professional development strategies of employees, managers and hrd ... · professional development...

Paper presented at UFHRD 2013 (Brighton, UK) by Rob F Poell & Ferd J Van Der Krogt 1

Professional Development Strategies of Employees, Managers and HRD Practitioners

in the Context of Organizational Change

Rob F. Poell, Tilburg University, The Netherlands

Ferd J. Van Der Krogt, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Human Resource Development (HRD) is an important instrument to bring about organizational

changes. In this connection, HRD is often thought of as a ‘tool of management’: managers get

HRD practitioners to create learning programs that encourage their employees to develop the

qualities necessary for making the changes. Many such programs are not very successful

(Admiraal-Hilgeman & Geurts, 2011; de Jong, 2010; van Veldhuizen, 2011; van Veen, Zwart,

Meirink, & Verloop, 2010). Employees do not participate in these programs very actively and

their effects are modest.

Organizing professional development to support organizational changes requires a different

approach than just a ‘tool of management’ perspective. This approach should enable managers as

well as employees to realize their own ideas about professional development. It should take into

account the diversity of views and interests among different actors rather than attempt to

eliminate it and create an organization where everyone shares the same opinions. This is possible

when organizing professional development is not just viewed from a didactic perspective but also

approached as a strategic issue. This implies an acceptance of different actors placing their own

emphases in the organization of employees’ professional development.


Organizing Professional Development: A Didactic and Strategic Issue

Ideas about organizing employees’ professional development have evolved strongly over the last

two decades (cf. Harrison & Kessels, 2004; Walton, 1999; Yorks, 2005). The roles assigned to

managers and employees in these ideas have changed dramatically. Three stages can be discerned

in thinking and theory about organizing professional development: 1) a training issue; 2) a

learning issue; and 3) a strategic issue.

1. Professional development as a training issue: customization by HRD practitioners. The

key task in organizing professional development is developing and delivering training

programs attuned to organizational problems and developments as well as to the qualities

of the employees. HRD practitioners design educational programs customized to the

organization and to the employees that will participate. Employees are viewed as clients,

who need to be served in a tailored way. Customization is realized by taking into account

employees’ training needs and preferences as the program is developed and delivered

(Romiszowski, 1981; Robinson & Robinson, 1989).

2. Professional development as a learning issue: didactic self-direction by employees. The

broadening of attention from training to learning in the 1990s caused a major shift in

thinking about the organization of employees’ professional development. Besides their

participation in training programs explicitly geared to encouraging learning processes,

employees’ participation in work processes is recognized also as a key mechanism to

stimulate employee learning. Employees themselves (and not just the HRD practitioner)

are expected to play a substantial role in organizing their own learning process: they need

to learn to operate didactically. They can get help determining their own learning styles in

order to act more explicitly and systematically in accordance with their preferences and


strengths in learning (Candy, 1991; Simons & Bolhuis, 2004; Sadler-Smith, 2006;

Raemdonck, 2006).

3. Professional development as a strategic issue for employees and managers. Although

HRD has long been viewed as a ‘tool of management’, recent years have seen an

increased focus on employees’ individual responsibility for their own professional

development (and career). Every employee is now expected to organize their professional

development and strengthen their position on the internal and external labor market. This

is echoed in notions about lifelong learning and employability (European Commission,

2001; Hillage & Pollard, 1998).

Three functions that actors can attribute to professional development can be distinguished: work

improvement, career development and personal development. The latter function refers to

working on individual qualities that may not yet be relevant to work or career in the present

situation but seem likely to become relevant in due course (e.g., assertiveness or analytical

ability). Our impression is that managers usually emphasize the role of professional development

in optimizing the primary work process, whereas employees place more of a premium on its

ability to contribute to career progress and work enjoyment (Kyndt, Michielsen, van Nooten,

Nijs, & Baert, 2011).

Organizing professional development increasingly becomes also a strategic issue, in which both

managers and employees play important roles. Even HRD practitioners may operate strategically

in this connection as well.


Aim and Outline of the Chapter

The aim of this chapter is to present, and provide empirical evidence for, a theory that gives

central stage to actors operating strategically in the context of professional development. The

learning-network theory (van der Krogt, 1998; Poell, Chivers, van der Krogt, & Wildemeersch,

2000; Poell & van der Krogt, 2002; 2005; 2010) deals with the organization of HRD taking into

account the various ways in which different actors employ their own professional development

strategies. It also assumes that neither managers nor employees will have very explicit ideas

about the organization of HRD (which HRD practitioners tend to forget about in this connection).

The chapter will first present the main tenets of the learning-network theory. Its proceeds by

describing a case study conducted in a healthcare setting, where managers and HRD practitioners

attempted to introduce a new working method through a learning program. The case study also

shows how employees (healthcare officers) worked on their own professional development. The

chapter ends in a discussion of the different strategies employed by employees, managers, and

HRD practitioners in organizing HRD.

Organizing HRD in Organizations: The Learning-Network Theory

An organization (e.g., a healthcare institution, a school, or a company) is a collaborative

relationship among several actors (e.g., managers, shop-floor employees, support staff, et cetera).

All actors have their own beliefs and views about how the organization should work. To realize

these ideas, however, actors are dependent on other actors, who hold positions that give them

access to the necessary facilities and information. Positions and views of actors have an impact

not only on the way the primary process in the organization is running but also on the way HRD

is organized.


Over time, actors in organizations develop HRD structures and views about how HRD should be

organized. They work on employees’ professional development on a regular basis. For instance,

managers and/or HRD practitioners design training programs, introduce appraisal schemes and/or

personal development plans, and contact external agencies offering relevant training courses. In

doing so, both managers and employees learn about organizing professional development, about

their tasks and responsibilities in developing and delivering learning activities. As these

arrangements become more fixed over time, a specific HRD structure and HRD climate emerge

in the organization; actors can then put these to use in working on employees’ professional

development.

In principle, actors operate in accordance with the existing structures and the prevailing climate;

they contact other organizational members, follow procedures, participate in courses and get

involved in projects that enable them to engage in new experiences. Many actors, however, also

deviate from common structures and the existing climate. They attempt to realize their own ideas,

prefer to contact those colleagues that they trust and can get access to.

