Journal Press India^®

Author Details ( * ) denotes Corresponding author

In the past several decades, we have witnessed unprecedented social and technological change that has had profound implications for the nature of work. Such acceleration of change necessitates flexibility, the ability and ambition to continuously learn, and a willingness to experiment and take risks. In response, many national governments and industry leaders have emphasized the virtues of facilitating lifelong learning at work. Indeed, facilitating lifelong learning has been touted as a solution to remaining competitive. However, lifelong learning is only a concept. For it to be practical, it must be operationalized into steps from which organizations can follow. The extant research literature is scant in telling us how organizations actually implement lifelong learning practices and policies. Hence, the purpose of this paper is to describe how lifelong learning is grounded in practice. We do this by introducing a new conceptual framework that was developed on the basis of interviews with a number of leading edge corporations from Canada, the USA, India and Korea. At the heart of our model, and any effective lifelong learning system, is a performance management system. The performance management system allows for an ongoing interaction between managers and employees whereby challenging performance and learning goals are set, and concrete plans are made to achieve them. Those plans involve three types of learning activities. First, employees may be encouraged to engage in formal learning. This could be provided in-house, or the employee may take a leave of absence and return to school. Second, managers may deploy their subordinates to different departments or teams, so that they can take part in new work-based learning opportunities. Finally, employees may be encouraged to learn on their own time. By this we mean learning after organizational hours through firm-sponsored 5 programs, such as e-learning courses. Fueled by the performance management system, we posit that these three learning outlets lead to effective lifelong learning in organizations. Our model also stipulates that the three avenues of learning are mutually reinforcing. Formal training may enable an employee to participate in a work assignment in a different department. A work assignment may encourage employees to complete e-learning courses to support their work-based learning. Learning on one’s own time may lead to a promotion, and more formal training. In sum, the three ways of engaging in learning are mutually reinforcing. They are directed by the performance management system to ensure that learning is focused on organizational objectives. This paper provides texture to our theoretical model. We demonstrate how leading organizations use performance management systems to encourage lifelong learning. We also provide examples of how formal training is used to meet organizational goals, how work assignments are leveraged so that individuals have the ability to learn, and how organizations are increasingly providing opportunities for individuals to learn on their own time.

Keywords

Lifelong Learning; Emerging Society; Lifelong Education; Lifelong Training; Open Distance Learning

1. Jeff M. Allen, Marcy. Hart, Training older workers: implications for HRD/HPT professionals. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 11(4), 1998, 91-102.
2. C. Argyris, D. Schon, Organizational Learning: A Theory in Action Perspective. Addison-Wesley, 1978
3. Stephen Bevan, Marc. Thompson, Performance Management at the Crossroads. Personnel Management, 23(11), 1991, 36-40
4. Boeing's long-distance approach to learning, Human Resource Management International Digest, 9(1), 2001, 10-11
5. T. N. Garavan, P. Costine, N. Heraty, The Emergence of Strategic HRD. Journal of European Industrial Training, 19(10), 1995, 470
6. T. N. Garavan, N. Heraty, B. Barnicle, Human Resource Development Literature: Current Issues, Priorities and Dilemmas, Journal of European Industrial Training, 23(4/5), 1999, 169-179.
7. W. D. Hicks, R. J. Klimoski, Entry into Training Programs and its Effects on Training Outcomes: A Field Experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 1987, 542-553.
8. Almeric Johnson, Dave Sharman. Innovation in all things, Human Resource Management International Digest, 6(1), 1998, 28-30
9. Debbie Keeling, Eleri Jones, David Botterill, Work-based learning, motivation and employer-employee interaction: Implications for lifelong learning. Innovations in Education and Training International, 35(4), 1998, 282-291
10. M. Leys, D. Wijgaerts, C. Hancke, From Learning in the Workplace to Learning Organizations: Seven European Companies Move beyond Training Policies. SERV-Stichting Technologie Vlaanderen, Brussels, 1992
11. Edwin A. Locke, Gary P. Latham, Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation. The American Psychologist, 57(9), 2002, 705.
12. S. Merriam, R. Caffarella, Learning in Adulthood. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1991, 54-55
13. Pate, Judy, Graeme Martin, Phil Beaumont, McGoldrick, Jim, Company-based lifelong learning: what's the pay-off for employers?, Journal of European Industrial Training, 24(2/3/4), 2000, 149-157.
14. M. Pedler, J. D. Burgoyne, T. Boydell, A Managers Guide to Self- Development, 3rd edition. McGraw Hill: London, 1994
15. L. H. Peters, E. J. Oonnor, Situational Constraints and Work Outcomes: The Influence of a Frequently Overlooked Constraint, Academy of Management Review, 5, 1980, 391-397
16. Peters, E. J. Oonnor, C. J. Rudolf, The Behavior and Affective Consequences of Performance-Relevant Situational Variables. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 1980, 79-96
17. Petridou, Eugenia, Paraskevi Chatzipanagiotou, The planning process in managing organizations of continuing education: the case of Greek vocational training institutions. The International Journal of Educational Management, 18(4/5), 2004, 215-223
18. M. E. Porter, The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Free Press Portwood, Derek, Work-based learning has arrived, Management Development Review, 6(6), 36 Mathews, B.P. & Ueno, et al (2001). Quality Training: Findings from a European Survey. The TQM Magazine, 13(1), 61-71.
19. R. A. Noe, S. L. Wilk, Investigation of the Factors that Influence Employees Participation in Development Activities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 1993, 291-302.
20. I. Nonaka, H. Takeuchi, G. Salaman, J. Storey, (Eds), Strategic Human Resource Management.
21. C. W. Read, B. H. Kleiner, Which Training Methods are Effective? Management Development Review, 9(2), 1996, 24-29.
22. P. Senge, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Lecturing Business, London, 1990
23. Sveinung Skule, Learning conditions at work: A framework to understand and assess informal learning. International Journal of Training and Development, 8(1), 2004, 8-20
24. Ian W. Smith, Continuing professional development and workplace learning 10: human resource development - the policy imperative. Library Management, 25(8/9), 2004, 401-403.
25. Mohan. Thite, Help us but help yourself: The paradox of contemporary career management. Career Development International, 6(6), 2001, 312-317.
26. S. Tjepkema, J. Sheerens, Role of HRD in Learning Organizations? European Concepts and Practices. University of Twente, The Netherlands, Verma & Mann, 2005