Effects of informal learning on work engagement
| Date | 04 November 2019 |
| Published date | 04 November 2019 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-10-2018-0430 |
| Pages | 1886-1902 |
| Author | Pattanee Susomrith,Alan Coetzer |
| Subject Matter | Hr & organizational behaviour,Global hrm |
Effects of informal learning on
work engagement
Pattanee Susomrith and Alan Coetzer
School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationships between task-based and interactional informal
learning practices in small professional services firms and the moderating role of proactivity in the relationship.
Design/methodology/approach –Job demand-resources theory was used to develop theoretical
arguments for a link between informal learning and work engagement. Data were collected from 203
employees in professional services firms and analysed using structural equation modelling.
Findings –Analysis of the data showed that opportunities to learn through task-based learning processes
and through interactions with supervisors and colleagues were positively related to employees’levels of work
engagement. Furthermore, the strength of relationships between these informal learning practices and work
engagement was influenced by employees’proactivity.
Research limitations/implications –The limitations pertain to the non-random sampling procedure,
cross-sectional nature of the study and the use of self-report measures. These limitations were mitigated by
employing rigorous analytical procedures.
Practical implications –The results suggest that managers are able to influence the quantity and quality
of informal workplace learning through strategies such as selecting employees who have a propensity for
proactive behaviour, encouraging proactive behaviour, enabling experimentation and reflection and fostering
positive interpersonal relations.
Originality/value –The study links two streams of research that have seemingly not been connected
previously. The results suggest that small firms are sites with abundant potential for development of
employees’knowledge and skills and the associated experiences of work engagement.
Keywords Quantitative, Informal learning, Small firms, Learning, Workplace engagement,
Proactive behaviour
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Employee participation in continuous learning is important to the economic viability and
competitive advantage of firms, because of factors such as globalisation and the need for
organisations to respond to rapid and continuous environmental changes (Noe et al., 2014;
Shin et al., 2017). As the world of work changes, employees are expected to be adaptable,
flexible and regularly learn new tasks (Noe et al., 2014). However, firms cannot rely solely on
staffing practices that focus on selecting employees with the required knowledge and skills,
alongside formal training courses designed to help employees acquire new knowledge and
skills (Spicer and Sadler-Smith, 2006; Wang and Noe, 2010). This is because the vast
majority of work-related learning occurs informally, outside the realm of formal training and
development (Eraut, 2004; Noe et al., 2014).
The present studyseeks to contribute to the fields of informallearning in small businesses
and work engagementby linking these two streams of researchthat have seemingly not been
connected previously. We draw on the job demand-resources model (Schaufeli and Bakker,
2004) to develop theoretical arguments for such a link. The aim of this paper is to examine
how opportunities to learn through reflection and experimentation (i.e. task-based learning)
and supportfor learning provided by colleaguesand workplace supervisors(i.e. social support
for learning) affects employees’work engagement. The study is located in small professional
services firms, which has been identified as a setting that has received limited research
attention (Nolan and Garavan, 2016). Furthermore, employee engagement in continuous
learning is especially important in professional services firms because their employees’
knowledge, skills and experiences are the key sources of competitive advantage.
Personnel Review
Vol. 48 No. 7, 2019
pp. 1886-1902
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/PR-10-2018-0430
Received 29 October 2018
Revised 7 April 2019
Accepted 19 May 2019
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
1886
PR
48,7
This study makes the following theoretical and empirical contributions to existing
literature. First, the study extends the literature on informal learning in small business by
providing an empirical grounding for the theoretical proposition that employees’work
engagement is enhanced by opportunities to learn through reflection and experimentation
and social support for learning. Second, although informal learning has been characterised
as being enhanced by proactivity (Billett et al., 2015; Watkins and Marsick, 1992), few
studies have examined proactive behaviour in the domain of informal workplace learning.
Theoretical background and hypotheses
Learning in small firms
Small firm employees are less likely to get access to employer-sponsored formal training and
development opportunities than their counterparts in large firms (Bishop, 2015; Kitching,
2008). The relatively lower levels of employee participation in formal training and
development is attributed to several factors, including the time and financial resource
constraints of small firms (Cardon and Valentin, 2017). Instead, small firms have a strong
preference forand are highly reliant upon informal learning practices,because such practices
are less resource intensive, address both employee learning needsand firm-specific needs and
can be infused into the firm’s daily operations (Cardon and Valentin, 2017; Nolan and
Garavan, 2016). Informal learning is typically characterised as being largely unstructured,
learner-directed and self-guided; based on learning from experience and action; socially
collaborative;embedded in meaningful activity and an organisational context;initiated by the
learner’s interest or choice; and enhanced by proactivity, critical reflection and creativity
(Kyndt and Baert, 2013; Tannenbaum et al., 2010; Watkins and Marsick, 1992).
In this paper, informalworkplace learning is definedas “a natural and largely autonomous
process derived from the characteristics of the work process and its inherent social
interactions; often implicit and sometimes even hard to differentiate from doing the daily
work”(Poell, 2014, p. 20). Although many working arrangements inhibit informal learning,
there are also work situations in which significant informal learning occurs (Hager, 2004).
From a practice perspective, employees learn thorough participation and co-construction of
everyday work practices (Price et al., 2009, p. 221). Reflection and active experimentation are
widely consideredto be key ingredients of learning( Boudet al., 2006; Kolb, 1984). However,as
several workplace learning theorists have argued, to learn through participation in everyday
work activities employees need time for reflection and the autonomy to experiment with new
approaches to assess their utility (Ellinger, 2005; Lohman, 2009).
Literature that examines antecedents of employee engagement in informal learning
behaviours typically identifies several personal and situational antecedents (e.g. Cerasoli
et al., 2018; Kyndt and Baert, 2013). There is wide agreement among workplace learning
theorists that job or task characteristics and support for learning from supervisors and
colleagues are very important situational antecedents (e.g. Cerasoli et al., 2018; Wolfson
et al., 2018). These antecedents are especially important in small firms, because small firms
tend to provide just wholly work-based learning experiences (Billett et al., 2015). Job
characteristics such as autonomy, task or skill variety and job demands that are
challenging, but not excessive, are important for facilitating learning (Parker, 2014, 2017).
There is limited literature based on empirical studies that examined informal learning in
small firms, although there is a pressing need for such studies, since distinctive
characteristics of small firms are likely to affect the process and outcomes of informal
workplace learning (Coetzer et al., 2017; Nolan and Garavan, 2016). To illustrate, Coetzer
et al. (2017) conducted a narrative review of empirical papers published during the period
2000–2016 reporting research situated in small firms (10–49 employees) that included a
focus on informal learning. They found just 15 papers that matched their search criteria and
of these papers only four were based on quantitative data. Similarly, the broader literature
1887
Effects of
informal
learning
To continue reading
Request your trial