Actors Organize HRD in Organizations

HRD is gaining importance in organizations. Employees’ professional development is no longer

only the responsibility of individual employees; managers and supervisors recognize its strategic

potential as well. Besides internal organizational actors, also various external actors (e.g.,

professional associations, government bodies, client organizations, trade unions and training

institutes) view HRD as a crucial tool to bring nearer their ideas about the way organizations

should be running (e.g., Bacon & Hoque, 2010; Daley, 2001; European Commission, 2001). All

actors attempt to realize their own ideas about professional development of employees. They use


their positions and the available facilities to this end, and also try to get other actors to support

their plans.

The learning-network theory (van der Krogt, 1998; Poell, Chivers, van der Krogt, &

Wildemeersch, 2000; Poell & van der Krogt, 2002; 2005; 2010) assumes that each organization

develops a specific way of organizing HRD. In some organizations managers have ample power

to realize their ideas about HRD, in other organizations work teams have the best opportunities to

do so. In still other organizations external actors manage to put a strong emphasis on the HRD

processes, and there are also organizations where it depends very much on individual employees

how HRD is shaped. Each organization has its own constellation of internal and external actors

that give rise to the way HRD is organized.

Among these actors, the HRD specialists are the most recognizable ones: for instance, internal

and external trainers, continuing educators and mentors counseling new hires. Shop-floor

employees, their internal and external colleagues, and their supervisors and managers, however,

are also crucial HRD actors. And outside of the organization important HRD actors can be found

as well, including sectoral training bodies and institutes.

All actors have their own beliefs and ideas about the organization of HRD, about the functions

that HRD can fulfill and about the ways in which that should happen. Managers may, for

example, emphasize the role of HRD in improving the primary work process, for which they

deem on-the-job experience combined with training courses the best approach. Employees, on the

other hand, could very well focus more on furthering their own positions on the labor market,

deeming certified education programs the most suitable way forward to achieve this.

In order to realize their beliefs and ideas, actors usually need other actors, who hold positions that

give them access to information and other means. In other words: the positions of actors and their

mutual relationships determine to a large extent how well they can realize their own ideas about


the way the organization should be running. Their positions (tasks, roles and responsibilities) and

relationships with other actors form a major part of the impact that managers and employees can

have on organizational processes, including HRD processes (see Figure 1).

Positions of, and

Relationships

among, Actors

Interactions

among Actors

HRD Processes

HRM Processes

Work Processes

Figure 1: Positions and Relationships Impact on HRD and Other Processes

Experiences as a Basis for Organizing Professional Development

Professional development finds its basis in employees integrating experiences into their existing

action theories. Action theories refer to the set of knowledge, insights and behaviors that enable

an employee to operate in a work context. Employees have, for example, their own notions about

how to do their job, how to further their career and how to shape their professional development.

As employees learn, they integrate their experiences on the job as well as in explicit learning

situations into their existing action theories. Because of their learning, these action theories

change, which enables employees to act differently. In this sense, experiences are the basis of

professional development. Organizing professional development, therefore, refers to creating and

directing experiences. When employees attempt to direct their experiences, it means they try to

gain those experiences that they think will contribute to improving their action theories. This


occurs in training courses and education programs, which are especially designed to develop

specific knowledge and/or behaviors within participants’ action theories. Employees, however,

gain various other experiences while doing their regular job as well, the learning potential of

which they may not recognize until much later. Crucially, employees may not gain these

experiences very systematically or explicitly as they occur; they may still, however, integrate

them into their action theories at a later stage. This is how creating and directing experiences

forms the basis of organizing employees’ professional development.

Creating and directing experiences occurs mainly in the context of two key HRD processes:

during collective learning programs and in the creation of an individual learning path. Learning

programs are usually initiated by managers, whereas employees create their own learning paths.

Both HRD processes (and their relationship) will be illustrated in the remainder of this section.

Managers (and Other Actors) Organize Learning Programs

Learning programs usually come into being at the initiative of managers, who want to use

learning and development to reduce their problems and support the implementation of their plans.

Learning programs are created by several actors putting together a set of activities relevant for

employees to gain experiences about a specific theme and to learn from. HRD practitioners (e.g.,

trainers and educators), managers and employees play a key role in this venture; however, HRM

staff, content experts and external colleagues can also be involved.

Two types of activities are carried out by the learning-program actors: creating learning-relevant

experiences and (re-)directing the learning program. The first activity comprises the creation of

various learning situations: both explicitly (e.g., workshops, training courses, assignments, self-

study) and implicitly (regular on-the-job experiences, job rotation) geared for learning. The

second activity, directing the learning program, can also be conducted in various ways:


elaborating the learning theme; drawing up a detailed plan in advance; starting with a broad

notion that gets more concrete along the way; and/or resolving problems as they occur during the

learning program.

Actors are at the core of learning programs being organized. They interact with each other to

create experiences and direct them as well. How they do this depends largely on their views,

which also determine to what extent and how the existing structures will be complied with (see

Figure 2).

HRD

Structure

and

Climate

Actors

and Their

Views

Interactions

among

Actors

Creation of

a Learning

Program

- about

organizing

HRD

- about

HRD

functions

- with

colleagues

- with

managers

-with HRD

practitioners

- with

external

actors

- creating

experiences

(both

explicit and

implicit)

- directing

experiences

Figure 2: Actors Organize Learning Programs


Learning programs can be organized in different ways. Four ideal types can be discerned:

1. Loosely coupled, individual-oriented learning programs. This type is probably most often

found in organizations with self-sufficient employees, who feel responsible for their own

work and development. A coordinator from the organization takes the initiative to form a

project group that wants to learn about a specific theme. The coordinator attempts to gain

a group of employees’ interest in the theme, through informal contacts and/or a snowball

strategy. These employees are interested; however, their main expectation is to be able to

exchange experiences with each other from which they can learn. They also find the

learning infrastructure and potential facilities offered by the project group interesting. At

this stage, hardly any thinking has been done about involving other potential project-

group members. The learning theme is still very general; each participant aims to

elaborate this theme for him/herself, taking advantage of each other’s experiences as well.

