hrd in the new millennium editors' notes

HRD in the New Millennium

Editors' Notes

John Niemi Northern Illinois University

Tess Reinhard Northern Illinois University

he11 one considurs that unprecedented structures and processes like internal networks and competition, rapidly changing markets, cornmun~ties of practice, innovative learning ap- globalizatton, digtal technologies, and w preaches, and the princ~ples associated with systems

expanded knowledge systems character~ze the world of thinking. Research describing the value of n~oving Human Resource Development (HRD) today, one away from bureaucratic, confonm'st systems to more recognizes that the need to transfonn learning at all flexiblc systems of learning shows how the organization Ievels of the organizat~nn is critical for success. As one itself can become more productive. of the authors ~n this issue attests, "Education's survival Jaakko V~rkkunen describes both the p~votal works is dependent on its response to transform~ng for the of Argyris and Schon's theory of organizational learning kno\vled:dge society. It requires a cultlire of endless and the work of Engestrom and others to develop the deconstruction and reconstruction" (Kauppi, p. 3 1) Theory of Expansive Learn~ng Actions. Virkkunen

We are beginning the 2 1" century. discusses the dichotomy between We are also beginning to come to terms defensive and productive reasoning in real ;zing the full potential of HRD's Education and maintains that ~t IS an artificial influence on organizational structures, phenomenon. [n the second article, process, and effectiveness-and the is dependent on Laitinen compares the idcal model of f i l l 1 potential of technoloby to transform its response to a learning organizat~on w ~ t h the the workplace. We have scen only the burcaucratic mode. lle shows how beginning of efforts toward effective transformingfor the the bureaucratic. conformist nod el communities of practice, networks, and knowt[edge sociefym needs to be replaced by a more thu cross-section of ~nnovative appl i- . - . . . -- flex tble system of learrling, and he cations o f new technologies with asserts that even small transitions of knowledge management systen~s. Finally, organizations organizations toward a learning organization can be are only in the begrrlning stages of rzcognizing that their productive. investment in the Future rests on the strong desire and Antti Kauppi, in the final article tn organizational commitment oft heir workers. effectiveness, presents a quest for vocat~onal education

This issue of Thresholds in Ed~ication will explore and promotes transforming education to the knowlcdgz a broad range of topics that bridge the gap between society. He shows how moving individuals and organi- academtc theory and management practice. It is our zations from an industrial paradigm to a knowledge intention that the research will both help influence the paradigm will require more conscious and flex~ble way organizations are managed and make important strategies for learning. contributions to academ~c research and theory. The sccond section explores the intlividuul

The text IS divided into two sections. The first per~peczive in the workplace. Collaboration models, section of this issue explores HRD from an organiza- the use of leadership cohorts, effect~vc approaches tioaul prr.~pecsiw and reviews effective organizational toward evaluation procedures, and cffective dialogue approaches such as the use of lateral integrating techniques emphasize that more conscious and flexible

Thresholds in Education ( Vol. XXEX: 2,2003) 1

strategies for learning are needed around the world. Transformation is occurring in the way workers invest Ihcmselves in the organizat~ons in which they work. The need for workers to perceive that their organlza- tian is rnovlng away from a transactional model of per tbrrnance and time served to a more relationship- structured model is underscored in t h ~ s last section.

Beginning with Valeria J. Stokes, the article descr~bes a lcndzrship boot camp methodology that proved successful in one setting becausc of its ust of lcadershrp cohorts. instead of focusing on ~ n d ~ v i d u a l personallties of the Icaderf. this program encouraged the use of organizational systems, processes, and stnlctures that leaders needed to leverage to gall1

aligt~tnent with cvrporatc strateglcs and objcctives. This research provides data about leadership-a sub,iect that i s typically addressed arlecdolally or impressionistically.

Hanna Toiviainen's analysis of the worker's perspective in a tcam-learning situation describes the learning challenges that network firms are facing as

they try to develop colleagues at thc lvorkcr level to collaborat c and create new approaches. Toiviainen describes both a Boundary Object Concept and the use of a 1)evelopmrntal Dlalngue Intervention approach that provide a fascinating approach to team-learning at the worker levcl.

