roles of informal workplace trainers in different organizational contexts: empirical evidence from...

Roles of Informal WorkplaceTrainers in DifferentOrganizational Contexts:Empirical Evidence fromAustralian Companies

Rob F. Poell, Ferd J. Van der Krogt, A. A. Vermulst, Roger Harris, Michele Simons

Informal workplace trainers help employees learn what they need to knowand do in order to get their job done. Little is known about the actions ofinformal workplace trainers, who may be colleagues or supervisors. Thisstudy provides an empirical basis for actions undertaken by informalworkplace trainers. A total of 350 Australian enterprises were interviewedby telephone. Actions of informal workplace trainers were measured usinga list of thirty-two statements based on prior qualitative research. Threefactors were found to describe core role dimensions: support, structure, andperformance. Also, three types of informal workplace trainer appeared:some had a passive indifferent role conception, a considerable number hada restricted role conception, and many had a broad, active role conception.Relationships of role dimensions and role conceptions with organizationalcontext variables and characteristics of informal workplace trainers weretested as well. The study proposes several directions for further research.

Over the past decade, the workplace has been rediscovered as an importantlearning environment (Jacobs & Jones, 1995; Eraut, 2000; Streumer, 2006).As a result, studies examining employee training and learning have beenbroadened in at least two respects. First, attention has moved from formaltraining to informal training and learning in the workplace and to ways in

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, vol. 17, no. 2, Summer 2006 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.1168 175

176 Poell, Van der Krogt, Vermulst, Harris, Simons

which these can be enhanced (Wenger, 1998; Billett, 2000). Second, the focuson roles and strategies of formal educators and trainers in organizing employeelearning has been broadened to include those of other organizational actors,such as colleagues and supervisors (MacNeil, 2001; Ellinger & Bostrom,2002).

The learning system of organizations has become more diffuse as a result(Van der Krogt, 1998). Many organizational actors who are involved in orga-nizing training and learning activities have unclear tasks and responsibilitiesthat often remain implicit. We refer to these actors as informal workplace train-ers. They contribute significantly to informal employee learning in the work-place and support them in formal training participation; however, their ownposition in the learning system of the organization has not been formalized.Employees ask them for support in their educational activities, and the infor-mal workplace trainers are well aware that they help employees learn. Inhuman resource development (HRD) literature, their actions are often referredto as those of a coach, mentor, counselor, or facilitator (Walton, 1999; D’Abate,Eddy, & Tannenbaum, 2003; Joo, 2005). Experienced colleagues and directsupervisors, who do occupy a formal position related to the employee’s work,are often the ones who perform such roles.

The study examined here focuses on the actions of these informal work-place trainers, especially the positions they assume in the learning systems oforganizations and how they view their own roles in supporting employeelearning. Knowledge about the positions and roles of informal workplace train-ers is necessary, first, for the maintenance and improvement of learning sys-tems in organizations. Research has shown that formal educators fail to takeon many of these important tasks (Nijhof, 2004), which should come as nosurprise since they have little authority to rearrange the workplace foremployee learning. Informal workplace trainers, however, have many oppor-tunities to improve work-related learning. Whereas the usually weak positionof formal educators in the organization makes them prone to designing off-the-job training programs, informal workplace trainers are in a position to alsoinfluence everyday employee learning on the job. A second possible applica-tion of knowledge about the positions and roles of informal workplace train-ers is in developing targeted professionalization programs that focus on thespecific opportunities available to informal workplace trainers in comparisonto formal educators.

Theory also can benefit from added knowledge about the positions androles of informal workplace trainers in three ways:

Extending what is already known about the relationships between work andorganization, on the one hand, and learning systems and programs, onthe other hand (see Poell & Van der Krogt, 2002)

Complementing our existing knowledge about work characteristics rele-vant to learning (for example, Ellström, 2001; Torraco, 1999; Holton,

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

Bates, & Ruona, 2000) with an insight into the perceptions and actionsof those who engage in informal workplace training

Increasing our understanding of the roles of various organizational actorsother than HRD practitioners and workers themselves in influencingemployee learning

Most research to date has focused attention on formal educators (Hytönen,2002). Although it is often stated that training responsibility should bedevolved to line management and team-level actors (Tjepkema et al., 2002),little is known to date about the ways in which these informal workplace train-ers operate. The aim of the study reported here is to provide an empirical basisfor the actions undertaken by informal workplace trainers.

The article first explores theory relevant to the roles of informal workplacetrainers as well as research available in this area. This is followed by an empir-ical study among informal workplace trainers conducted in Australia. The arti-cle finishes with a discussion of the main conclusions and an overview oftopics for further research into informal workplace trainer roles.

Theoretical Background: The Roles of InformalWorkplace Trainers in Learning Systems

The learning system of an organization refers to the constellation of organiza-tional actors who together shape the organization’s learning policy and thelearning activities of its employees (Van der Krogt, 1998; Poell, 2005). Thisstudy focuses particularly on the ways in which learning activities are con-ducted, leaving aside the issue of learning policy creation.

Employees are core actors in the learning system of an organization, asthey frequently prepare, carry out, control, and adjust everyday learning activ-ities on the job (Doornbos, Bolhuis, & Simons, 2004; Berings, Poell, &Simons, 2005). For example, they think about their learning needs, find outtheir preferred learning styles, see learning opportunities available in their jobs,participate in training and education, study literature by themselves, formlearning communities with colleagues from their own organization or exter-nally, reflect on their work experiences, try to bring coherence to learning activ-ities conducted in various settings (that is, transfer their learning), evaluatewhat they have learned from certain activities, and so forth (Van der Krogt,2006).

Other organizational actors are involved as well in the learning activitiesthat these employees conduct (Van der Krogt, 2006). First, there are dedicated(formal) educators who design and deliver training programs. Guiding employ-ees through these programs is also an important task of these educators (Billett,2000). A second important category of actors is direct and indirect colleagues.Employees participate in all kinds of collaborative learning activities with col-leagues and also share their experiences with them (Marsick & O’Neil, 1999).

Roles of Informal Workplace Trainers 177



Third, employees’ supervisors are relevant organizational actors. They often actas their mentors or coaches on the job and sometimes as educators in trainingcourses (Ellinger, Watkins, & Barnas, 1999).

The latter two categories, colleagues and supervisors, are important infor-mal workplace trainers. But what are their actual roles when it comes toorganizing employee learning activities on the job? After an overview of theroles of HRD practitioners in learning systems, several other theoreticalapproaches of the relationship among learning, work, and organizations willbe explored to shed more light on the roles of informal workplace trainers.

Roles of HRD Practitioners. A first source of inspiration to better under-stand what informal workplace trainers do is literature about the roles of HRDpractitioners. The seminal work of McLagan in the United States (McLagan &Bedrick, 1983; McLagan, 1989; 1996) was replicated in European organi-zations in the 1990s. Valkeavaara (1999) concluded that the roles of organiza-tional change agent, instructor, HRD manager, and program designer appearedto best define the actions of European HRD practitioners.

