Fostering Work-Based Learning in Teams
Through an Educational Intervention[1]
Maria Gustavsson ()
Bodil Ekholm ()
Eva Ellström ()
Per-Erik Ellström ()
Center for Studies of Humans, Technology
and Organization (CMTO)
Department of Behavioural Sciences
Linköping University, Sweden
1. Introduction
In spite of the widespread consensus regarding the importance of work-based learning, little is known about the processes of learning at work and the conditions that are likely to facilitate or constrain such processes. This paper is based on a study of work-based learning and team development in three organizations within a Swedish municipality. An educational intervention based on a process of group problem solving and planning was carried out in these three organizations during a period of two and a half years. The aim of this paper is to explore: (a) the extent to which it was possible to foster work-based learning and team development through this intervention; and (b) the different individual, group and organizational factors that facilitated or hindered the learning and development process.
2. Theoretical Framework
The notion of work-based learning as used here refers to learning that occurs in connection with different kinds of work activity. Such learning may occur without awareness or intention to learn on the part of the learning subject (implicit learning), or it may involve a more or less deliberate effort to learn (cf. Eraut, 2000). In both cases the learning may take place spontaneously during the ongoing work process, i.e. on-line as the work is carried out, or it may take place before or after a certain sequence of the work process, i.e. off-line (for example during a meeting). The focus of this study concerns the extent to which arranged opportunities for reflection and learning off-line - as part of an educational intervention (see section 3 below) - may support subsequent learning at work – both on-line and off-line. The learning subject is the team (the work group) rather than an individual member of a team. Thus, in this sense, there is a focus on collective learning as opposed to individual learning. The notion of work-based learning as it is used here will be somewhat further elaborated in the text below.
Adaptive and Developmental Learning
An important point of departure for the study is a distinction between two qualitatively different forms or levels of learning which we prefer to call adaptive (reproductive) and developmental (creative) learning (Ellström, 1992; 2001). The notion of adaptive learning has a focus on a subject’s mastery of certain given tasks or situations, on the refinement of task performance or, for example, of existing routines in an organization. This is in contrast to developmental learning, where the focus is on individual/collective development, and/or on more radical transformations of the prevailing situation. Thus, in developmental learning there is an emphasis on exploring and questioning existing conditions, solving ambiguous problems, and developing new solutions. The notion of developmental learning used here has links to Dewey’s (1910/1997) notion of reflection, as well as to such different traditions as Engeström’s (1987) activity theory based model of expansive learning and Argyris’ et al. (1985) model of investigative organizational learning.
To further clarify this distinction it is important to underline that the two concepts of adaptive and developmental learning do not concern two forms of learning that are in some sense mutually exclusive. Rather, they are assumed to be complementary, where one form or the other can be dominant or relatively inconspicuous, depending on the conditions which prevail in a specific situation. Furthermore, both forms of learning are needed. Although adaptive learning might be perceived as having mainly negative connotations, for example, focusing on people’s adjustment to a perhaps aversive reality, the significance of this kind of learning should not be depreciated. Newcomers’ socialization to a new workplace and their attempts to master existing norms, cultural practices, and routines can be mentioned as examples of the importance of adaptive learning (Fenwick, 2003). Conversely, developmental or creative learning, although the connotations are positive, may nevertheless entail negative aspects. For example, too strong an emphasis on flexibility, transformation of prevailing practices, and the creation of new solutions may create negative stress and feelings of anxiety and insecurity. Under favourable conditions, however, developmental learning can be a driving force for change and innovation in an organization (Brown & Duguid, 1991). In addition, studies of work processes in different areas attest to the importance of being able to deal alternately with well-known, routine problems and new or unknown problematic situations, and thereby, being able to alternate between an adaptive and a developmental mode of learning.
There are a number of examples from studies of practical work that support and can exemplify the existence of developmental learning. One example is Hirschorn’s (1984) demonstration of the unofficial and unrecognised development work (“second-order work”) that often exists in industrial work for dealing with unexpected problem situations. Reason (1990) and Zuboff (1988) discuss similar observations. More recently, Davidson & Svedin (1999) and Gustavsson (2000) have presented other examples of developmental learning based on studies of operators’ work in industrial settings. However, observations of developmental learning are not limited to industrial settings. Thunborg (1999) studied adaptive and developmental learning strategies in hospital settings and Ellström & Ekholm (2001) were able to identify conditions for developmental learning within home-help services for elderly and handicapped people. What these examples all have in common is that they show how, in practice, there is significant creativity in carrying out many types of practical jobs and that this creativity is often necessary in order to establish a reasonably effective and well functioning workplace. However, at the same time, several of these studies also underline the predominance of routine activity and adaptive learning in the actual work process (e.g. Ellström & Ekholm, 2001; Gustavsson, 2000). The developmental learning that undoubtedly exists in many work settings (as well as the underlying creativity and potential), takes place mainly unofficially as a part of what happens “behind the scenes” and is typically not made visible and given recognition. As a consequence, the potential for developmental learning that may exist is excluded from the “official” picture of the work process, i.e. from what Brown & Duguid (1991) call the canonical practice.
Considering this line of reasoning, the purpose of this study may be stated more precisely as a study of the extent to which it is possible to foster developmental learning through an educational intervention, and thereby, also possible to create a better balance between adaptive and developmental learning – in the first place in the actual work practice, but possibly also in the official image of that practice.