Few collective decisions are made about the learning contexts and activities in the project

group; the key concern is to acknowledge each employee’s needs and preferences as

much as possible. It is rather likely that sub-groups will emerge of employees expecting to

be able to learn more from some participants than from others, or of employees that for

practical reasons can work and learn together more easily. The evaluation of the program

is not very systematic; the coordinator accounts for the deployment of resources with the

management, whereas each participant decides for his/herself whether the project group

yields enough learning to keep investing in it.

2. Centrally regulated, function-oriented learning programs. This type is designed,

delivered and evaluated according to a pre-determined plan. Often the initiative comes

from a line manager (or a member of the techno-structural staff), who has identified a

problem in the primary work process or in the internal labor market, and who expects a


learning program to be able to contribute to solving this. An HRD practitioner is then

asked to design this learning program for a group of employees. An analysis of the

problem is made with its owner and the HRD practitioner continues by presenting a

(learning) plan for approval. In elaborating this plan, potential participants of the learning

program and their supervisors are consulted, and content expertise may be hired. The

HRD practitioner employs his/her own expertise and tools, within the boundaries set in

terms of finance and jurisdiction, for example: investigating participants’ learning styles,

determining their prior knowledge, proposing transfer-enhancing measures, building

workplace assignments into the program, and encouraging the support from participants’

colleagues and supervisors.

3. Organic, problem-oriented learning programs. This type is all about employees that

conduct work together. The initiative usually comes from within the teams in which their

cooperation takes place. Team members may, for example, run into a problem that they

cannot solve using their normal working practices. The team then decides to pay more and

explicit attention to this problem and can invite the help of a coach for that. Typical

feature of an organic learning program is experiencing the joint analysis of the problem.

Working in a team on a jointly defined problem is what differentiates this type from the

individual-oriented learning program (where each participant uses experiences with other

participants to solve his/her own problem).

4. Collegial, method-oriented learning programs. The theme for this type of learning

program is often derived from new working methods developed within employees’

professional association. Another possibility is that the theme revolves around a specific

problem encountered by a group of professionals in the organization, which they are

interested to study (and reduce/solve) with a group of external colleagues, so outside of


their own organization. Applying new working methods is the driving force in both

instances. Relations among the project-group members are based in each participant’s

content expertise and position within the profession. Studying literature and practical

cases is a popular approach in this type of learning program.

Employees (and Other Actors) Organize Learning Paths

Employees can gain all kinds of experiences relevant to their professional development, both

within and outside of the organization (Fenwick, 2003; Illeris, 2007; Svensson, Ellström, &

Aberg, 2004). They can attend training courses, study books and manuals, do their regular job

and adapt it, solve every-day problems, take a coaching session, participate in an innovation

project, change jobs, enter into a performance appraisal meeting, et cetera. Amidst this rich

variety of activities and experiences, each individual employee carves out his/her own particular

route, using the existing opportunities and creating new ones along the way. We refer to this

process as the creation of a learning path (Poell & van der Krogt, 2010). Employees can create an

individual learning path in several ways. Three aspects of learning-path creation are relevant in

this connection: interactions among the employee and other actors, gaining experiences in three

processes, and directing and coordinating these experiences (see Figure 3). In other words,

gaining and directing experiences occurs as the employee interacts with other actors.


In interaction with other actors:

* internal and external colleagues

* supervisors and managers

* HR practitioners

* et cetera

Gaining experiences in:

* the primary process

(work experiences)

* career development

(employability)

* HRD processes

(explicit learning

programs)

Directed and coordinated by:

* thematizing

* reducing professional-

development problems

* explicit professional-

development strategies

Figure 3: Three Key Aspects of Learning-Path Creation

The Employee Interacts with Other Actors

Learning-path creation is a social process created by an individual employee in interaction with

other actors. Employee gain experiences as they interact with other actors (e.g., internal and

external colleagues, supervisors and managers, HR(D) practitioners, et cetera). These interactions

can take on different shapes, depending on a number of characteristics in the social context.

First, the social context can have different compositions (Blankenship & Ruona, 2009). For

instance, interactions may take place primarily between the employee and his/her direct internal

and external colleagues, as is the case in many ‘communities of practice’ and ‘professional

learning communities’. In other cases, experts or other specialists may be part of the social

context as well, for example in learning project groups. Supervisors and managers may also be

more or less influential in the social context of the employee’s learning path.


Second, the social context can have varying degrees of differentiation. Sometimes many different

activities are distinguished in the interactions, in other instances all activities are conducted in a

much more integrated manner. Communities of practice often operate in an organic context,

whereas many project-based learning contexts see a lot of differentiation, for example, between

deciding on the learning theme and actually carrying out the learning activities associated with it.

Third, the social context can have various levels of formalization. Increasingly, attention has

gone out to informal and ad-hoc interactions among actors. Often there are attempts to develop

shared views among the participants, to avoid other more formalized coordination mechanisms

(e.g., specific procedures or supervisory roles).

The Employee Creates Experiences in Three Processes

Employees can gain their experiences in the context of three processes: the primary work process,

the career-development process, and the HRD process.

The first process in which employees gain experiences is their every-day work process, as they

carry out and improve their own work. They may also be involved in innovation and use new

tools or instruments, in interaction with other actors. Together with their colleagues, clients and

supervisor, they do their job and solve every-day work problems. The kinds of experiences that

they gain can obviously differ from one context to the other. Routine work offers them little

variation in tasks and experiences, whereas for instance project-based work enables them to take

on complex tasks with a substantial diversity in job-related experiences.

The second process that offers a relevant context for employees to gain experiences is the career-

development process. Employees can use interactions with other actors (e.g., HRM practitioners,

career counselors and their supervisors) to work on their careers and their positions in the internal

and external labor market (employability). They may negotiate with them about their individual


job contract and career opportunities. In this connection, they may have an interest in gaining

broader and more diverse job experiences, acquiring new competencies that could give them

access to interesting new positions.

The third process that provides employees with relevant experiences is the HRD process,

especially in the context of explicit learning programs. Professional development is the specific

aim of participating in such activities, for example, learning-project groups, workshops, training

courses, self-study, conference visits, reflection sessions, and study circles. They enable the

employee to gain various kinds of learning experiences, in interaction with other actors (e.g.,

HRD practitioners, internal and external colleagues).