Finally, C'hi~stina A. Kamrr evalua~cs a new-hire tralnlng program and underscores the many factors that impacl e t fectivc cvaIuatii~n stra!csy. 'I'hc project 1, descr~bes a variety of issues that decreased the cffec- tlveness ot'the program and had a sign~ficant et't'ect on the retention of employees. P

l'his issue was made pusslble through combined c [forts of Ihe Un~versity of IIelsinkl and Northern Illinois Url~versity. We especlall y appreciate ihc assistance of our two colleagues, Dr. Scppo Kontia~nen (Prot'essor o l adult Eduwtlon, University of I Ielsinkl) and Dr. Gene Ross IProtessor of ildult Education, Northern Illinois Uruvcrsity) in hosting [lie 2000 C'onfcr- erlcc at I .ahr~. rinland, fi-om where these articles ernergc.

- . . . - - - - . . - - . . . - . .. -. - . -. .

2 Tllresholds in Education (Vol. SXIX: 2,2001)

Dynamics of Collective Actions of Innovative Learning

Jaakko Virkkunen University of Helsinki, Finland

I nnovatirr organizational learning is collaborative learning in work organitation that produccs ncn so lutions, prvccdures, or Forms of activ~ty and

qua1 itnt~ve transfcmnations in u crk practiccs (Enszstrorn, 1995. 1099). hrgyris ant! Schon (1 978, 1996) maintain 111 lhcir theory oforganizat~on:ll learning that lhls kind clt'lcarning 15 :fit-e becausc of ~nd~viduals' defensive iictiilns that beznrne ampli tied in organlza- tional settings. On the other hand, for e.rample, Engestrom (1987, 1990) has presenlcd well articulated and c~npirically p o u n d e d theorics of the pos~tiw proce<%es' innovative learning. The theories about the forccs suppnrtmg and inhibiting collective learning have direct bearing on t!~e design of inten-cfit~ons to enhance collective learning. Argyris's and Schon's and Engestrort~'~ themes hilvc Seen concretized inlo intcrven t ] o n mclhods.

In this artic.le, the relationship between dcfcnsive rcawning and innovative organizational i c a r r ~ ~ n g with the help of activity theory 1s clarified: Detknsivc and productive reasoning and ~nlt'raction arc not: as 12rgyris and Schol~ ma~titain, two different tvpes of intcractron. but interacting clurnents in organizatior,al inqulry. Thc relativc prevalence of e~ther of thcse also does tlot dupend primarily on individuals' theories of action as Argyris and Schotl inainta~n. Rather, i t depends, on one hand, on the structure and phase of development of the

Argyris's and Schnn's and Engcsrrom's ihcor~es and discuss thc dif'f'ercnces In tlic~r spproaches l ' h u n I shall describe the practical cnnscquences that thesc differences have to the mctllud ot'intcrventron. I shall present an en~pirical spcclrnen of a collrctive learning process and analy~c thc interplay of'dcfcnsive and constructive elcnlents In il. ITinally, I shall p r c ~ c ~ t anothur achvity theory based ~ntcrpt.etation of rhe causcs that mrgh: have an impact CHI thc relative prevalence of defensive and uonstn~cli\ ;~spscts i n organizational discussions.

Theory of Organizational I-earning: Chris Argyris and Donald Schon

In their theorq of organizational Icarnir~g. Argyris and Schon 11 9911) apply John Dewey's concept of inquiry. Inqu:r>* bugins whcn the inherent contllct or confusion in thc slt~iation blocks action. An inquirer sccks to makc the situation determin~ite, t'nercby restoring thc flow of actlvlty. Inquiry combincs mental rcasonlng and action. i t is a social process cond~t~oned by membcrshlp In a social systcnl that establishes ~nqu~ry's taken-for-granted assumptions.

Organi~ation is a formal agcncy, a collective vchicle for the rcgular performance of recurrent tasks, a colIection of people that makcs decisions, delegates author~ty for act~nn. arid rnon~tors membership. '1-hc

Organizational learning takes glace when irtdividuals etrgnge in inquiry on behalf of the organization by the roles and rules of organization.

.- - - -. . - . - - . . . . - - . . -

act~v l ty concerned and, on the other hand, the condi- essent~al feature in ol-gan~zation is that the membcts' tions of organizational inquiry such as the tools and behavior IS, ir: ci-uc~al respects. governed by rules that materials the prastit~oners have for analyzing jointly the arc grounded In the society's legal system and are, to system olthcir actlvlty, their possib~lil~es for joint some degree, explicit. Organ~zational learning takes interaction with the object of the~r activity, and the place when individuals engage in inquiry on behalf of organization of organizational inquiry. the organiz.at~on by the roles and rules of organizat~on.