Empirical evidence about new roles of HRD practitioners in facilitatingself-directed individual and team learning remains inconclusive as yet(Gubbins & Garavan, 2005). Nijhof (2004) replicated an earlier large-scalequantitative study among Dutch HRD professionals and found their main taskshad remained similar over ten years: training delivery, training coordination,organization development, and training management. Competence manage-ment, knowledge management, quality control, and training purchase weredeemed important but far from prevalent in organizational reality.

Smaller-scale qualitative studies among HRD professionals in Finland(Hytönen, 2002) and the United Kingdom (Poell & Chivers, 2003) yieldedsimilar results. Tjepkema et al. (2002) concluded that across Europe, tradi-tional HRD strategies still play an important role, although they also foundsome good practice in so-called learning-oriented organizations. Case studyresearch in health care (Poell & Van der Krogt, 2004) suggests that HRD prac-titioners use few explicit strategies to tailor their training programs to the learn-ers and their work environment, even though many examples of well-intendedtrainer actions were found.

All in all, formal educators seem to play only a limited role in supportingemployee learning on the job and in furthering the ideal of a learning orga-nization. It is true that since the 1990s, structured on-the-job training hasgained increasing attention (Jacobs & Jones, 1995; Van Zolingen, Streumer,De Jong, & Van der Klink, 2000; Versloot, De Jong, & Thijssen, 2001). How-ever, this is still formal training, albeit in the context of the workplace ratherthan a classroom. Learning from work (or even integrating learning withwork) is quite a different proposition and apparently not one that formal edu-cators are very proficient at organizing yet. As far as the roles of informalworkplace trainers are concerned, it is possible that these are partly or entirelydifferent from the roles of HRD practitioners. Perhaps informal workplace


trainers actually take on some of these tasks deemed important (but not oftenundertaken) by HRD practitioners, or perhaps their ways of helping employ-ees learn answer to their own logic, unrelated to formal HRD tasks. It can,however, safely be assumed that informal workplace trainers use even fewerexplicit strategies to organize workplace learning than formal educators suchas HRD practitioners do.

The Relationships Among Learning, Work, and Organizations. Thissection explores to what extent literature on the learning potential of theworkplace, the learning organization, learning transfer systems, and coachingand mentoring can shed more light on the roles of informal workplace trainers.

Learning Potential of the Workplace. Besides various sources of job-relevant information available in the workplace (Onstenk, 1997), it ismainly the work content and the relationships among colleagues andsupervisors that determine the workplace learning opportunities availableto employees. An important characteristic of the work content in thisrespect is the degree of variation and complexity in employees’ tasks. Acomprehensive and varied set of tasks offers employees many learningopportunities, due mainly to a multitude of experiences and room forexperiment. This is especially the case when employees have the necessaryautonomy to organize their own work (Onstenk, 1997; Ellström, 2001).Relationships with colleagues and supervisors are important because theydetermine the nature and amount of feedback received by the employee,which constitutes a crucial condition for learning (Argyris & Schön, 1996;Tjepkema, 2003). Other important aspects of the social work environmentinclude the extent to which colleagues and supervisors are supportive andencouraging of the employee (Onstenk, 1997). The actions of informalworkplace trainers can be regarded as increasing (aspects of ) the learningpotential of the workplace. They may, for example, guide an employeethrough a variety of formative work experiences, gradually increasing his orher job autonomy, or solicit feedback to the employee from a range ofcolleagues (Driver, 2002).

The Learning Organization. Ever since Senge’s seminal work (1990) in thisarea, the concept of the learning organization has remained elusive amid themultitude of definitions intended to clarify its meaning (Yang, Watkins, &Marsick, 2004). Nevertheless, it is generally accepted that a learningorganization encourages learning at the individual, team, and organizationallevel and that the relationships among organizational members are crucial forsuch learning to occur. In his overview of the ways in which the learningorganization has been conceptualized, Örtenblad (2002) refers to the learn-ing climate perspective as emphasizing the facilitation of employee learningby the organization. If the organizational climate is supportive, learning in theworkplace will be enabled. Marsick and Watkins (2003) distinguished anumber of dimensions that clarify how cultural characteristics of theorganization contribute to employee learning. Especially the two dimensions




of creating continuous learning opportunities and encouraging inquiry anddialogue are relevant to understanding the potential contribution of informalworkplace trainers. They may, for instance, purposely provide an employeewith a manageable work problem in order to increase his or her self-confidence or encourage him or her to give colleagues honest feedback aboutthe implementation of a new work procedure (Tjepkema, 2003).

Learning Transfer Systems. The vast body of research on the transfer oftraining and learning transfer systems pays increasing attention to theworkplace factors that affect transfer besides trainee and trainingcharacteristics (Holton et al., 2000; Holton, Chen, & Naquin, 2003). Amongthose workplace factors are the employee’s immediate supervisor support aswell as peer support. Managers and colleagues can support the employee byhelping with goal setting, modeling desired behaviors, providing practicalassistance, and giving feedback and reinforcement (Burke & Baldwin, 1999;Russ-Eft, 2002). These forms of support can also be considered typical actionson the part of informal workplace trainers. In these ways, the trainers can helpemployees transfer what they learned in a training course to the workplace.There is a link between learning transfer systems and the learningorganization, in that transfer systems can help organizations bridge the gapbetween informal and formal training and thus encourage learning throughoutthe organization. There is also a link between learning transfer systems and theconcepts of coaching and mentoring.

Coaching and Mentoring. Supervisor support, as an important learningtransfer factor, may take the form of coaching or mentoring. Both constructsrepresent developmental interactions between a learner and a developerwith a certain degree of downward direction; however, coaching usuallyhas a short-term orientation, a specific focus, and an emphasis on practicalapplication, whereas mentoring is associated with a long-term orientation, ageneral object of development, and a focus on providing support (D’Abateet al., 2003). Joo (2005) summarized these differences in his statement thatmentoring is people focused and coaching is issue focused. Both coaching andmentoring roles can be performed by informal workplace trainers, althoughprobably not to a highly structured and formalized degree. From theirempirical study in a Fortune 10 company, Ellinger et al. (1999) concludedthat even in a concerted effort to have managers take on educational roles,many of them showed only modest support to actually serve as trainers.The notion that managers should become coaches has been very popularin the past decade (Greenwood, Wasson, & Giles, 1993; Marquardt &Reynolds, 1994; Watkins & Marsick, 1996), but other empirical studies,like that of Ellinger et al. (1999), have shown that organizational practiceslag behind literature in this respect (for example, Gibb, 2003; Renwick,2003). It is still possible, however, that many supervisors take on informalmentoring or coaching roles or help employees develop in other, lessstructured ways.