The fact that employees can gain experiences in these three processes does not imply

automatically that these experiences will be meaningful to them, relevant to their individual

learning path right away. It is important for the employee to have the impression that a particular

experience can contribute to his/her professional development (around a theme that is relevant to

them). ‘Converting’ or re-defining work and learning experiences into experiences relevant to

their own learning path is a crucial step. The employee can do this by him/herself or together

with other actors, who will also have their own ideas about what constitutes relevant experiences.

Not all actors, however, are equally influential in this process of establishing ideas about the

learning relevance of experiences gained. Often it will be the individual employee who places a

heavy emphasis here, sometimes the views of their supervisor, an HRD practitioner or their

colleagues have more impact. The collective ideas within his/her department or organization

about the learning relevance of particular experiences (cf. learning climate) can also have a major

impact on the individual employee’s process of integrating experiences into their learning path.


The Employee Directs and Coordinates Experiences in His/Her Learning Path

As we have illustrated above, an employee can gain experiences in three processes; creating a

learning path means gaining, interpreting and linking these experiences to one another. Although

the notion of an individual learning path may sound as if there is a pre-determined route, more

often it is shaped along the way as the employee gives meaning to his/her interlinked experiences

gained in various processes, directing new experiences on the basis of progressive insight.

An employee can direct and coordinate experiences in several ways: by thematizing, by reducing

professional-development problems and by using explicit professional-development strategies:

1. Thematizing. This refers to determining an explicit theme for one’s learning path, the

topic about which the employee wants to learn. Often this is translated as setting learning

goals; however, the employee can also use other methods. It may be easier to start with a

general description of the learning theme, which is then elaborated along the way as the

learning path takes shape.

2. Reducing professional-development problems. The second way for the employee to direct

his/her professional development is to work on the problems experienced during the

learning path. The employee may, for example, have the impression that the learning path

is too much focused on improving every-day work, leaving too little room for career or

personal development. He or she may want to pay more attention to competencies

relevant for acquiring a managerial job in due course or for pursuing a professional career

in another organization, rather than focus his/her learning path on the current daily tasks.

Or maybe the employee feels that the learning path is not attuned to his/her present

qualities: for instance, relationships with colleagues participating in a learning program

may not work out, the topic of a learning program may be irrelevant to his/her learning

path, the way it is treated may be too theoretical, or there are no obvious links with his/her


every-day job. Such problems become manifest to the employee when a developing

learning path is not well attuned to his/her qualities, in terms of both learning skills and

work contents.

3. Using explicit professional-development strategies. The third way in which the employee

can direct his/her learning path is by consciously employing a professional-development

strategy. Often this is attempted by formulating learning goals; however, employees can

also shape their professional development on the basis of their personal values and norms.

What and how they learn can be influenced and inspired strongly by values they deem

important (e.g., being independent, pleasing the supervisor, always doing one’s best for

the organization).

All in all, the ways in which a learning path is created and directed depend to a large extent on

the views of the individual employee: (implicit) beliefs about organizing his/her professional

development, about the relevance of particular experiences, about meaningful actors to be

involved, about ways of directing and coordinating experiences, and about the functions

attributed to his/her professional development.

Employees Link Learning Programs to Their Learning Paths

Participating in a collective learning program can give fresh impetus to an individual employee’s

learning path. It allows him/her to make contact with other actors, who could be meaningful to

his/her own learning path. It also offers opportunities to gain experiences that can be integrated

into the learning path. The learning program can also exert its influence on the direction of an

individual employee’s learning path: it enables him/her to gain more insight into themes that

could be meaningful to his/her professional development.


Employees link the learning program to their own learning path in several ways. First, for

instance, they can attempt to integrate experiences and contacts from the learning program into

their learning path. Second, participating in a learning program can cause them to start a new

individual learning path around a theme they found relevant. Third, employees may not do much

at all in the short run with the experiences gained during a learning program; however, the latter

may be ‘stored’ and could be integrated into a (then meaningful) individual learning path in

future.

Case Study: An Organizational Change Project Supported by HRD

The previous section has described the key tenets of the learning-network theory. The focus of

the chapter will now shift from theory to an empirical case study of a learning program that was

used for the Implementation of an innovation. This real-life case of an organizational change

project will be presented to see to what extent the learning-network theory offers insights into the

ways in which various actors operate as HRD is deployed in organizations.

The setting for the case study is a large Dutch institution for the treatment of addictions, where an

extensive organizational change project was conducted to introduce a new working method for

healthcare officers. A learning program was organized to support the implementation of this

method.

Below, the institutional context will be described briefly. This will be followed by a description

of the learning program. The section ends with an account of how the healthcare officers in this

institution created their individual learning paths.


Organization of the ‘Addiction Rehabilitation’ Department

The case is set in one department (‘Addiction Rehabilitation’) of a large institution that treats

addictions in the Netherlands. This department helps people suffering from addiction that have

also been convicted by law. Comprising a departmental manager and five teams, it uses the

services of various supporting units in the larger institution (e.g., HRM, Housing, Logistics,

Research & Development). Each of the five teams consists of approximately fifteen healthcare

officers, supervised by a team leader and a work counselor. The officers are highly educated;

most of them hold a higher vocational diploma in social work. Their job is to report about the

situation of clients to the appropriate legal offices and to monitor their development as well. The

work counselor supports the officers and discusses with them on an individual basis their

monitoring reports about the progress of their clients’ treatments. There are also team meetings to

discuss any work problems that occur.

Officers that are newly introduced to the department receive an induction program and additional

training on top of the higher vocational education program that they have already completed in

school. Ad hoc continuing professional education is also offered in the department. One of its

team leaders is charged with initiating and coordinating the officers’ professional development;

other than that, they are individually responsible for their own professional development. The

department can call on the services of a staff officer responsible for professional development at

the level of the larger institution. At the national level, an external professional-development

coordinator supports the various addiction centers and their officers in the area of continuing

professional education.