Two Logics of Work and Learning
How then can work processes be organized in order to foster developmental learning? A basic assumption made here is that the two levels of learning distinguished above - adaptive and developmental learning - can be understood as integral aspects of two different patterns (logics) of practice in organizations, called the logic of performance and the logic of development respectively (Ellström, 2002). These two logics of work and learning are assumed to reflect not only different ways of viewing learning at work, but also different ways of organizing for work-related learning in practice. Thus, which of these two logics predominates in a certain work process at a certain time is assumed to be a crucial factor for determining the available scope for adaptive and developmental learning respectively, in that work process at that point in time.
The Logic of Performance. The logic of performance has a focus on promoting efficient and reliable action that, as far as possible, is also relatively stable over time. In order to accomplish this, it is necessary to reduce variation in thought and action patterns within and between individuals in an organization, i.e., to promote homogeneity. In line with this orientation, the logic of performance places a strong emphasis on goal consensus, standardization, stability, and avoidance of uncertainty. In several respects, this logic comes close to what March (1991) calls processes of exploitation in organizational learning characterized by a focus on refinement, production, efficiency, and execution. This thinking is also characteristic of Taylorist models for organizing work, but the logic of performance may be said to transcend the boundaries of the Taylorist model and it is in certain respects more general than this model. In terms of how to organize work, this logic emphasizes:
· narrow tasks with limited scope for problem-solving and learning;
· a low degree of employee autonomy with respect to the definition of tasks and/or the choice of work procedures/methods;
· limited scope for employee participation in problem handling and developmental activities; and
· a focus on efficiency, stability, routinization, and avoidance of uncertainty.
The Logic of Development. What is referred to here as the logic of development places a strong emphasis on thought and reflection, experimentation, and risk-taking as important aspects of organizational practices. Similar to what March (1991) calls processes of exploration, the logic of development has a focus on flexibility, discovery and innovation. Accordingly, in this perspective, it is not a matter of reducing variation and attaining uniformity but, rather, of creating variation and diversity in thought and action, i.e. to promote heterogeneity. The logic of development, interpreted thus, entails action and learning that call for risk-taking and acceptance of failures, a capacity for critical analysis, and scope and resources for experimenting with and testing alternative ways of acting in different situations. Conflicts and ambiguity are seen not as potential threats to learning, but often as potentials for triggering developmental learning. In terms of its implications for the organization of work, this logic emphasizes:
· broader tasks with high requirements for problem-solving and learning;
· a high degree of employee autonomy with respect to the definition of tasks and/or the choice of work procedures/methods;
· considerable scope for employee participation in problem handling and developmental activities; and
· a focus on alternative thinking and innovativeness.
Balancing the Two Logics. As is clear from the descriptions of the two logics given above, they both involve learning as a basic mechanism for furthering efficient performance and innovativeness respectively. As well, the two logics are based upon different organizational conditions and practices which are assumed to constrain or facilitate learning. Thus, in this way the two logics are assumed to shape the conditions of learning that prevail in a certain organization at a particular time.
It should be emphasised that the relationship between the logic of performance and the logic of development is not viewed here as mutually exclusive. Rather, the two logics are viewed as complementary patterns of practice. That is, both are regarded as necessary to assure the long-term continuation and development of the organization. However, this does not prevent the two logics, in the short and medium term, from being contradictory in that they entail different ways of using available resources in an organization. Thus, the problem is to find a suitable balance and assign priorities to measures to bring about stability, security and short-term results, in accordance with the logic of performance, and to promote long-term development and innovation in accordance with the logic of development.
A basic idea behind this study was that by using the kind of intervention described in the next section it would be possible to implement a logic of development at the three work sites involved, and thereby, to create conditions for a better balance between the two logics. Our underlying research interest is to better understand the interplay between the two logics and how developmental learning takes place in practice.
3. The Educational Intervention
The empirical study, carried out within the framework of an interactive or collaborative research approach (e.g. Adler, Shani & Styhre, 2004), was based on case studies of learning processes which took place in three teams. One team was composed of teachers within a school, another consisted of home-care workers from a home-help services unit, and one team were operators from a technical support unit.
A starting point for this research has been to create the scope and opportunities for learning and local development work within the work teams. At the same time, the research process was connected to the practical activity and the development process taking place in the work teams. This research approach emphasizes the need for interaction between research and practice as well as perceives the interplay between research and practice as two intertwined learning loops where learning is made possible for both parties on the basis of a common direction towards and an interest to interpret, understand and form ongoing processes of change in the organization. This is in contrast to seeing the cooperation between research and practical activity as a linear process where the researchers formulate knowledge in the form of a system of concepts, models or methods which are taken over and applied by those who are involved in practice.
Another starting point for this research has been to strive to firmly establish the project with management on all levels within the municipality, i.e. municipality management, administration, and managers for those units concerned, as well as with unions and co-workers in the work teams. It is well known from literature on the subject that change and development strategies can be directed from the top-down, bottom-up, or horizontally and based on the co-operation and networks within and between organizations (cp. Svensson et al., 2001). Several of these change and development strategies have gone on simultaneously, but in the last few years, more integrated and cooperative forms for development in enterprises have become more dominant. This is in line with information from researchers pointing out crucial deficiencies in strategies for change directed both from the top-down and from the bottom-up. Several researchers think that it can be difficult to separate and perhaps isn’t even desirable to distinguish between the production and the learning/development activities, rather on the contrary, it is necessary to find a balance between the logics of production and development (Ellström, 2002) or the organization of operations and development (Svensson et al., 2001; Björn et al., 2002).