The Research Study

This review of the literature suggests many ways in which informal work-place trainers could operate. However, there is a clear lack of empirical insightinto the actions of informal workplace trainers within the learning system of theirorganizations, especially viewed from their own perspective. There is littleknowledge also about the ways in which informal workplace trainers interprettheir own roles. Therefore, we investigated four research questions in this study:

1. Which actions do informal workplace trainers undertake?2. Which role dimensions can be detected in the actions of informal

workplace trainers?3. If role dimensions can be detected, which different role conceptions do

informal workplace trainers have, based on those dimensions?

After determining the role dimensions and role conceptions of informalworkplace trainers, their relationship with a number of background charac-teristics will be investigated (Versloot et al., 2001; Holton et al., 2003):

4. How are role dimensions and role conceptions related to organizationalcontext variables and to characteristics of informal workplace trainers?

Method. The research process consisted of a qualitative stage and a quan-titative stage. The aim of the qualitative stage was to gain clear insight into howinformal workplace trainers organize employee learning on the job within aselected group of enterprises. The result was a list of actions undertaken byinformal workplace trainers, which was used to develop an instrument for datacollection in the second part of the study. The aim of this quantitative stagewas to obtain information about informal workplace trainer actions in a largesample of enterprises.

Sampling. The first stage of the research process involved observationsand interviews in eighteen enterprises selected according to a three-way strat-ified sampling design. The first stratification criterion was a selection of threestates in Australia: South Australia, New South Wales, and Victoria. The sec-ond criterion was the size of the enterprises: small, medium, and large. Thethird criterion was a selection of three industries. Building and constructionwas selected because it was regarded as an industry with a more traditional(that is, classroom-based) approach to training than the other industries. Infor-mation technology was selected because it is a relatively new and growingindustry experiencing rapid change. This industry, it was believed, was facingunique challenges in employee training not encountered to the same extent inother industries. Real estate was selected because there is no well-establishedindustry preservice training; most training is undertaken on the job and con-ducted by peers or immediate managers.




The selection of the enterprises was spread across the three states so thatsix companies were observed in each state: one large (one hundred or moreemployees), two medium (twenty to ninety-nine employees), and three small(fewer than twenty employees) enterprises. For each company, a researcherobserved an employee with his or her informal workplace trainer, used anobservation schedule to record the actions of this trainer and the trainer—employee interaction, and recorded verbal interactions where possible. Fol-lowing these observations, the informal workplace trainers were interviewedusing semistructured interview schedules. Twenty-nine observations combinedwith interviews were held at the eighteen enterprises that had been selected.

There were three sources of data during the qualitative stage of theresearch process: transcripts of the training episodes that had been observed,transcripts of the interviews held with informal workplace trainers, andresearchers’ field notes. The transcripts were coded and analyzed usingNUD.ist software (Non-numerical Unstructured Data-Indexing, Searching andTheorizing). This analysis was an iterative process starting with initial cate-gories that emerged from the general themes in the transcripts. These provi-sional categories were refined as new insights emerged during several roundsof constantly comparing transcript scenes. Field notes were used to providethe transcript scenes with necessary context details. Agreement was soughtfrom each of the three researchers throughout the qualitative analysis. In theseways, validity and consistency of interpretation were checked. From thisprocess, thirty-two statements were identified as informal workplace traineractions undertaken in the eighteen enterprises under study. These formed thenucleus of the interview schedule for the quantitative research part, which arereported here.

Participants. Telephone interviews were planned to include a cross-section of enterprises within the building and construction (BC), informationtechnology (IT), and real estate (RE) industries from the three states inAustralia. Enterprises were selected having at least one person who had expe-rience training at least one employee on the job. This informal workplacetrainer was selected by the enterprise to match the following description givenby the interviewer: “We are conducting a survey about people who, for part oftheir job, have some responsibilities for training the people they work with,usually as on-the-job training. It’s usually more informal training and mightinvolve working with apprentices, trainees or employees who are new or lessexperienced and now need some assistance in learning more about their job.”Thus, selected informal workplace trainers were asked which of several state-ments (listed in Table 1) best described their role as informal workplace train-ers in the enterprises where they worked. One person in each enterprise wasinterviewed.

Only 8 percent claimed that they were required to act as a formal workplacetrainer because it was written in their job description. The remainder (92 percent)were involved in employee on-the-job training as informal workplace trainers.


The respondents reported a wide range in years of work experience. One-third had worked for five years or less, 18 percent for between six and tenyears, 27 percent for eleven to twenty years, 14 percent for twenty-one to thirtyyears, and the remaining 7 percent for more than thirty years. They reportedthat 45 percent (n � 156) of them were the owners of the enterprise. Of these,67 percent were in microenterprises, 26 percent were in small companies, and7 percent were in medium to large enterprises. In the building and construc-tion industry, 54 percent were owners. For real estate and information tech-nology, these figures were 44 percent and 37 percent, respectively. Theproportion of informal workplace trainers who had been prepared for theirtask through formal courses was relatively small. Four types of preparatorycourse emerged, with a positive response from 13 percent, 7 percent, 32 per-cent, and 10 percent of the respondents. These small proportions are not unex-pected given that the sample was directed to informal workplace trainers.

Informal workplace trainers in 350 enterprises were interviewed. Therewere 162 (46 percent) microenterprises (fewer than six employees), 108 (31percent) small companies (six to twenty employees), and 80 (23 percent)medium to large enterprises (more than twenty employees). The companies areequally represented from the three states. The building and construction indus-try was represented by 116 respondents (33 percent), information technologyby 126 respondents (36 percent), and real estate by 108 respondents (31 per-cent). Organization-level data were obtained from the individual respondents.

Measures. The interviewer asked some background information aboutthe organizational context and some characteristics of the informal workplacetrainer. The organizational context consisted of two variables: (1) type of orga-nization (building and construction, information technology, or real estate) and(2) company size (number of employees in the organization). The character-istics of the informal workplace trainer collected were (3) their experience(number of years of work experience in the enterprise), (4) their position(Were they also the owner of the enterprise?), and (5) exposure to workplacetrainer courses (Had the trainer completed formal preparatory courses?).



Table 1. Statements That Best Describe the Interviewee’s Role as anInformal Workplace Trainer

Number Percentage

1 I am required to act as a workplace trainer because it is written 29 8into my job description.

2 I am expected to train other employees, but it is not something 65 19written into my job description.

3 I train other employees because it is something that I think is part 178 51of my job.

4 I train other employees because they ask me for help. 78 22

Totals 350 100


The central part of the interview was about the actions undertaken by theinformal workplace trainer. It consisted of a list of thirty-two statements (items)about actions that informal workplace trainer may undertake (derived in thequalitative analysis stage). The respondent was asked to rate each statementon a scale with the following response categories: 1 � hardly at all, 2 � notvery often, 3 � sometimes, 4 � often, 5 � very often.