Organization of the ‘Working in Enforced Frameworks’ Learning Program

From 2006 till 2008, an extensive learning program was organized in the department to support

the implementation of a new counseling method (entitled ‘Working in Enforced Frameworks’).

External experts in the field of addiction rehabilitation had published a handbook on this method,

which the management of the department wanted to implement. Management recognized the

necessity of a learning program to support the change process. An external specialist was hired in

the roles of content expert and learning coach.

A project group was formed comprising the department head, the team leader charged with

professional development, the staff officer from the larger institution, the external specialist and

the national professional-development coordinator for the sector. They acted as a steering

committee and were supported by a group of team leaders and work counselors functioning as

their sounding board.

The learning program was designed and delivered according to a highly systematic plan, which

can be summarized in three main activities: identification of learning topics; creation of learning

groups and monitoring of progress:

1. Identifying learning topics. An extensive analysis was conducted to establish which skills

the health officers would need to be able to work with the new method. After that, a

learning-needs analysis was done among the officers, in which they could indicate about

what topics they would like to receive further training. On the basis of both analyses a

general development plan for each of the five teams was drawn up.

2. Creating learning groups. Learning groups were formed in each of the five teams, to a

total of eight learning groups, each consisting of four to ten officers and a work counselor.

Their meetings were also regularly attended by the external specialist. Each group

determined its own learning theme and the ways to learn about it, using the steering


committee’s plan. Mostly the themes chosen were connected to the new working method.

In the learning-group meetings, participants presented cases from their own work

practices; a few times they invited external experts. Meetings were held for more than a

year, in varying frequencies (from every two weeks to once every three months).

3. Monitoring progress. During the process, deliberate attempts were made to inform both

officers and management about progress and about the method’s underlying (theoretical)

ideas. Plans and actual progress were presented in special meetings as well as in the

learning groups. Theoretical backgrounds of the new method were also extensively

discussed informally and during data collection. Furthermore, intermediate evaluation

reports were discussed with the project group.

Evaluation of the Learning Program

The external specialist conducted an evaluation of the learning program, together with the

institution’s staff officer responsible for professional development, using a written questionnaire.

Evaluations were also carried out by the project group and in a meeting with the work counselors

involved in the learning groups.

In general, the officers and the other people involved were satisfied with the learning program

and learning-group meetings. The learning groups allowed them to gain relevant experiences,

which they could link to the deployment of the new working method. The overall impression was

that the method was well received by the officers. Nonetheless, many of the plans that had been

drawn up were not carried out as intended; many timelines were not made and the intentions of

the learning program were reframed as well.

Several officers raised the question, at the outset of the learning groups, of how they should work

on the development plan drawn up for their group. Also during the learning program, issues were


put forward related to the roles of the team leaders, work counselors and external advisors. Their

roles and interactions with the officers gradually became clear as the learning program

progressed.

The evaluation also brought to light that little insight had been gained into the officers’ learning

activities, other than their participation in the learning-group meetings (in which experiences with

the new method were discussed and external specialists were invited for expert consultation). The

initial idea of the project group was for all officers to draw up individual develop plans; however,

besides expressing their learning needs in preparation for the project group’s plan, the officers

created such individual plans only to a very limited extent.

In Search of the Officers’ Learning Paths

Besides the investigation of the organizational change project and learning program, two external

researchers conducted an extensive qualitative study into the individual learning paths of 28

healthcare officers involved in the learning program. In-depth interviews were held to determine

the extent to which they had identified their own learning theme and worked on it systematically.

As the summary in Table 1 shows, five types of learning path were found (Khaled, 2008; Sloots,

2008):

1. The practice-oriented learning path. This type is primarily focused on improving the

every-day work process. Learning themes included, for example, motivational

conversation techniques or dealing with traumatized clients. Officers worked on such

themes by exchanging their own work experiences during case discussions and meetings

with colleagues and work counselors. They have a strong drive to perform their job well

and develop their technical craftsmanship.


2. The knowledge-oriented learning path. This type sees officers picking learning themes

that contribute to acquiring new (scientific) insights relevant to their profession. They

attempt to gain more knowledge about, for instance, specific psychiatric diseases that

their clients suffer from. Such knowledge is acquired by studying literature and inviting

experts.

3. The job-oriented learning path. This type is concerned in the first place with getting or

optimizing a specific job. Concrete issues tied to that job are selected as learning themes

here. Officers work on such themes by participating in specific learning contexts, for

example, work meetings and consultations with experienced colleagues. Often these

officers are looking for new challenges in their job or profession.

4. The social-oriented learning path. This type revolves around learning themes concerned

with acquiring skills that are relevant for working with colleagues. Officers use the

learning-group meetings to discuss, for example, social interactions, getting recognition

from other people and their own role within the team.

5. The person-oriented learning path. This type is created by officers driven by a desire to

discuss themes connected to their private lives outside work. A broad range of

experiences in various processes, both in and outside of work, are brought into the

learning-group meetings.


Table 1: Learning Paths of Healthcare Officers in Five Teams

Type of Learning Path Team A Team B Team C Team D Team E Total

Practice Oriented 3 1 1 1 0 6

Knowledge Oriented 1 0 1 1 0 3

Job Oriented 1 2 0 1 1 5

Social Oriented 0 1 1 0 1 3

Person Oriented 1 0 0 0 0 1

None 1 3 1 2 3 10

Total 7 7 4 5 5 28

Although deliberate attempts were made in all interviews to establish a learning theme for every

officer, in ten cases (out of 28) no such theme could be ‘found’. These officers could not indicate

a theme that they had gained experiences around or even thought about in more than passing.

Conclusions and Perspectives: How Actors Operate (Strategically) in HRD

What can be concluded from the case study in this healthcare institution about the ways in which

different actors operate when it comes to organizing HRD? Does it provide any evidence that

employees, managers and HRD practitioners operated in line with the theoretical expectations?

To what extent do they act strategically in organizing employees’ professional development? And

what are the implications of our conclusions for the further development of the learning-network

theory and of HRD in practice? These are the questions that guide the remaining section of this

chapter.


How Actors Operate in the Learning Program and Learning Paths

The learning program can be typified as centralized and systematic. The project group analyzed

the future working method and its implications for the required qualities of the healthcare

officers; in that sense, the learning program can also be termed function oriented.