I shall first briefly surnn~ar l~e the main concepts of Accord~ng to Aryyris and Schon ( 1996, pp. 76-76),

. . . . - - . - - .- - - - -- . - - - . - . --

Thresholds in Education ( Vol. W: 2,2003)

"individuals design their actions and implement their designs." The designs are individuals' "theories of action." These are the general fomi of a causal relationship between means and ends. The theories individuals actually use and the ones they espouse tend to differ. The former arc "theories-ln-use" that can only be inferred hy observing the persons' dctions and abstracting recurrent, generai features In them. Not only ind~viduals have theories-in-use. The 103ic of the activity of arl organ~zat~on is the theory-in-use of the orgdni~at ion.

Individuals icat-n their theories-in-use early in life supported by featurcs of the culture in which they I ~ v e . A1-gvis and Schon (lq96, p. 76) state that "almost all the individuals we have studied hold theorics-in-use that are syslematically counterproductive for double loop leamtng, especially when the issues are embarrassing or threatening. Moreover, thcse same theories-in-use, when sk~llfully used, make the actors unaware of thc counterproductive features built Into them. Since the theories-in-use are sanctioned and supported by organizalional and social cuttures, individuals have little reason to h e aware of or to explore t h ~ s predicament."

Tlre defensive action strategies o fpersons discussing a

brisiness pro bkm rett der many aspects of the problem

undiscusscrble and tend to obscure error and

make it urzcorrectable. - -. -. - -. - - --

Defensive t heories-in-use have a self-reinforcing character, and the~r effects become amplified in an interaction in which each actor seeks to defend his or her face and self-esteem. This creates an inhib~ting loop that prevents effective organizational learning. The defensl ve action strategies of persons discussing a business problen~ render many aspects of the problem ~ilid~scussable and tend to obscure error and make it uncorrectable. Such a primary inhibit~ng loop can further escalate into a secondary inhibiting loop. Among the most important components of secondary inhibiting loops are organizational defensive routines.

These are "actions and polices, enacted within an organlzat ronal setting, that are intended to protect individuals from experiencing embarrassment or threat" (Argyris & Schon, 1996. p. 99). The defensive routines create areas of undiscussable toplcs within an qaniza- /

tion and narrow tllc scope of the inquiry which could lead to learning. Problems arc identified only In dis- cussable domains, and soIutlons are generated to deal w ~ t h the d~scussable features of the problcms. The )

problems rcmain unsolved because their undtscussable aspects are not analyzed.

I

Engestrom's Theory o f Expansive Learning Actions I

Thc cultural-historical activity ~hcory, which is the start!ng point of Engestrom's theory, approachcs human cognition and act1011 as embedded in collec t~vely organized and artifact mediated systems of activity (Leon! 'jev, 1978. Engrstrom, 1987, {:ole & Engcstrom, I

1993). According to Leont'jev ( 197Y), the defining I

characteristic of a relatively permanent activity system I

is the societal object of the activi~y. what Lhe indiv~duals are acting upon. and hat they are jointly pruducing. According to him, the systc~n ofjoint activity and individunla' actions rcprcsrnt differcnt systemic levels which cannot he reduced to unc another. Engcstrom describes this difference by clarifying the Ji tyerencc betwccn the object of an activity and objzctivu.

In tts constructed, necd-related capacity, the object [of an activity] gains motivating force that gives shapc and dirzct~on to actiulty. The object determines the horizon of posslble actions. Objects are not to bc confused with goals. CioaIs are attached to specific actions. Act~ons have clear po~nts of beginning and tem~~nation and relatively short half-lives. Activity systems evolve though long, hls:orical cycles in which clear beginnings and ends are difficult to determine. Goals do not explain the emergence of ac t~ons: goals and plans are formulated and revisited concurrently as one acts, and they are commonly explicated clearly only retrospectively (Weick, 1 995). An activity system constantly generates actions through which the object of activ~ty is enacted and reconstructed in specific forms and contents; but, being a horizon, the object 1s never fully reached or conquered. (Engestrom. 1999. p. 381)

4 Thresholds in Education (Val. XXIX: 2.2003)

However, the object of an activity does not exist lndependentl y of, but only as an element of, an activity system that also comprises the community of actors. the tools and concepts used, as well as the divis~nn of labor and rules of the community involvr.d in the activity. The decisive feature of an activity system is thc multiple, artifact-mediated, interaction relationships

I I within the system.