Procedure. The telephone interviews were conducted using the MS CATI(Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) system of the Marketing ScienceCentre at the University of South Australia (UniSA). The interviews each lastedan average of twelve minutes and were conducted during normal businesshours with a random sample of enterprises drawn from the Desktop Market-ing Systems database. Trained interviewers conducted all interviews, and thedata collection process was monitored to ensure the quality of the data col-lected. A standardized questionnaire was employed to minimize interviewerbias. Respondents were informed that the study was conducted in compliancewith the UniSA criteria concerning anonymity and confidentiality.

For each industry in each state, it was planned to interview 18 microen-terprises, 12 small companies, and 12 larger enterprises. In this way 126 enter-prises in each of the three states would be surveyed (totaling 378 enterprises).In reality, larger enterprises were difficult to find in building and constructionand, particularly, in the real estate industry. Therefore, to save time and money,the decision was made to cease telephoning earlier than planned. Conse-quently, 350 interviews were actually completed, one in each enterprise.

Results

This section presents the outcomes of our analyses. The actions of informalworkplace trainers are reduced to a number of role dimensions and role con-ceptions, which are then related to organizational context variables and trainercharacteristics.

Actions Undertaken by Informal Workplace Trainers. The output of thequalitative part of our research consisted of thirty-two actions that were ratedon a five-point Likert scale. In the appendix, these actions are arranged accord-ing to the mean value on the Likert scale, starting with the most frequentactions. To gain more insight into the core actions undertaken by informalworkplace trainers, factor analysis was applied. The resulting role dimensionsthat were found among the thirty-two actions are presented in the next section.

Role Dimensions of Informal Workplace Trainers. The thirty-two actionsundertaken by informal workplace trainers were used as input for exploratoryprincipal factor analyses followed by oblique rotation. The latter implies thatfactors are allowed to correlate. A three-factor solution was suggested(eigenvalues greater than 1). Items loading low on the principal factor (lessthan .30), loading on two factors, or loading low on all three factors wereremoved one by one during successive factor analyses. The final factor solution


(pattern matrix) and the reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) of the three factors aregiven in Table 2.

The first factor (Support, nine items) describes actions undertaken to sup-port learners in learning, the second factor (Structure, six items) containsactions to structure the work for learning, and the third factor (Performance,



Table 2. Exploratory Factor Analysis Results and Reliabilities

Item Support Structure Performance

21 Challenging the employee to explore new or .58 �.05 .20alternate ways of doing things

23 Learning about new ideas, products, processes from .55 �.12 .08the employee

24 Taking opportunities that arise during the day to talk .55 .06 �.15with the employee

26 Making connections between seemingly .54 .08 �.01unconnected events

07 Listening to the employee about any concerns or .45 �.03 .19difficulties

22 Encouraging the employee to evaluate his or her own .44 .15 .10work performance

08 Helping the employee to work out problems that .38 .06 .14occur in the workplace

02 Giving feedback and encouragement to the employee .34 .12 .1805 Making time to talk to the employee about his or her .30 .08 .09

work19 Coming to an agreement with the employee about �.13 .62 .05

types of activity28 Working out learning goals with the employee .11 .49 .0313 Planning the structure of work �.07 .48 .2129 Reorganizing what might be done at work .23 .46 �.1017 Talking with an employee to work out what this �.03 .45 .06

person does about aspects of his or her job30 Talking to the employee about differences between .21 .43 �.02

how things are done03 Monitoring the work flow and the quality of the �.09 .13 .65

employee’s work18 Making judgments about how fast or slow the pace .05 .07 .60

of work needs to be 14 Organizing work so that the employee is able .20 �.05 .58

to tackle a variety of work tasks15 Making judgments about how to balance the needs .09 .08 .53

of the employee 09 Managing the flow of work while helping the .13 .03 .51

employee to learn what has to be doneExplained total variance: 32.6%Cronbach’s alpha .79 .72 .78

Note: For the full text of the items, see the appendix; the numbers in this table match those in theappendix.

Bold typeface indicates which items load on each factor.


five items) focuses on the work performance itself. The role dimensions ofinformal workplace trainers can thus be summarized into three factors ordimensions: Support, Structure, and Performance. The reliabilities (Cronbach’salpha) of the three factors are substantial (.79, .72, and .78, respectively).The correlations between the three factors are .43 (Support � Structure),.53 (Support � Performance), and .45 (Structure � Performance), whichindicates that more focus on support implies more focus on structure, as wellas more focus on performance.

Role Conceptions of Informal Workplace Trainers. To examine whetherdifferent types of informal workplace trainer could be distinguished in termsof the ways they conceived of their roles, cluster analyses were performed.Scale scores for all respondents were calculated on each of the three roledimensions by calculating the mean of the item scores belonging to a particu-lar role dimension. The scores on a particular role dimension can vary between1 (� hardly) and 5 (� very often). Using the k-means clustering technique inSPSS, a three-cluster solution was deemed optimal, producing as it did a rea-sonable number of respondents in each of the clusters and an interpretablesolution. The mean standard scores on each of the three role dimensions aregiven in Table 3.

A mean standard score between �.43 and .43 was interpreted as an aver-age level (0), a score below �.43 as a low level (�) and above .43 as a highlevel (�), and a score below �.93 as a very low level (�) and above .93 as avery high level (��, not encountered here). These intervals were chosenbecause in normal distributions, approximately one-third of the standardscores are between �.43 and � .43 (mean level), one-sixth of the scores arebetween .43 and .93 or between �.43 and �.93, and one-sixth of the scoresare above .93 or below �.93.

Three types of informal workplace trainer emerged from the cluster analysis:

Cluster A with 44 trainers scoring very low to low on each of the three roledimension can be labeled as having a passive indifferent role conception.

Cluster B with 133 trainers scoring at an average level on support andperformance and low on structure can be labeled as demonstrating arestricted role conception.


Table 3. Mean Cluster Standard Scores on the Three Role Dimensionsand the Cluster Typology

Mean Standard Scores Typology of the Clusters

Cluster Number Support Structure Performance Support Structure Performance

Passive 44 �1.46 �.90 �2.05 — � —Restricted 133 �.39 �.64 .01 0 � 0Broad active 173 .66 .70 .49 � � �

Cluster C with 173 trainers scoring high on all three action domains can belabeled as presenting a broad, active role conception.

Relating Role Dimensions and Role Conceptions to Context and TrainerCharacteristics. Two organizational context variables (type of organizationand organization size) and three characteristics of informal workplace trainers(work experience of the informal workplace trainer, position of the informalworkplace trainer, and their exposure to formal preparatory courses) wererelated to the role dimensions and role conceptions.

Type of Organization. Differences among the three types of organizationwith respect to the role dimensions were tested using MANOVA. Differenceswith respect to role conceptions were tested using cross tabulation. The testresults are given in Table 4.

