness in operating organizations.
5
Research method
Interviews were conducted with the learning and development (L&D) manager of each
enterprise, or with the management person with responsibility for L&D in the enterprise.
The interviews were designed to identify the strategies used by, or supported by, L&D
managers in the development of SDL. Each of the people interviewed played a major role in
leading learning in the enterprise. The interview schedules were based around the range of
strategies identified at a theoretical level by Smith (2001). The design of the interview
schedule, and the discussion that took place with each enterprise, were intended to elicit
response to as many of these strategies as was possible, and to identify new ones.
Interviews were audio-taped and transcribed to text. Each text was then content analysed
to provide a response to each strategy from the interviewee, and then those responses
were collated for each strategy proposed by Smith, and for each new strategy identified by
interviewees. Following the transcription of interviews to text, interviewees were provided
with the text and asked to verify accuracy. Semi-structured interview formats were adopted
since, as Robson (2002) has argued, these interviews enable planned and consistent
approach to the data collection, but space to deviate from the plan to follow up leads that
may become evident during the process of the interview.
Interview questions that framed and guided the semi-structured interviews are shown
below:
1. Which of the following strategies do you use to prepare learners for self-directed
learning?
o Encouraging workers to work with trainers to identify learning goals that
specify the knowledge, skills and concepts to be learned?
o Encouraging workers to work with trainers to develop and negotiate learning
plans/ comprehensive learning contracts (including tasks, learning resources,
liaison with other workers)?
o Having regular discussions with workers to monitor their learning progress
and to modify plans/learning contracts?
o What other strategies do you employ?
2. How can a range of learning experiences be provided for trainees?
o By providing opportunities for workers to withdraw from work activities to
make use of learning resources?
o By exposing them to a range of experiences? A range of problem-solving
situations?
o Through encouragement/facilitation of a range of learning
strategies/resources that are verbally or textually presented?
o Through assistance with the acquisition of skills in structured observation and
questioning?
o Do you have any other suggestions?
3. What sorts of strategies might help to place learning into a work context?
o Provision of increasing responsibility, work complexity and participation as
learning progresses?
6
o Provision of regular opportunities within the production schedule for
discussion of learning, skills, and work?
4. What policies does your organisation have in place to support training?Do any
policies recognise:
o The value placed on training and on learners?
o How assessment is to be carried out and what the rewards for training might
be?
o The importance placed on a diversity of experience?
o Both skills development and underpinning knowledge?
5. Can you describe the development of any training structures that:
o Identify training personnel and their roles?
o Provide for training plan development for both the enterprise and individual
workers?
o Enable access to people, learning resources and experiences as needed?
o Enable partnership arrangements with external training providers, and
management of those relationships?
o Indicate support availability for learners in accessing learning experiences?
Learning materials?
6. Does your organisation have mechanisms for the development of trainers to become
effective in?
o Helping workers to learn?
o Ensuring that workers develop the skills/understanding necessary to achieve
learning goals/contracts?
o Development of a supportive learning environment where there is
encouragement of questioning and provision of experts who are willing to
assist in learning?
The data collection was based in 12 different enterprises. Both Billett (2001) and MacDonald
(1999) point to important differences in HRD and training that occur between enterprises
with different characteristics. To provide a diversity of enterprise contexts these were
selected to collectively provide a range of size, industry sector, structure, range of activity,
and location in terms of regional or metropolitan. Although Evans (2001) noted it, typically
regional or metropolitan location of an enterprise as a variable has not been widely noted in
the literature, in a large and low-density population country such as Australia distance from
metropolitan centres can have a significant influence on access to HRD and training
opportunities. Additionally, since the research required enterprises to have had known
interest in SDL in the workplace, and to have given thought to it, each enterprise had some
experience with it as a workplace L&D strategy. Knowledge of enterprises that had an
interest in SDL was derived through the professional networks of the researchers.
In summary, the bases for selection of this group of enterprises were several:
• there is both regional and metropolitan representation;
• a range of size is represented;
• a range of industry sectors and enterprise core business is represented;
7
• enterprises with very focussed activities are represented, along with enterprises that
have a wide range of services or products;
• a range of business structures is represented;
• enterprises with distributed workforces are represented, together with enterprises
that operate only on one site; and
• all enterprises had a commitment to L&D, as known by the researchers, and had
used a range of L&D techniques that require SDL.
