Upload
vutuyen
View
218
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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.
Paper presented at UFHRD 2013 (Brighton, UK) by Rob F Poell & Ferd J Van Der Krogt 2
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
Paper presented at UFHRD 2013 (Brighton, UK) by Rob F Poell & Ferd J Van Der Krogt 3
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.
Paper presented at UFHRD 2013 (Brighton, UK) by Rob F Poell & Ferd J Van Der Krogt 4
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.
Paper presented at UFHRD 2013 (Brighton, UK) by Rob F Poell & Ferd J Van Der Krogt 5
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
Paper presented at UFHRD 2013 (Brighton, UK) by Rob F Poell & Ferd J Van Der Krogt 6
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
Paper presented at UFHRD 2013 (Brighton, UK) by Rob F Poell & Ferd J Van Der Krogt 7
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
Paper presented at UFHRD 2013 (Brighton, UK) by Rob F Poell & Ferd J Van Der Krogt 8
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:
Paper presented at UFHRD 2013 (Brighton, UK) by Rob F Poell & Ferd J Van Der Krogt 9
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
Paper presented at UFHRD 2013 (Brighton, UK) by Rob F Poell & Ferd J Van Der Krogt 10
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
Paper presented at UFHRD 2013 (Brighton, UK) by Rob F Poell & Ferd J Van Der Krogt 11
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
Paper presented at UFHRD 2013 (Brighton, UK) by Rob F Poell & Ferd J Van Der Krogt 12
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.
Paper presented at UFHRD 2013 (Brighton, UK) by Rob F Poell & Ferd J Van Der Krogt 13
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.
Paper presented at UFHRD 2013 (Brighton, UK) by Rob F Poell & Ferd J Van Der Krogt 14
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
Paper presented at UFHRD 2013 (Brighton, UK) by Rob F Poell & Ferd J Van Der Krogt 15
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.
Paper presented at UFHRD 2013 (Brighton, UK) by Rob F Poell & Ferd J Van Der Krogt 16
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
Paper presented at UFHRD 2013 (Brighton, UK) by Rob F Poell & Ferd J Van Der Krogt 17
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.
Paper presented at UFHRD 2013 (Brighton, UK) by Rob F Poell & Ferd J Van Der Krogt 18
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.
Paper presented at UFHRD 2013 (Brighton, UK) by Rob F Poell & Ferd J Van Der Krogt 19
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.
Paper presented at UFHRD 2013 (Brighton, UK) by Rob F Poell & Ferd J Van Der Krogt 20
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
Paper presented at UFHRD 2013 (Brighton, UK) by Rob F Poell & Ferd J Van Der Krogt 21
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
Paper presented at UFHRD 2013 (Brighton, UK) by Rob F Poell & Ferd J Van Der Krogt 22
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.
Paper presented at UFHRD 2013 (Brighton, UK) by Rob F Poell & Ferd J Van Der Krogt 23
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.
Paper presented at UFHRD 2013 (Brighton, UK) by Rob F Poell & Ferd J Van Der Krogt 24
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.
Paper presented at UFHRD 2013 (Brighton, UK) by Rob F Poell & Ferd J Van Der Krogt 25
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
Paper presented at UFHRD 2013 (Brighton, UK) by Rob F Poell & Ferd J Van Der Krogt 26
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
Paper presented at UFHRD 2013 (Brighton, UK) by Rob F Poell & Ferd J Van Der Krogt 27
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
Paper presented at UFHRD 2013 (Brighton, UK) by Rob F Poell & Ferd J Van Der Krogt 28
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
Paper presented at UFHRD 2013 (Brighton, UK) by Rob F Poell & Ferd J Van Der Krogt 29
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
Paper presented at UFHRD 2013 (Brighton, UK) by Rob F Poell & Ferd J Van Der Krogt 30
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.
Paper presented at UFHRD 2013 (Brighton, UK) by Rob F Poell & Ferd J Van Der Krogt 31
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.
Paper presented at UFHRD 2013 (Brighton, UK) by Rob F Poell & Ferd J Van Der Krogt 32
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.
Paper presented at UFHRD 2013 (Brighton, UK) by Rob F Poell & Ferd J Van Der Krogt 33
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.
Paper presented at UFHRD 2013 (Brighton, UK) by Rob F Poell & Ferd J Van Der Krogt 34
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.
Paper presented at UFHRD 2013 (Brighton, UK) by Rob F Poell & Ferd J Van Der Krogt 35
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.
Paper presented at UFHRD 2013 (Brighton, UK) by Rob F Poell & Ferd J Van Der Krogt 36
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
Paper presented at UFHRD 2013 (Brighton, UK) by Rob F Poell & Ferd J Van Der Krogt 37
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.