For role dimensions, it was first tested whether overall significant differencesexisted among the groups in relation to the three dependent variables (Support,Structure, and Performance). Wilks’s lambda was significant (F(6,662) � 3.47,p � .002). Successive ANOVAs tested which of the three dependent variablesshowed significant differences among the three types of organization. The variableSupport did not show significant differences among the three types (F(2,333) �.63, NS). The other two variables did show significant differences: Structure(F(2,333) � 5.15, p � .006) and Performance (F(2,333) � 5.09, p � .007). Foreach of these two variables, Bonferroni post hoc tests were carried out to detectwhich organizational types differed significantly from each other. The results aregiven in the left-hand part of Table 4. On the Structure dimension, the informa-tion technology enterprises scored significantly lower than building and con-struction, as well as real estate. On the Performance dimension, it appeared thatthe building and construction companies scored significantly higher thaninformation technology, as well as real estate.

The relation of the three role conceptions with the three types of organizationwas examined using a 3 � 3 cross table, as evident in the right-hand part of Table 4.The chi-square test did not show a significant relationship: �2(4) � 3.71, p � .347.Role conceptions were therefore not related to the type of organization.

Organization Size. Company size was divided into three groups: (1) fiveor fewer or less employees, (2) six to twenty employees, and (3) more thantwenty employees. Using MANOVA, it was tested whether differencesexisted among the three groups with respect to the three role dimensions.Wilks’s lambda was not significant (F(6,666) � 1.58, NS), indicating that nooverall significant differences existed. The levels of Support, Structure, andPerformance were not related to company size. The 3 � 3 cross table ofcompany size with role conceptions did not show a significant relationshipeither: �2(4) � 3.20, p � .525, indicating that role conceptions were notrelated to company size.

Work Experience of the Informal Workplace Trainer. The work experienceof the respondents was expressed in the number of years that the respondent



Tab

le 4

.O

rgan

izat

ion

al T

ype

in R

elat

ion

to

Rol

e D

imen

sion

s an

d R

ole

Con

cep

tion

s: S

tati

stic

s an

d T

est

Res

ult

s

Rol

e D

imen

sion

sR

ole

Con

cept

ions

Broa

d,Ty

pe o

f Su

ppor

tSt

ruct

ure

Perf

orm

ance

Pass

ive

Res

tric

ted

Act

ive

Tota

lO

rgan

izat

ion

Mea

nSD

Mea

nSD

Mea

nSD

%%

%%

N

Build

ing

and

4.04

(.81

)3.

69(.

86)

4.40

(.82

)27

3434

3311

6co

nstr

ucti

onIn

form

atio

n3.

92(.

86)

3.31

(1.0

4)4.

05(1

.03)

4140

3236

126

tech

nolo

gyR

eal e

stat

e4.

02(.

73)

3.64

(1.0

3)4.

03(1

.02)

3226

3431

108

Bonf

erro

niN

o si

gnifi

cant

IT <

BC

IT <

BC

%10

010

010

010

0po

st h

oc t

ests

diffe

renc

esIT

< R

ER

E <

BC

N44

133

173

350

had worked in the enterprise. This varied from 1 to 50 (mean � 13.3, SD �10.5). The correlation of experience with the role dimension support was.03 (NS), with structure .13 (p � .021), and with performance .09 (NS).Therefore, a very weak relationship exists between experience andstructuring the work for learners: longer work experience in the enterpriseincreases the informal workplace trainer’s focus on structuring employees’work for learning.

The relationship of role conception with the experience of the workplacetrainers was examined using a one-way ANOVA. Role conception was the inde-pendent variable and number of years of work experience in the enterprise thedependent variable. No significant differences were found among the three roleconceptions: F(2,232) � .46, p � .629.

Position of the Informal Workplace Trainer. Of the respondents, 45 per-cent were also the owner of the enterprise. Using t tests for independentgroups, we tested whether the position of the workplace trainer (owners ornonowners) showed differences with respect to the three role dimensions.For role conceptions we used cross tabulation. The results are in Table 5.

From the left-hand side of Table 5, we can conclude that owners as infor-mal workplace trainers have significantly higher mean scores than nonownerson each of the three role dimensions. Owners report a higher level of Support(t(345) � 2.19, p � .029), Structure (t(344) � 3.92, p � .000), and Perfor-mance (t(338) � 1.97, p � .050).

Role conceptions are related to the position of the workplace trainer(owners or nonowners) as well. The 3 (role conceptions) � 2 (owners ornonowners) cross table showed a significant relationship: �2(2) � 6.86, p � .032. From the left-hand part of Table 5 can be derived that owners wereoverrepresented in the cluster denoted as having a broad, active roleconception.

Exposure to Formal Preparatory Courses. The proportion of informal work-place trainers who had been exposed to formal workplace trainer courses wasrelatively small. For this reason, we decided to conceptualize “exposure to formalpreparatory courses” as having completed at least one such training course. Itappeared that 39 percent of the informal workplace trainers had completed atleast one training course. Using t tests for independent groups, differences in roledimensions were tested. The relationship with role conceptions was tested usingcross tabulation. The results are shown in Table 6.

Workplace trainers who completed at least one formal preparatory coursereported significantly higher levels of providing Support (t(346) � 2.91,p � .004) and Structure (t(345) � 3.26, p � .001), but no stronger focus onPerformance (t(339) � .65, NS), as the left-hand part of Table 6 shows.

The relationship of role conception with exposure to formal preparatorycourses was tested using a 3 � 2 cross table. A significant relationship wasfound: �2(2) � 8.72, p � .013. The right-hand part of Table 6 shows that



Tab

le 5

.P

osit

ion

of

Info

rmal

Wor

kpla

ce T

rain

er R

elat

ed t

o R

ole

Dim

ensi

ons

and

Rol

e C

once

pti

ons:

St

atis

tics

an

dTe

st R

esu

lts

Rol

e D

imen

sion

sR

ole

Con

cept

ions

Broa

d,Is

Wor

kpla

ce

Supp

ort

Stru

ctur

ePe

rfor

man

cePa

ssiv

eR

estr

icte

dA

ctiv

eTo

tal

Trai

ner

Ow

ner?

Mea

nSD

Mea

nSD

Mea

nSD

%%

%%

N

Yes

4.13

(.69

)3.

86(.

84)

4.27

(.87

)36

3852

4515

7N

o3.

95(.

82)

3.48

(.95

)4.

07(1

.04)

6462

4855

193

tval

ue2.

193.

921.

97%

100

100

100

100

pva

lue

.029

.000

.050

N44

133

173

350

Tab

le 6

.E

xpos

ure

to

For

mal

Pre

par

ator

y C

ours

es R

elat

ed t

o R

ole

Dim

ensi

ons

and

Rol

e C

once

pti

ons:

Stat

isti

cs a

nd

Tes

t R

esu

lts

Rol

e D

imen

sion

sR

ole

Con

cept

ions

Res

tric

ted

Broa

d,C

ompl

eted

at

Supp

ort

Stru

ctur

ePe

rfor

man

cePa

ssiv

eA

ctiv

eA

ctiv

eTo

tal

Leas

t One

Cou

rse

Mea

nSD

Mea

nSD

Mea

nSD

%%

%%

N

Yes

4.18

(.74

)3.