The 12 selected enterprises are described below.
Manufacturing industry sector
1. A large manufacturer (420 employees) of metals products, regionally located.
2. A medium-sized (85 employees) chemical manufacturer regionally located as the
Australian subsidiary of a multi-national company.
3. A medium-sized wool scouring plant (140 employees) regionally located.
4. A large electrical goods manufacturer, metropolitan based with sites throughout
Australia, and 540 employees.
5. A medium-sized, regionally-based, garment design and distribution enterprise (180
employees).Human services industry sector
6. A major, general purpose, metropolitan hospital (1,950 employees).
7. A major employment service, metropolitan based, but providing service through a
large number of geographically distributed client centres (1,200 employees).
8. A specialised health service component of a local government authority (150
employees)Retail services industry sector
9. A large retail chain operating a large number of stores throughout regional and
metropolitan Australia.
10. A specialised food retailer operating small franchised outlets throughout
Australia.Hospitality industry sector
11. A small restaurant, regionally based, with around 20 employees.Automotive industry
sector
12. An organisation providing support to the vehicle sales and service industry.
Results and discussion
It was clear that strategies used or supported by enterprises could be classified into those
aimed at the development of SDL among individual learners or groups of learners; and those
aimed at the development of the workplace as a supportive environment and culture for the
development of SDL.
Developing SDL among learners
With respect to strategies aimed at developing self-directed learners, strategies considered
feasible related to locating the learning within existing learner knowledge, and the
contextualisation of that learning in the broader enterprise. Additionally, learning leaders
considered it feasible to ensure that learners had access to other expert workers who could
provide learning experiences through demonstration, discussion and guided practice.
8
As one respondent put it:
The learner is provided with information detailing what development module and outcome
the training will address. This information explains the uses of the training. This will start the
“portfolio of evidence” that they will build during their training. The learner is then
monitored by a training officer every 3 weeks and encouraged to discuss and try other ways
of going about the learning.
Learning leaders were much more qualified in their views on the feasibility of those
strategies which actually develop the learning strategies of learners in the workplace.
Largely, views of the feasibility of learner involvement in the setting of learning directions
were associated with a feeling that there is simply not time to do this, coupled with the view
that many workplace supervisors were simply not well-equipped with the knowledge to do
it. There was, however, a view that the development of learning goals and contracts was
feasible at higher levels in enterprises, typically among professional and managerial staff.
Also more likely to be considered feasible at these higher levels were regular discussions on
progress towards expected learning outcomes, the development of a structured pathway to
achieve the outcomes, and adjustment to expected learning on the basis of experience as it
progressed. A typical response was:
Yes, we do that, though only on request and only for more senior staff. A range of
presenters may introduce the material before a development plan may be constructed to
assess needed areas of development. That plan may involve learning in the company or
from outside providers. The important thing is that people are developing their own plans.
These features of learning management were generally considered feasible, and even
desirable, within a performance review process, where new learning became a part of the
expectations on an employee over a period of time. There was also a view that it was
feasible to withdraw higher level workers from the production process, and in some
enterprises, even expected. At lower levels of personnel within the enterprise this form of
withdrawal was largely seen as feasible where it formed part of an enterprise agreement
relating to terms and conditions of employment. In these respects, the observations of
Whittaker (1995) and Evans (2001), that there is a clear tension between the learning needs
of enterprises and their production imperatives, are largely borne out in the current
research.
All enterprises in the sample saw as feasible, and desirable, the various strategies associated
with the provision of opportunities for engagement in demonstrations and practice,
provision of a diversity of relevant experience, facilitation of scaffolding and its gradual
withdrawal as skills developed, and the integration of on- and off-the-job learning. Making
available these experiences in a variety of ways to support individual differences in learning
styles through a variety of learning materials and experiences was generally accepted as
feasible, although there was clear evidence that these activities needed to be undertaken
within the enterprise production schedule (Calder and McCollum, 1998; Smith, 2000).