Incremental changes constantly take place in all the 1

elements of the system because the inner dependencies I I change In one element calls for changes in other I / elen~ents. In ~ t s davelopment. the activity system also

goes through quali tat1 ve trans funnation triggered by major changes in some clements of the system and resulted contradictions b z ~ ~ cen these and other elements of the qystern. Such historically ex~olved, inner contradictions create errors In the daily activlty atld trigger processes of inquiry and search for new solutions. Engcstrom's ( 19S7) theory of expans~ve learning is based on the dialectical theory of generaliza- tion as a process of ascending from the abstract to 111e concrete. Abstract here refcrs to partial {so rncth~ng separated from a large whole) and concrete (a complex whole with multiple manifestations. In this method, the essence of an object in this special case of a11 activity system is gasped by tracing and rcproducing theoreti- cally the logic of its hislorical development through cycles of emergence and reso t ution of' its inner contradictions. In each cycle, the mechanism of thc dzvelop- mcnt of the activity system changes. These changcs art: connected to changes in the way the object of the achvity is conceptualized and constructed. The essence of expansive learning is in rcrnediating the subject-object Interaction and redefining the object of the activi~y in a way that opens a new development perspcctive.

Theoretical understanding of a praxis and the ! i ascending from the abstract to the concrete is achieved 1 ,

thmugh specific learning actions. Together these actlons form a cycle with the following ideal, typical

I

i hequence (Engestrom, 1999, p. 383).

i Questioning, criticizing, or rejecting some

aspects of the accepted practice and existing wisdom.

Analyzing the situation lo find out causes and explanatory mechanisms. Genet ic-historical analysis seeks to explain the situation by tracing its origination and evolut~on. Actual-empirical analysis

Thresholds in Education ( Vol. XUX: 2,2003)

seeks to explain the situation by construct~ng a ptcture of its inner systemic relations.

Modcling the found explanatory prillc~ple in

some publicly observable and transmittable me- diurn. This means constructing an explicit, simpli- fied model of the new idea that explains and offers a solution to the problernatlc situat~on.

Examining the model by running, operating, and experimenting on it in order to fully gasp its dynamics, implications, potentials, and limitations.

Implementing the model, concretizirig it by

practical applications, enr~chments, and conceptual extensions.

Reflecting on ar.d evaluating the process.

Consol~dating the new practice.

Engcstrom (1999, p. 388) has conducted emp~rical analyses of innovative learning processes in actual work teams. The analys~s revcaled two types of discussion episodes In the process that did not match to ttlz theory of learning act~ons. In one of thcse, Engcstrom describes this phase as fonnulating and debal ing a problem. The other he characterizes as reinforcing the existing practice. The phase of fornlu- latlng and debating a problem 1s very interesting because i t also consists of the construction of the object ofjoint learning and is, thus, a prerequisite for the orher learning actions. Without some kind of cornrnon definition of the problemor learn~r~g challenge, tach individual would try to solve different problems and no cooperative learning was possible. The idtntiticalion of a common problrnl also mcans that the actors move from the perspective of their individual actions to thc perspective ol a joint actavity system and see the problem in the system.

The initial ex~stence of a shared problem or task can rarely, if ever, be taken for granted in work teams. In fact, actions directed totvard constructing a shared underst anding of the problem took a lion's share of both discussions. The innovat~ve solution itself seemed to emerge a s a final burst after the painstaking period of object construction. (Engcstrom, 1999, p. 397)

Anorher important finding has concerned the distributed and discursive nature of the learning act~ons. Different persons' contribut~ons were important in

different learning actions, but also the indiridual learning act~ons were not carried on by ind~vtduals alone from a certain perspective, but rather consisted of collisions and interactions of different perspectives. The perspectives were not fixed and tied to individuals' gencral ized "action theories" or positions. On the contrary, the constellations of agreement and disagree- ment between individuals changed during the process. 1 Engestrom also found that various concept~ral and mater~al artifacts played a n important role in mediating h e discursive taklng of rhc iearnlng actions.