86(.

87)

4.21

(.99

)34

3046

3913

5N

o3.

94(.

77)

3.53

(.94

)4.

14(.

96)

6670

5461

215

tval

ue2.

913.

26.6

5%

100

100

100

100

pva

lue

.004

.001

NS

N44

133

173

350

formally trained workplace trainers were overrepresented in the broad, activerole conception category.

Discussion

This study set out to investigate the role dimensions and role conceptions ofinformal workplace trainers as well as the extent to which these are affected bytheir organizational position and context. The concept of an informal work-place trainer comprises all organizational actors involved in supportingemployee learning at the workplace in one way or another. Informal workplacetrainers do not occupy an organizational position that is formally or explicitlylinked to employee training. They may be colleagues or supervisors, who dooccupy a formal position related to the employee’s work. The study investi-gated the actions of informal workplace trainers in supporting employees asthey learn. Four conclusions can be drawn from the study.

First, informal workplace trainers perform a large number of actions rel-evant to employee learning. Thirty-two different actions were reported in thisstudy. Most of these actions are different from those undertaken by formaleducators (Hytönen, 2002; Nijhof, 2004), but they seem to fit rather wellwith actions subsumed under supervisor and peer support, as referred to inthe literature on the learning potential of the workplace (Ellström, 2001),learning organizations (Marsick & Watkins, 2003), learning transfer systems(Burke & Baldwin, 1999), and coaching and mentoring (D’Abate et al.,2003).

Second, informal workplace trainers perceive three core role dimensions inthis wide range of actions. Three factors emerged underlying the thirty-two dif-ferent actions: actions undertaken to support learners as they learn (Support),actions aimed at structuring the work of employees for learning (Structure), andactions focusing on employee work performance itself (Performance). The sup-port dimension can be linked to the learning climate notions inherent in Marsickand Watkins’s (2003) approach of the learning organization. It can also be con-nected to the concept of mentoring (D’Abate et al., 2003). The learners and theirdevelopment are central to this dimension. The Structure dimension capitalizeson the approach of increasing the learning potential of work (Ellström, 2001).The work content and environment as contexts for learning are crucial in thisdimension. The Performance dimension does not focus on learning per se and assuch can be linked to the concept of coaching (Joo, 2005), where resolving anissue over a short time frame is emphasized.

Third, three types of informal workplace trainer with different role concep-tions can be distinguished; that is, they interpret their roles very differently. Espe-cially the breadth of their roles varies strongly from one informal workplace trainerto another. Three types of informal workplace trainer with different role concep-tions emerged from the data: (1) a relatively small group (13 percent) with a pas-sive role conception who provide little support, offer little structure, and pay little




attention to employee work performance; (2) a considerable number of informalworkplace trainers (38 percent) with a restricted role conception, offering littlestructure and average support and attention to performance; and (3) a large group(49 percent) of respondents with a broad, active role conception, who provideda lot of support and structure and emphasized performance as well. In terms oftheir role conceptions, the third type had most in common with formal educators(Hytönen, 2002; Nijhof, 2004). Unlike the other two types, many informal work-place trainers with a broad, active role conception had been exposed to at leastone formal preparatory course.

Fourth, role dimensions and role conceptions are related to a number ofinformal workplace trainer and organizational context characteristics. Withrespect to the three role dimensions, these were found to be related in part toorganizational type, number of years of experience, position in the enterprise(owner or nonowner), and exposure to at least one formal preparatory course.

Informal workplace trainers in information technology companies engagedless in structuring employees’ work for learning, perhaps because IT workalready offers many learning opportunities. Within building and constructionenterprises, informal workplace trainers focused more on the actual work per-formance of employees, which may have to do with the traditional culture inmany of those companies in which learning as such is not valued. The moreyears of experience as an informal workplace trainer, the more they wereinclined to structure employees’ work for learning. This could be because theiroverview enables them to organize highly effective work-based learning oppor-tunities for employees.

Informal workplace trainers who were enterprise owners showed higherlevels of support, structure, and focus on performance than nonowners. Thesame was true of informal workplace trainers who had been exposed to at leastone formal preparatory course. They also showed higher levels of support,structure, and focus on performance compared to those without any prepara-tion. In both instances, it could be argued that these informal workplace train-ers had probably been triggered to pay explicit attention to the way in whichthey developed their (new) employees or colleagues. No relationship wasfound between role dimensions and enterprise size, indicating that the levelsof support, structure, and focus on performance of informal workplace train-ers are independent of company size. Apparently their developmental rela-tionship to an employee is mostly a one-on-one interaction not helped orhindered by the scale of the organization.

Informal workplace trainers who were enterprise owners or had beenexposed to formal preparatory courses were overrepresented in the cluster witha broad, active role conception. However, the three role conceptions were notrelated to organizational type, size of the enterprise, or experience as an infor-mal workplace trainer. Perhaps role conceptions are relatively stable and tiedto the individual person. It is possible that informal workplace trainers with abroad, active role conception are more likely to become enterprise owners and


participate in training courses. Further research needs to be conducted to clar-ify these relationships.

The findings of this study may be limited because of the sample, which isrestricted to three industries in three states in one country (Australia). Cautionneeds to be observed in generalizing the results to other countries. It shouldalso be noted that the method chosen to collect the quantitative data (tele-phone interviews) might affect the results to some extent. Although thismethod turned out to be useful for large-scale data collection with a very highresponse rate, holding face-to-face interviews or sending out written ques-tionnaires might have resulted in different responses.

Implications for Human Resource Development. Informal workplacetrainers seem to perceive a variety of roles for themselves based on their actionsin supporting employee learning. Many of the informal workplace trainers inour sample perform actions associated with increasing the learning potentialof employees’ work (Ellström, 2001), encouraging a learning organization(Marsick & Watkins, 2003), furthering learning transfer (Holton et al., 2000),and coaching and mentoring (D’Abate et al., 2003). Research among formalHRD practitioners (Valkeavaara, 1999; Poell & Chivers, 2003; Nijhof, 2004)shows that they experience difficulties in organizing informal work-basedlearning activities for employees, although these are deemed very important.Our study shows that informal workplace trainers are actively involved in orga-nizing such activities. Formal HRD practitioners could benefit from collabo-rating with informal workplace trainers to combine formal and informallearning contexts more effectively.

Our study shows that informal workplace trainers who have received for-mal training in preparation of their (new) role have a broader, more multifac-eted repertoire than those who have not. This may seem logical in view of thefact that they are likely to be more familiar with training and learning princi-ples and therefore more confident in providing more support and structure tofacilitate these processes. Also, the impact of self-reflection as a result of par-ticipation in a preparatory course may lead to more awareness of what it is theyare doing supporting employee learning. However, it is possible that the causaldirection goes the other way around, in that people with a broad role con-ception are more likely to engage in preparatory training. Also, it should benoted that our study has investigated the images of informal workplace trainersabout their own roles. We do not know as yet what employees expect frominformal workplace trainers or which roles employees actually perceive ineveryday practice. Further research should clarify these issues.