9
The strategies identified for the development of skills in a community of practice were
considered feasible by all where they involved interaction between learners and other
workers, HRD personnel and supervisors. Those are the usual forms of worker interaction in
any workplace and require no particular effort on the part of enterprises. However, beyond
that, learning leaders saw as highly feasible the encouragement of those relationships in a
learning context to enable the development of required skills and knowledge:
These are irreplaceable for networking, interaction, support, the exchanging of ideas and
skills sharing. We're talking adult learners though and I wouldn't necessarily think a lot of
apprentices would do that. The adults, as business operators have the need and passion to
do this, and we arrange and contrive that it happens.
Although research reviewed by Sadler-Smith (2006) and Smith and Sadler-Smith (2006)
suggested that the involvement of workers in communities of practice was largely
unstructured and unplanned, it appears that among the enterprises in our sample there is
an acceptance that strategies can be put in place to achieve this in a more systematic way.
Apart from senior and professional staff, the development by learners of their own learning
objectives, and the pursuit of those objectives through organised discussion and articulation
only achieved a qualified view of feasibility. Largely, the qualification involved a view that
these forms of “time out” (Calder and McCollum, 1998) discussions were feasible only in a
context of a discussion about production tasks, rather than in a context of discussions about
knowledge acquisition. Generally considered infeasible for the same lower level employees
was the provision of assistance in developing the skills of structured observation and
question asking – an important component of the enquiry associated with SDL. These skills
are important for learners to develop but learners were generally expected to either already
have them, or to develop them for themselves. The notion that these skills are already in
place is at odds with research by Smith (2000) and Warner et al. (1998), where the evidence
was that these skills were not typically well developed in workplace learners.
Developing workplaces to support SDL
Strategies that were seen by all to be feasible were those associated with the development
and articulation of training policies that indicated the value placed on L&D by the
enterprise; the forms of L&D that could be expected; details of assessment policies; a
recognition of dialogue between learners and HRD personnel on learning goals and their
achievement; an expectation that learning would make use of the community of practice
available in the enterprise; and a statement that individual L&D plans, activities and
achievements would be recorded. There was a qualified view of the feasibility of providing
statements of the sorts of knowledge to be pursued (e.g. skills and/or conceptual) and time
availability within the production schedule for non-formal or flexible learning. Whether or
not learning leaders considered as feasible the details of HRD structures was strongly
related to size and formality, with some larger enterprises seeing the provision of
considerable detail as feasible and desirable, and small enterprises tending to have a more
informal set of arrangements (MacDonald, 1999).
10
The strategies identified for the development of HRD structures were largely seen as
feasible. Whilst more specific strategies for the role development of HRD personnel were
also seen as feasible by all, different interpretations need to be placed on that finding. First,
in larger enterprises with an identifiable HR/HRD structure or function and personnel
accountable for the management of L&D, there was acceptance that the development of
skills needed for L&D plan development, implementation, assessment, learning resource
and personnel access, and implementation of HRD policy were feasible. There was also a
view that the development of HRD roles to include championing of learners to management
staff and other workers was feasible and desirable, in a spirit of ensuring a value was placed
on L&D and on learners. Likewise, the identification of external L&D possibilities and
partnerships were also seen as feasible strategies. Consistent, though, with the discussion of
the preparation of learners, only limited feasibility was identified among those strategies
that provide for the development among HRD personnel of the skills required to assist
learners to become more self-directed.
Finally, the development of effective HRD personnel was generally regarded as feasible and
desirable. However, there was not a strong view that it was necessary or feasible to provide
people who were adept at developing workers' ability to learn (their “learning-to-learn”
skills) or who facilitated the development of self-directed learners. That finding is at odds
with other work suggesting that the skills of learning, and knowing how to learn are
important for effective workplace learning (Smith and Sadler-Smith, 2006), particularly as it
is provided through situated and flexible learning paradigms.