The management, HRD practitioners and external advisors had a considerable influence on the

learning-program design. In its further elaboration the officers were more involved, especially in

the learning groups. The intention was to enable them to place their own emphases, with a view

to customizing the learning program; however, this did not really work out well. The learning

groups turned out more as a platform for the execution of the departmental and team learning

plans; the individual learning plans did not really materialize. The learning groups offered the

officers little support in shaping their own learning paths.

Each of the actors placed their own emphases in the learning program. Management viewed it as

a tool to support the implementation of the new working method. The HRD practitioners went

along with this view; however, they also attempted to support the officers in their professional

development. As the investigation of their learning paths has shown, several officers worked on

their professional development during the course of the learning program; however, they were

mostly following their own (learning!) path in doing so. Their participation in the learning

program varied strongly from one officer to the next, which is apparent from their highly

different learning paths. Some officers went with the themes that were central to the learning

program, others placed their own emphases in terms of a learning theme and approximately one

third of the total group of officers did not work on a theme systematically.

In the next paragraphs we will further discuss the ways in which the various actors (employees,

managers and HRD practitioners) have operated in the organizational change project as well as

the implications of this for the learning-network theory. For each actor, we will first present how


they operated in the organizational change project and, after that, look at the theoretical

implications concerning that particular actor.

How Employees Operate in Professional Development: Empirical Evidence

The healthcare officers could contribute only modestly to the development of the organizational

change project. Their main role was in the execution of the program. Looking at their individual

learning paths, clear indications were found for their existence, although not all officers were as

active in this respect. In line with an extensive overview of research into the roles of employees

in their own professional development (Van der Krogt & Warmerdam, 2010), the officers made

modest explicit use of the opportunities to create a learning path themselves. In organizing their

professional development, cooperation with other actors was limited and their relevant

experiences were used rather indiscriminately, without much direction or coordination.

Thematizing and reducing professional-development problems were not really on the officers’

agenda, let alone any explicit professional-development strategies. To them, organizing learning

paths is primarily a matter of putting their own qualities to use (often implicitly) in the job and

deploying the available learning facilities and opportunities in their own individual way.

Great diversity in learning paths. A key conclusion from the case study is that officers worked on

their professional development in many different ways. Their learning paths clearly took on

different shapes and there were also quite a few officers who made hardly any use of their

experiences in the learning program.

Experiences in learning programs as a basis for diversity in learning paths. The experiences

gained in the learning program gave several officers the impetus to create a learning path. For

example, they extracted their learning theme from the needs analysis and learning-group

activities conducted. The further development of their learning path, however, remained a largely


individual effort to most officers. The learning groups gave them little support in this respect. The

officers mainly used their practical experiences with the new working method to inform their

learning paths and could make little use of other training and development opportunities. Their

individual problems received little attention in the learning groups and the same was true as far as

making their own learning-path strategy explicit is concerned.

How Employees Operate in Professional Development: Learning-Network Theory Implications

A crucial finding from the case study is that employees participated in the learning program in

very different ways. Each employee reacts to the plans and actions of managers, colleagues and

HRD practitioners in his/her own manner (cf. Janssen, Kreijns, Bastiaens, Stijnen, & Vermeulen,

2012). Their reactions are linked to the opportunities that they perceive to realize their own ideas

and plans. The learning-network theory distinguishes among three types of (re)actions in

employees: operating strategically, integrating learning-program elements into one’s learning

path and building a basis of experiences:

1. Employees operating strategically. Employees do not have to comply with the plans and

actions of other actors in the learning program. It is possible that they have their own

explicit ideas about the functions that professional development should fulfill for them

(the case study provided some indications for this). Each employee can use the learning

program to direct his/her individual learning path towards one of three functions: work

improvement (e.g., better serving their clients or enjoying their job more), career

development (e.g., stipulating a change of tasks or facilitating the transfer to a new job) or

personal development (e.g., working on their assertiveness or analytical ability).

Employees can operate in the learning program in such a way that particular elements

contribute to their plans. The learning program is here used to realize their own explicit


ideas about their professional development by bending their contribution to it in the right

direction.

2. Integrating learning-program elements into one’s learning path. This reaction can occur

when employees see some leads in the learning program for their own professional

development, but not very clearly yet. Perhaps they perceived opportunities offered by the

learning program to elaborate a specific theme, to take a specific training course or to

contact a mentor that they deem useful to their further career. In that case, they can ask for

help to further clarify their own ideas and plans.

3. Building a basis of experiences. A third possible reaction to the learning program is to

participate in it but take a rather passive position. This reaction will probably occur if the

pressure from other actors (e.g., colleagues, supervisor) to participate in the learning

program is strong and the employee sees no leads (as yet) to use it for his/her own

professional development. The experiences gained through participation are not integrated

into their current learning path yet; however, they could later perhaps be used as

employees create new ones or may even give them the very idea for a new learning path.

Their basis of experiences that could turn out to be relevant for future professional

development efforts is thus broadened. Moreover, (passive) participation in a learning

program can ‘teach’ employees to organize their own learning path in future and use the

available HRD opportunities in the organization to this end.

How Managers Operate in Professional Development: Empirical Evidence

The managers in the institution recognized that they could exert little direct influence on the

healthcare officers’ work. Although protocols and procedures had been drawn up, their

application depended strongly on the officers’ views and qualities. In this respect the managers


were dependent on the officers. They also recognized the relevance of professional development

as a tool for the implementation of the new working method and attempted to use the learning

program to encourage the officers to develop the required qualities.

Strikingly, the managers influenced the learning program and the officers’ learning paths mostly

indirectly (cf. Soekijad, van den Hooff, Agterberg, & Huysman, 2011).They asked HRD

practitioners to design learning programs that matched the managers’ needs and offered facilities

(time and money) to this end. They had little direct business with the individual learning plans of

the officers, which the managers left to the latter themselves to develop.

How Managers Operate in Professional Development: Learning-Network Theory Implications

Managers see professional development of employees primarily as a tool to support their own

plans. Their position in the organization and relationships with other actors determine the extent

to which they need to resort to professional development of employees to realize their own ideas.