If it is true that training for informal workplace trainers helps, this is animportant finding for further professionalization of informal workplace trainers.It also raises serious questions, however, about deprofessionalization of HRDpractitioners. Should the tendency, found in literature although not often cor-roborated in empirical studies, for HRD practitioners to change the workplacefor employee learning be supported? Or is there more to be gained by having




well-prepared informal workplace trainers help employees learn along the linesfound in our empirical study? Probably formal HRD practitioners and informalworkplace trainers each have their own realm—the former that of formal edu-cation, the latter that of workplace learning—in which they should do whatthey are really good at: devising quality training programs in the former case,supporting employee learning in various ways in the latter. Research could alsostudy (possible) collaborations among formal HRD practitioners and informalworkplace trainers. How are these organized, and to what effects? To whatextent can (or should) workplace trainers learn from HRD practitioners to workmore according to standardized training procedures, and to what extent can (orshould) HRD practitioners learn from workplace trainers to tailor their learn-ing programs to the learners and their work situation?

Directions for Further Research. Further research into supportingemployee learning in organizations should focus on three themes: differentactor roles, the positions of informal workplace trainers, and employee learn-ing programs.

First, research should investigate the roles of different actors in the learn-ing network of the organization. What are the roles in organizing learningactivities of the employees themselves, formal HRD practitioners, internal andexternal colleagues, supervisors and managers, and professional associationsand sectoral bodies? And how do the various actor roles interact in shaping andmaintaining the learning network of the organization?

Second, the positions and roles of informal workplace trainers should bethe object of closer investigation, especially in relationship to different organi-zational types. Our study did not focus specifically on the positions of infor-mal workplace trainers. However, the roles of colleagues as informal workplacetrainers may differ from those of supervisors. It would also be interesting tocompare the roles of formal educators from dedicated HR staff departmentsto those of informal workplace trainers from the shop floor.

Also deserving more attention is the question of whether the role of informalworkplace trainers in supporting employee learning is related to the structure ofwork in the primary process of the organization. A comparison among self-managing work teams, individual work, and departments organized along Tay-loristic principles would be worthwhile in this respect. Do informal workplacetrainers get to occupy different roles if they can exert more impact on the contentof employees’ work (Van der Krogt, 1998; Ellström, 2001; Poell, 2005)?

Third, the learning programs conducted by employees should be furtherinvestigated. Learning programs combine formal education or trainingactivities with forms of workplace learning. Formal educators are importantactors in the former activities, whereas the latter type of learning is supportedmainly by informal workplace trainers. There are various ways in which suchemployee learning programs can be organized. An important question refersto the possible roles to be played by informal workplace trainers in differentlearning program types (Poell & Van der Krogt, 2002).


Appendix: Actions Undertaken by Informal WorkplaceTrainers Arranged according to Mean Value

Item Mean SD01 Talking to the employee as you work 4.70 .86

with him or her about what he or she is doing02 Giving feedback and encouragement to the 4.50 1.03

employee about his or her work performance03 Monitoring the work flow and the quality 4.46 1.16

of the employee’s work04 Organizing work so that the employee can be given 4.41 1.16

tasks he or she can tackle on his or her own05 Making time to talk to the employee about his or her work 4.39 1.1106 Encouraging employees to share their knowledge 4.32 1.24

and expertise with others (for example, in meetings)07 Listening to the employee about any concerns or 4.31 1.24

difficulties he or she might be having in the workplace08 Helping the employee to work out problems that 4.31 1.15

occur in the workplace09 Managing the flow of work so that it helps the 4.26 1.32

employee to learn what has to be done10 Doing a job with an employee so that you can help 4.24 1.22

him or her with the tasks11 Telling the employee stories—for example, what has 4.22 1.33

happened in the past and interesting things about the job12 Encouraging the employee to take on more difficult 4.17 1.24

and complex tasks over time13 Planning the structure of work so that the employee 4.15 1.34

is able to join in and work at a level that is best for him or her

14 Organizing work so that the employee is able to 4.14 1.33tackle a variety of work tasks

15 Making judgments about how to balance the needs 4.08 1.38of the employee to learn the job and the need to get the job done

16 Asking other workers to help the employee to learn 3.94 1.44different aspects of the job

17 Talking with an employee to work out what he or she 3.89 1.55does and does not know about aspects of his or her job

18 Making judgments about how fast or slow the pace 3.88 1.51of work needs to be so that the employee can keep up

19 Coming to an agreement with the employee 3.86 1.54about the types of activities he or she will do in order to help learn the job




20 Correcting the employee’s mistakes 3.85 1.5121 Challenging the employee to explore new or 3.82 1.48

alternate ways of doing things22 Encouraging the employee to evaluate his or her 3.79 1.52

own work performance23 Learning about new ideas, products, and processes 3.61 1.48

from the employee24 Taking opportunities that arise during the day 3.60 1.62

(such as at lunch time) to talk with the employee about his or her job

25 Organizing resources for the employee (for example, 3.47 1.61books, materials, people)

26 Making connections between seemingly unconnected 3.44 1.49events so that the employee can use his or her learning in new or different situations

27 Organizing work so that the employee can spend time 3.16 1.70watching other workers, asking questions, and so forth

28 Working out learning goals with the employee 3.16 1.7029 Reorganizing what might be done at work so that it fits 2.94 1.65

more closely with the employee’s off-job training30 Talking to the employee about the difference 2.93 1.62

between how things are done in your workplace and whathe or she might be learning in any off-site training

31 Going to events with the employee such as 2.68 1.71training sessions, conferences

32 Talking to training providers who are organizing 2.39 1.62off-job training for the employee (for example, employee progress, negotiating alternative assessmenttasks, giving feedback)

References

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice. Read-ing, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Berings, M.G.M.C., Poell, R. F., & Simons, P.R.J. (2005). Conceptualizing on-the-job learningstyles. Human Resource Development Review, 4 (4), 373–400.

Billett, S. (2000). Guided learning at work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 12 (7), 272–295.Burke, L. A., & Baldwin, T. T. (1999). Workforce training transfer: A study on the effect of relapse

prevention training and transfer climate. Human Resource Management, 38 (3), 227–242.D’Abate, C. P., Eddy, E. R., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (2003). What’s in a name? A literature-based

approach to understanding mentoring, coaching, and other constructs that describe develop-mental interactions. Human Resource Development Review, 2 (4), 360–384.

Doornbos, A. J., Bolhuis, S. M., & Simons, P.R.J. (2004). Modeling work-related learning on thebasis of intentionality and developmental relatedness: A non-educational perspective. HumanResource Development Review, 3 (3), 250–274.

Driver, M. (2002). Learning and leadership in organizations: Toward complimentary communi-ties of practice. Management Learning, 33 (1), 99–126.