Summary
In summary, factors that were shown to be related to the feasibility of strategies designed
to develop SDL among individuals in enterprises related to the availability of time, perceived
skills of supervisors, and the forms of learning network acknowledged as present and
encouraged. Variations also related to size, geographic distribution, and the level of
formality in the enterprise structure, procedures, and expected training outcomes. Beyond
these enterprise characteristics such as size and geographic distribution, there are three
issues that appear to influence perceptions of the feasibility of implementing various
strategies to improve SDL in the workplace:
1. First, the enterprise and learning leader's notion of the place of L&D as a vehicle for
organisational development. Enterprises viewing L&D as an essential element of
organisational development generally perceived more SDL strategies as feasible than
did enterprises that saw L&D as more peripheral.
2. Second, where L&D formed part of an enterprise agreement relating to terms and
conditions of employment, more strategies appeared to be seen as feasible.
3. Third, hazardous work and safety issues had some impact on how feasible some
strategies were viewed. Where the work of the enterprise involved hazardous
processes there was evidence of a preference for strategies that closely prescribed
worker learning outcomes (as competencies), learning activities, assessment
processes and standards. SDL was not favoured for those learning outcomes.
11
What this research tells us about learning leaders is important to the development of SDL
among employees, or among the “followers”. The learning leader role is crucial in a number
of ways:
• developing in the broader management and culture of the enterprise a view that
L&D is an important part of enterprise health and competitiveness;
• similarly, a broad development across the enterprise of the view that SDL is an
important strategy in effective L&D;
• development among HRD personnel, supervisors and workplace experts the skills
needed to value, encourage and support SDL among workers at all levels;
• development of the structures, policies, practices and motivators underpinning the
encouragement and development of SDL at all levels of employee; and
• recognition that SDL needs to be practised differently across the enterprise, and
engaged in to different degrees among the different sorts of workers in the
enterprise.
References
Bartlett, C.A., Ghosal, S. (1993), "Beyond the M-form: toward a managerial theory of the
firm", Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14 pp.23-46.
Berge, Z. (2001), Sustaining Distance Education: Integrating Learning Technologies into the
Fabric of the Enterprise, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, .
Billett, S. (2001), Learning in the Workplace; Strategies for Effective Practice, Allen & Unwin,
Crows Nest, .
Bolman, L.G., Deal, T.E. (2003), Reframing Organisations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, .
Boxall, P. (1996), "The strategic HRM debate and the resource-based view of the firm",
Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 6 No.3, pp.59-75.
Brockett, R.G., Hiemstra, R. (1991), Self-Direction in Adult Learning: Perspectives on Theory,
Research, and Practice, Routledge, London, .
Brooker, R., Butler, J. (1997), "The learning context within the workplace: as perceived by
apprentices and their workplace trainers", Journal of Vocational Education and Training, Vol.
49 pp.487-510.
Calder, J., McCollum, A. (1998), Open and Flexible Learning in Vocational Education and
Training, Kogan Page, London, .
Dyer, W.G. (1995), Team Building: Current Issues and New Alternatives, Addison-Wesley,
Reading, MA, .
12
Edwards, R. (1995), "Different discourses, discourses of difference: globalisation, distance
education and open learning", Distance Education, Vol. 16 pp.241-55.
Evans, T.D. (2001), "Two approaches to workplace flexible delivery and assessment in a rural
community", Australian and New Zealand Journal of Vocational Education Research, Vol. 9
No.2, pp.1-22.
Holton, E.F., Naquin, S.S. (2000), “Developing high-performance leadership competency”,
Monograph 6, Advances in Developing Human Resources, .
Jurie, J.D. (2000), "Building capacity: organizational competence and critical theory", Journal
of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 13 No.3, pp.264-74.
MacDonald, R. (1999), "Research and a training culture: implications for large and small
businesses", in Robinson, C., Arthy, K. (Eds),Lifelong Learning: Developing a Training Culture,
National Centre for Vocational Education Research, Adelaide, pp.63-71.
Morris-Baskett, H.K., Dixon, J. (1992), Conditions Enhancing Self-directed Learning in the
Workplace, The University of Calgary, Calgary, .
Robinson, C., Arthy, K. (1999), Lifelong Learning: Developing a Training Culture, National
Centre for Vocational Education Research, Adelaide, .