The more dependent the managers are on their employees and the fewer opportunities they have

to manage the work through procedures and direct interactions with them, the more often they

will call on learning programs to get their way.

The HRD literature offers little insight as yet into the roles and strategies of managers in

organizing the professional development of their employees. More systematic attention should be

paid to their activities in creating and directing learning programs and learning paths. Two topics

are especially relevant in this connection. First is the ways in which learning programs are

directed. Usually the emphasis here is on drawing up strategic plans (by HRD practitioners), with

learning plans at their core. Re-directing learning programs by reducing problems along the way,

however, deserves more attention as it would increase the contributions of employees (and

therefore the chances of success).The second relevant topic concerns the role of managers in


creating employees’ learning paths. Current literature focuses on personal development plans,

with a strong emphasis on the views of managers (Beausaert, 2011). Other ways for managers to

contribute to their employees’ learning paths are in need of investigation (Bezuijen, van den

Berg, van Dam, & Thierry, 2010; Armson & Whitely, 2010).

How HRD Practitioners Operate in Professional Development: Empirical Evidence

HRD practitioners played an important role in the learning program. They carried out its

preparation and planning, conducting an extensive investigation into the required competencies

and learning needs of employees. The data collected formed the basis of the learning plans of the

department and its teams. Their role in the execution of the plans was much more limited. Their

contacts with the managers (department head, team leaders and work counselors) were often,

whereas their interactions with the healthcare officers were few and only incidental.

The HRD practitioners did observe that the individual learning plans of the employees were

important. They created a manual for the officers to design a learning plan but contributed little to

the development and execution of those individual plans themselves. The organization of learning

paths was left to the employees in large part. The HRD practitioners (as well as the managers)

were involved in (co-)directing the learning paths to a limited extent and contributed little to

employees’ gaining relevant experiences. All in all, the HRD practitioners’ efforts were mainly

focused on facilitating and designing employees’ learning plans as well as on encouraging

interaction among the officers. Supporting the officers gaining relevant experiences on the job

and in explicit learning activities did not happen frequently.


How HRD Practitioners Operate in Professional Development: Learning-Network Theory

Implications

The HRD practitioners did play an important role in designing the learning program and they also

put forward ideas about the employees’ individual learning plans. They focused primarily on the

strategic options available to the managers and on the didactic aspects of the learning program.

They did not succeed in customizing it to the participants, as is often the case in other learning

programs as well (Poell & Van der Krogt, 2005).

As expected in the learning-network theory, HRD practitioners are strongly dependent on

managers when it comes to organizing learning programs and learning paths. They will,

therefore, focus on the HRD views and facilities put forward by management. Their weak

position largely prevents the HRD practitioners from expressing their own HRD views in the

learning programs and learning paths.

The learning-network theory should take better into account the possibility that besides managers,

employees can also operate strategically in organizing HRD. This implies for HRD practitioners

that they should pay more attention to customization in organizing learning programs: employees

view the latter primarily in relation to their own learning paths. Problems of HRD practitioners in

learning programs are often linked to both managers and employees operating strategically.

The learning-network theory will also need to pay more attention to the positions of HRD

practitioners in learning paths. It is too easily assumed that employees are able to create their own

learning paths without much coaching. It should also be recognized that managers can also

operate strategically in employees’ learning-path creation, besides just facilitating them.


Perspectives for the Learning-Network Theory and for HRD Practice

This study was initiated to determine to what extent actors operating strategically play a role in

organizing HRD in the context of organizational change. The learning-network theory was used

as a framework in this effort. What are promising directions for further research into organizing

HRD, both theoretical and empirical?

Organizing HRD According to the Learning-Network Theory

An important conclusion is that the organization of HRD is impacted by the positions of, and

relationships among various actors as well as by their views on the ways in which HRD should be

organized. All actors place their own emphases on learning programs and learning paths, linked

to their positions and views.

More studies should be conducted into the interrelationships among employees, managers and

HRD practitioners in organizing learning programs and creating learning paths (see Figures 1, 2

and 3). Special attention should go out to the issue of how these relations impact upon the mutual

interactions among actors as they create and direct experiences. Oftentimes the interactions

among actors (‘networks’) are considered crucially important to employees’ professional

development in organizational contexts, which is understandable from a didactic and learning-

technological perspective. Interaction is understood primarily as giving feedback and exchanging

information in those traditions. It is questionable, however, to what extent strategic issues can be

resolved through communication and consultation only; the mutual dependence among actors

will probably play a much larger role there and coalitions as well as negotiations could well be

more effective to make differences in viewpoints and interests manageable. The ways in which

HRD practitioners operate within this strategic game also deserve more attention in research.


Organizing HRD in Practice: Learning Programs and Learning Paths

An important and promising conclusion from this study is that learning programs are a key

mechanism for employees to work on their professional development, through their individual

learning paths. Employees use learning programs to organize their professional development in

line with their own views and interests (Parding & Abrahamsson, 2010). Hence, learning

programs contribute to employees’ professional development through learning paths.

There are several ways to organize learning programs. The learning-network theory distinguishes

among vertical/function-oriented, horizontal/problem-oriented, loosely-coupled/person-oriented

and external/method-oriented learning programs. Each of these ideal types has its strengths and

weaknesses; it is up to managers and HRD practitioners to choose and/or combine.

The ideas and plans of actors (especially managers) related to the learning program will not

always materialize. Managers should accept that in most if not all cases, employees respond to

interventions in a learning program differently. One possible reaction to this on the part of

managers is to accept these different employee responses in an attempt to link them to their own

ideas and plans with a sense of flexibility. Learning paths of employees, even in their early

stages, do not necessarily have to match with the learning program exactly; the flexible response,

moreover, will increase the chances that employees’ learning paths contain elements that are in

line with the ideas underlying the original learning program.


References

Admiraal-Hilgeman, D., & Geurts, J. (2011). Human dialogue development (HDD) in education:

Connecting career development and organization development. Organisation und Führung, 5,

311-323.

Armson, G., & Whitely, A. (2010). Employees’ and managers’ accounts of interactive workplace

learning: A grounded theory of “complex integrative learning”. Journal of Workplace

Learning, 22, 409-427.