Ellinger, A. D., & Bostrom, R. P. (2002). An examination of managers’ beliefs about their roles asfacilitators of learning. Management Learning, 33 (2), 147–179.

Ellinger, A. D., Watkins, K. E., & Barnas, C. M. (1999). Responding to new roles: A qualitativestudy of managers as instructors. Management Learning, 30 (4), 387–412.

Ellström, P. E. (2001). Integrating learning and work: Problems and prospects. Human ResourceDevelopment Quarterly, 12 (4), 421–435.

Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. British Journalof Educational Psychology, 70 (1), 113–136.

Gibb, S. (2003). Line manager involvement in learning and development; Small beer or big deal?Employee Relations, 3, 281–293.

Greenwood, T., Wasson, A., & Giles, R. (1993). The learning organization: Concepts, processes,and questions. Performance and Instruction, 32 (4), 7–11.

Gubbins, M. C., & Garavan, T. N. (2005). Studying HRD practitioners: A social capital model.Human Resource Development Review, 4 (2), 189–218.

Holton III, E. F., Bates, R. A., & Ruona, W.E.A. (2000). Development of a generalized learningtransfer system inventory. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11 (4), 333–360.

Holton III, E. F., Chen, H., & Naquin, S. S. (2003). An examination of learning transfer system char-acteristics across organizational settings. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14 (4), 459–482.

Hytönen, T. (2002). Exploring the practice of human resource development as a field of professionalexpertise. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Jyväskylä, Finland.

Jacobs, R. L., & Jones, M. J. (1995). Structured on-the-job training: Unleashing employee expertisein the workplace. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Joo, B. (2005). Executive coaching: A conceptual framework from an integrative review of prac-tice and research. Human Resource Development Review, 4 (4), 462–488.

MacNeil, C. (2001). The supervisor as a facilitator of informal learning in work teams. Journal ofWorkplace Learning, 13 (5/6), 246–253.

Marquardt, M. J., & Reynolds, A. (1994). The global learning organization. New York: Irwin.Marsick, V. J., & O’Neil, J. (1999). The many faces of action learning. Management Learning,

30 (2), 159–176.Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2003). Demonstrating the value of an organization’s learning

culture: The Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire. Advances in DevelopingHuman Resources, 5 (2), 132–151.

McLagan, P. (1989). Models for HRD practice. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training andDevelopment.

McLagan, P. (1996). Great ideas revisited. Training and Development Journal, 20 (1), 60–65.McLagan, P., & Bedrick, D. (1983). Models for excellence: The results of the ASTD training and

development competency study. Training and Development Journal, 7 (6), 10–20.Nijhof, W. J. (2004). Is the HRD profession in the Netherlands changing? Human Resource Devel-

opment International, 7 (1), 57–72.Onstenk, J.H.A.M. (1997). Lerend leren werken: Brede vakbekwaamheid en de integratie van leren,

werken en innoveren [Learning to work by learning: Broad professional skills and the integra-tion of learning, work, and innovation]. Delft, Netherlands: Eburon.

Örtenblad, A. (2002). A typology of the idea of learning organization. Management Learning,33 (2), 213–230.

Poell, R. F. (2005). HRD beyond what HRD practitioners do: A framework for furthering multi-ple learning processes in work organizations. In C. Elliott & S. Turnbull (Eds.), Critical think-ing in human resource development (pp. 85–95). London: Routledge.

Poell, R. F., & Chivers, G. E. (2003). Experiences of HRD consultants in supporting organisa-tional learning. In B. Nyhan, P. Cressey, M. Kelleher, & R. F. Poell (Eds.), Facing up to the learn-ing organisation challenge: Selected European writings (pp. 247–264). Luxembourg: Office forOfficial Publications of the European Communities.

Poell, R. F., & Van der Krogt, F. J. (2002). Using social networks in organisations to facilitate indi-vidual development. In M. Pearn (Ed.), Handbook of individual development. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.




Poell, R. F., & Van der Krogt, F. J. (2004). Customizing learning programs to the organization and itsemployees: How HRD practitioners create tailored learning programs. In Proceedings of the Acad-emy of Human Resource Development. Bowling Green, OH: Academy of Human Resource Devel-opment.

Renwick, D. (2003). Line manager involvement in HRM: An inside view. Employee Relations, 3,262–280.

Russ-Eft, D. (2002). A typology of training design and work environment factors affecting work-place learning and transfer. Human Resource Development Review, 1 (1), 45–65.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York:Currency/Doubleday.

Streumer, J. (Ed.). (2006). Work-related learning. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.Tjepkema, S. (2003). The learning infrastructure of self-managing work teams. Unpublished doc-

toral dissertation, Twente University, Netherlands.Tjepkema, S., Stewart, J., Sambrook, S., Mulder, M., Ter Horst, H., & Scheerens, J. (2002). HRD

and learning organisations in Europe. London: Routledge.Torraco, R. J. (1999). Integrating learning with working: A reconception of the role of workplace

learning. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10 (3), 249–270.Valkeavaara, T. (1999). “Sailing in calm waters doesn’t teach”: Constructing expertise through

problems in work—The case of Finnish human resource developers. Studies in Continuing Edu-cation, 21 (2), 177–196.

Van der Krogt, F. J. (1998). Learning network theory: The tension between learning systems andwork systems in organizations. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 9 (2), 157–178.

Van der Krogt, F. J. (2006). Organiseren van leerwegen in dienstverlenende organisaties: Strategieënvan werknemers, managers en leeradviseurs [Organizing learning paths in service organizations:Strategies of workers, managers, and learning advisers]. Utrecht, Netherlands: Lemma.

Van Zolingen, S. J., Streumer, J. N., De Jong, R., & Van der Klink, M. R. (2000). Implementingon-the-job training: Critical success factors. International Journal of Training and Development,4 (3), 208–216.

Versloot, B. M., De Jong, J. A., & Thijssen, J.G.L. (2001). Organisational context of structuredon-the-job training. International Journal of Training and Development, 5 (1), 2–22.

Walton, J. S. (1999). Strategic human resource development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1996). In action: Creating the learning organization. Alexandria,

VA: American Society for Training and Development.Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Yang, B., Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (2004). The construct of the learning organization: Dimen-

sions, measurement, and validation. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15 (1), 31–55.

Rob F. Poell is professor in the Department of Human Resource Studies at TilburgUniversity, Netherlands.

Ferd J. Van der Krogt is associate professor in the Department of Education at theUniversity of Nijmegen, Netherlands.

A. A. Vermulst is assistant professor in the Department of Education at the Universityof Nijmegen, Netherlands.

Roger Harris is professor in the Centre for Research in Education, Equity and Workat the University of South Australia in Underdale.

Michele Simons is assistant professor in the Centre for Research in Education,Equity and Work at the University of South Australia in Underdale.


roles of informal workplace trainers in different organizational contexts: empirical evidence from...

Documents