Robson, C. (2002), Real World Research, 2nd ed., Blackwell, Oxford, .
Sadler, P. (2001), "Leadership and organisational learning", in Dierkes, M., Berthoin Antal,
A., Child, J., Nonaka, I. (Eds),Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, .
Sadler-Smith, E. (2006), Learning and Development for Managers: Perspectives from
Research and Practice, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, .
Sadler-Smith, E., Smith, P.J. (2006), "Technical rationality and professional artistry in HRD
practice", Human Resource Development International, Vol. 9 No.2, pp.271-82.
Smith, P.J. (2000), "Flexible delivery and apprentice training: preferences, problems and
challenges", Journal of Vocational Education and Training, Vol. 52 No.3, pp.483-502.
Smith, P.J. (2001), "Learners and their workplaces: towards a strategic model of flexible
delivery in the workplace", Journal of Vocational Education and Training, Vol. 53 No.4,
pp.609-28.
Smith, P.J. (2002), "‘Modern’ learning methods: rhetoric and reality – further to Sadler-
Smith et al.", Personnel Review, Vol. 31 No.1, pp.103-13.
Smith, P.J., Sadler-Smith, E. (2006), Learning in Organizations: Designing for Diversity,
Routledge, London, .
13
Smith, P.J., Robertson, I., Wakefield, L. (2002), "Developing preparedness for flexible
delivery of training in enterprises", Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 14 No.6, pp.222-32.
Snell, S., Dean, J. (1992), "Integrated manufacturing and human resource management: a
human capital perspective", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35 No.3, pp.467-504.
Warner, D., Christie, G., Choy, S. (1998), The Readiness of the VET Sector for Flexible Delivery
Including On-Line Learning, Australian National Training Authority, Brisbane, .
Whittaker, G. (1995), The BA in Post Qualifying Social Work: Preliminary Evaluation Report,
Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, cited in Reeve, F., Gallacher, J. and Mayes, T.
(1998), “Can new technology remove barriers to work-based learning?”, Open Learning, Vol.
13 No. 3, pp. 18-26, .
Further Reading
Despres, C., Chauvel, D. (2000), "A thematic analysis of the thinking in knowledge
management", in Despres, C., Chauvel, D. (Eds),Knowledge Horizons; The Present and the
Promise of Knowledge Management, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, MA, .
About the authors
Peter J. Smith is Associate Professor of Professional Education and Training at Deakin
University in Australia. He has published a large number of journal articles and several
books. Prior to joining the university sector he was a senior manager in Australia's
vocational education and training sector, and before that worked in HRD in the mining
industry. His research interests lie in workplace learning, in vocational skills development,
and in distance and technology-mediated education and training. He is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: pjbs@deakin.edu.au
Eugene Sadler-Smith is Professor of Management Development and Organizational
Behaviour and Director of the Centre for Management Learning and Development, School of
Management, University of Surrey. His current research and teaching interests centre upon
intuition in management. In 2006 he published two books on the subject of management
and organisational learning: Learning and Development for Managers: perspectives from
research and practice (Blackwell); and, with Dr PJ. Smith of Deakin University, Learning in
Organisations: complexities and diversities (Routledge). 2007 will see the publication of his
new book Inside Intuition (Routledge).
Ian Robertson is a Senior Lecturer at RMIT University where he co-ordinates the Master of
Education (Workplace). With 20 years' experience in a range of roles in vocational education
he brings an applied focus to his work. Ian has a special interest in researching and teaching
in the fields of flexible and e-learning. He regularly facilitates professional development
activities for vocational teachers and managers with an emphasis on linking contemporary
debates in education with practice.
14
Lyn Wakefield is Academic Coordinator, Teacher Training, Gordon Institute of TAFE,
Geelong, Victoria, Australia. She has a background in academic institutions, and in industry,
where she worked in a management capacity in the United Kingdom. In recent years Lyn's
research projects have focused on generic skills, flexible delivery/flexible learning and, more
significantly, the development of higher order cognitive skills for TAFE practitioners. Lyn has
a considerable number of publications to her credit, primarily in the areas of generic skills,
flexible delivery, workplace education and higher order cognitive skills.
