Re‐vitalising learning and development?. Exploring the role of the trade union learning representative
| Date | 14 August 2007 |
| Published date | 14 August 2007 |
| Pages | 781-799 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480710774043 |
| Author | Catherine Cassell,Bill Lee |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
Re-vitalising learning and
development?
Exploring the role of the trade union learning
representative
Catherine Cassell
Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK, and
Bill Lee
Management School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Abstract
Purpose – The aim of this paper is to provide a piece of empirical work that examines the impact of
trade union learning representatives in enabling access to learning by those groups traditionally less
likely to access such opportunities. This aim is discussed in relation to the literature on the significance
of organizational learning.
Design/methodology/approach – The research conducted included an in-depth qualitative
interview study of full-time trade union officials with some responsibility for learning in their union.
Findings – The findings are discussed in relation to how trade union learning representatives are
approaching their role; how learning is being facilitated; who is gaining access to learning and how;
and the ownership of learning more generally.
Originality/value – The paper presents original data on a new learning initiative about which very
little is currently published.
Keywords Trade unions, Workplace training, Employeerepresentatives, Training
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Many writers have argued that learning and development should play a key role in
strategic HRM with the claim that the development of a learning organization is integrally
linked with the achievement of the competitive advantage that strategic HRM seeks to
access (Garavan, 1997; Molleman and Timmerman, 2003; Thite, 2004). Progression in this
direction is seen as a key way of utilising and making the most of human assets. For
example Pucik (1998) argues that in the context of the HR function in international
alliances, competitive advantage can only be protected through the “organization’s
capability to accumulate invisible assets by a carefully planned and executed process of
organizational learning” (Pucik, 1998, p. 91). Others have focussed on identifying the key
characteristics of HRM practices that can enhance processes of organizational
self-renewal and learning, with writers such as Jaw and Liu (2003) arguing that
organizational learning results from a combination of “hard and soft organizational
practices anchored in specific HRM techniques” (Jaw and Liu, 2003, p. 237).
There are, however, those who remain cynical about the extent to which a focus on
learning and development can provide the gains that some have speculated. Lloyd
(2002) points out that despite the emphasis currently placed upon improving workplace
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
Re-vitalising
learning and
development?
781
Received December 2005
Revised July 2006
Accepted September 2006
Personnel Review
Vol. 36 No. 5, 2007
pp. 781-799
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/00483480710774043
learning in the UK, the various policies created so far have failed to confront the
underlying issue of the lack of investment that employers are prepared to make in the
learning and development of their employees. Additionally, Grimshaw et al. (2002)
conclude from their study of training provision in four large service sector
organizations, that the lower level staff did not experience their workplaces as learning
organizations in which they played an active role. Furthermore, there is an increasing
body of literature that has sought to critique the notion of the learning organization
more generally, arguing that the political nature of learning initiatives has failed to be
addressed in many accounts (e.g. Armstrong, 2000; Coopey, 1998; Gheradi, 1999).
Writers such as Coopey (1995) have also questioned the opportunities that the
development of the learning organization has for individual “empowered” workers.
They take a critical approach to argue that the concept of the learning organization in
its various guises is just another strategy for increasing management control. Indeed,
others such as Rainbird and Munro (2003) maintain that it is very difficult to
conceptualise workplace learning generally without having some understanding of the
complexities of the employment relationship within which it is sited. Outside of these
academic debates it is also apparent that workforce learning is seen as a significant
issue in many quarters (Rana, 2001), with concerns regularly being expressed about the
learning and skills levels of the UK workforce more generally. For examp le, a recent
TUC (2005) report highlighted that although the UK economy needs more people with
higher skill levels, there are a number of concerns surrounding the UK government’s
focus on an employer-led model, most notably that training is not being delivered to
those that need it most.
It is in this context, where current learning initiatives are seen as problematic, that
the trade union learning representative initiative has been introduced. The initiative is
designed to provide access to learning opportunities in UK workplaces through the
establishment of union learning representatives (ULRs). It is our contention that this
scheme enables us to consider organizational learning in a fresh light. Specifically, it
enables us to engage with a conceptualization of learning that explicitly recognises the
political aspects of the context in which it takes place. The context here is one whe re
the least powerful members of an organization have some control over their learning
experience. Within this paper we provide empirical data from a study of trade union
officials who are engaged in the union learning representative initiative to investigate
how this new approach to learning is currently manifest in organizations, and what
type of learning opportunities are being made available to whom. Specifically, we
examine how the location of ULRs in the workplace impacts upon our understanding of
learning organizations, and the potential tensions regarding the ownership of learning
that arise. The paper is structured in the following way. First, we outline some of the
issues and debates surrounding the nature of learning in organizations. Second, we
sketch out the ULR scheme, and highlight how a consideration of the ULR initiative
enables us to examine debates about learning in a different way. Third, we report on
the methodology of the empirical research. Fourth, we present the empirical data, and
finally, we discuss the findings of that research in relation to conceptualising
workplace learning within HR developments. Specifically, we argue that the
introduction of ULRs has the potential to shift the site of workplace learning in a
number of ways. Consequently, debates about who owns workplace learning are
exacerbated as a result of this shift. As Wallis et al. (2005, p. 287) suggest, the ULR
PR
36,5
782
To continue reading
Request your trial