Bacon, N., & Hoque, K. (2010). Union representation and training: The impact of union learning

representations and the factors influencing their effectiveness. Human Relations, 64, 387-413.

Beausaert, S. A. J. (2011). The use of personal development plans in the workplace: Effects,

purposes and supporting conditions. PhD dissertation, Maastricht University, Netherlands.

Bezuijen, X. M., van den Berg, P. T., van Dam, K., & Thierry, H. (2010). How leaders stimulate

employee learning: A leader-member exchange approach. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 83, 673-693.

Blankenship, S. S., & Ruona, W. E. (2009). Exploring knowledge sharing in social structures:

Potential contributions to an overall knowledge management strategy. Advances in

Developing Human Resources, 11, 290-306.

Candy, P. C. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning: A comprehensive guide to theory and

practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Daley, B. J. (2001). Learning and professional practice: A study of four professions. Adult

Education Quarterly, 52, 39-54.


de Jong, T. (2010). Linking social capital to knowledge productivity: An explorative study on the

relationship between social capital and learning in knowledge-productive networks. PhD

dissertation, Twente University, Netherlands.

European Commission (2001). Making a European area of lifelong learning a reality. Brussels,

Belgium: Commission of the European Communities.

Fenwick, T. J. (2003). Professional growth plans: Possibilities and limitations of an organization-

wide employee development strategy. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14, 59-78.

Harrison, R., & Kessels, J. W. M. (2004). Human resource development in a knowledge

economy: An organizational view. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hillage, J., & Pollard, E. (1998). Employability: Developing a framework for policy analysis.

London, UK: DfEE.

Illeris, K. (2007). The fundamentals of workplace learning: Understanding how people learn in

working life. London, UK: Routledge.

Janssen, S., Kreijns, K., Bastiaens, T., Stijnen, S., & Vermeulen, M. (2012). Teachers’

professional development: An analysis of the use of professional development plans in a

Dutch school. Professional Development in Education, 38, 453-469.

Khaled, A. (2008). Leerwegen creëren (z)onder invloed van het werk: Een onderzoek naar

leerwegen onder reclasseringswerkers [Creating learning paths with(out) the impact of work:

A study of learning paths among rehabilitation workers]. MSc thesis Radboud University

Nijmegen, Netherlands.

Kyndt, E., Michielsen, M., van Nooten, L., Nijs, S., & Baert, H. (2011). Learning in the second

half of the career: Stimulating and prohibiting reasons for participation in formal learning

activities. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 30, 681-699.


Parding, K., & Abrahamsson, L. (2010). Learning gaps in a learning organization: Professionals’

values versus management values. Journal of Workplace Learning, 22, 292-305.

Poell, R. F., Chivers, G. E., van der Krogt, F. J. & Wildemeersch, D. A. (2000). Learning

network theory: Organizing the dynamic relations between learning and work. Management

Learning, 31, 25-49.

Poell, R. F., & van der Krogt, F. J. (2002). Using social networks in organisations to facilitate

individual development. In M. Pearn (Ed.), Individual differences and development in

organisations (pp. 285-304). London, UK: Wiley.

Poell, R. F., & van der Krogt, F. J. (2005). Customizing learning programs to the organization

and its employees: How HRD practitioners create tailored learning programs. International

Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 2, 288-304.

Poell, R. F., & van der Krogt, F. J. (2010). Individual learning paths of employees in the context

of social networks. In S. Billett (Ed.), Learning through practice: Models, traditions,

orientations and approaches (pp. 197-221). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Raemdonck, I. (2006). Self-directedness in learning and career processes: A study in lower-

qualified employees in Flanders. PhD dissertation, Ghent University, Belgium.

Robinson, D. G., & Robinson, J. C. (1989). Training for impact: How to link training to business

needs and measure the results. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Romiszowski, A. J. (1981). Designing instructional systems. London, UK: Kogan Page.

Sadler-Smith, E. (2006). Learning and development for managers: Perspectives from research

and practice. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Simons, P. R. J., & Bolhuis, S. A. M. (2004). Constructivist learning theories and complex

learning environments. In R. H. Mulder & P. F. E. Sloane (Eds.), New approaches to

vocational education in Europe: The construction of complex learning–teaching


arrangements (Oxford Studies in Comparative Education, No. 1, Vol. 13, pp. 13-25). Oxford,

UK: Symposium Books.

Sloots, M. (2008). Leerwegcreatie: (on)afhankelijk van werken in teamverband [Learning-path

creation: (in)dependent of working in teams]. MSc thesis Radboud University Nijmegen,

Netherlands.

Soekijad, M., van den Hooff, B., Agterberg, M., & Huysman, M. (2011). Leading to learn in

networks of practice: Two leadership strategies. Organization Studies, 32, 1005-1027.

Svensson, L., Ellström, P. E., & Aberg, C. (2004). Integrating formal and informal learning at

work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16, 479-492.

van der Krogt, F. J. (1998). Learning network theory: The tension between learning systems and

work systems in organizations. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 9, 157-177.

van der Krogt, F. J. & Warmerdam, J. (2010). Professionaliseringsstrategieën van werknemers

als kern van sociale innovatie [Professional-development strategies of employees as the core

of social innovation]. Rotterdam, Netherlands: NCSI.

van Veen, K., Zwart, R., Meirink, J., & Verloop, N. (2010). Professionele ontwikkeling van

leraren: Een reviewstudie naar effectieve kenmerken van professionaliseringsinterventies van

leraren [Professional development of teachers: A review study into effective characteristics of

professional-development interventions of teachers]. Leiden, Netherlands: ICLON.

van Veldhuizen, B. (2011). Werkend leren, lerend werken: Professionele ontwikkeling van

docenten in persoonlijk en organisatieperspectief [Learning while working, working while

learning: Professional development of teachers in personal and organizational perspective].

PhD dissertation, Utrecht University, Netherlands.

Walton, J. (1999). Strategic human resource development. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.


Yorks, L. (2005). Strategic human resource development. Mason, OH: Thompson Southern-

Western.

professional development strategies of employees, managers and hrd ... · professional development...

Documents