The Central Difference Between the Two Theories

The differenccs between the theories that are crucial from the point of v ~ z w of des~~gning inten~ent~on for supporting innovat~ve learn~ng can he crystall izcd in the foIlowing four questinns: What 1s the unit of analysis In the theory'? What is the central explanatory principle? IIow are general i7,atlons produced? How 1s

the process of learning conccptualized'!

The Ilnit of Ataulvsis Argyris and Schnn are mainly interested in the

interaction between members of the organizat~on. Their it~tervent~ons focus solely on these. Thus, wc can say that their unit of analysis is a systemof sociai

I The retatlonships dealt in

I Argyns's and Schon's theory

I ' Figure 1 The focus of Argyris and Schan's theory in I I an activity system (black lines). L- -- - I i -----

foml of individual's actlons wlth the pnnc~ple of slmul- tancous cultural rnediat~on fo the subject-object relationships, and the subject-sublcct relationsh~ps in the system of activity (see Figure I ) . An individual's mteraclion w ~ t h other persons In the community of those ti-lk~ng part in the activity IS mediated through !he object of the joint activity and the other cleinents of the activity system. The principle of mediation does not only concern the productive activity, bur also learning. i

interac,tion although :hey themselves do not explicate it - -. - -- I that way. According to activity theory, this interaction cannot be separated from the iniel-oition of the actors 1 with thc ohlect of their activity. T h ~ s interaction is nnt mcdiated only by epistemiu artifacts, ~ ~ h i c h Argyris and Schon scc as important in learning, but also by the actual Instruments and tools used in the aut~vity to impact the object. The di !Terence of the two theories, I Figure 2 Argyrisls and Schon's explanatory principle in chis respect, can be described with the model of an

I L - ~ . - - . - -. - -- .

i - -1

activ~ly system adapted from Engestrom ( L987, p. 78; Cole & Engestrom, 1993, p. 7). See F~gure 1.

Also, organizational inquiry is a culturally mcdiated

Cenfrcll E,ry/nnatoly Pritrcrple process that 1s dircc ted to certain objects and applies

According to Argyrls and Schon, indwiduals ' certarn tools, rules, and forms of divis~on of labur.

actions are determined by the theories-in-use they use in designing their actions. The theory-in-use can Hhys oJGenemiizing a j l r i Mudclittg: change as the individual gets feedback about the I~tductive us. Systemic urtd Genetic effects of the action. As a member of the organization, All learning involves generalizing. Argyris and tho individuals' actions arc also governed by the rules Schon rely mainly on empir-ical, ~nductive general17ation. of the organ~zation. I visualize this explanatory prin- 'The explications of indwiduals' theories-in-use are ciple w ~ t h the model In Figure 2. created by compatlng individuals' actions and abstract-

Activity thcory, on the other hand, cxplains the Ing the recurrent features In them. Engestrom's theory

6 Tllresholds in Education (Vol. XXLX: 2,2003) I

1-c11cs on the method of ascending from the abstrac-t to the concrete that requires conceptual reconstruc t ~ o n of the historical devclopment of the system in its inner and outcr functional reiationships as well as the inner dynamic conlradictions [n the system.

Curlreption of Lenrni~lg It would be fair to say that both theories ascribe. in

general to a s c a t extent, to Dewey's Idea of ~nquiry- based learning w h ~ c h Argyris and Schon havc incotpo- rated in their theory. On the othcr hand. Argyrir's and Schon's Inow specific thcoiy ot'how to enhance Iearninp is h a s 4 more on an idea of the actors becoming conscious of the coutitcrproductive nature of their theories-in-use and Icarning new, morc productive theories. In Engcstrum's theory, learning is depicted as a prncess of expansive rcmrdiat~on of the joint activity;

that is, the creation of a new uonccptualization uf the object of the activ~ty and devclop~nent ofcorresponding new tools and tbrn~s of cooperation. The comparison of the theories is summarl zed in Figure 3 .

What is essential In an ~ntewention for enhancing innnvat~ve, organi~ational Ieaming'? Argyris's and Schon's theory advises the intervcnt~onist to try to identify posslble learn~ng-inhibiting loops in the conmu- tlity and then help the practitioncrs to break them and

Figure 3. Summary of the comparison of the two theories

Dimension of Comparison

Unit of analysis

Explanatory principle

Way of generalizing and modeling

Conception of learning

create forms of Interaction that lead to double loop learning. The intervcnt~onist has to collrlct data about tlie practitioners' actlons and construct a modcl of the implrcd conceptions of means-ends rrlationships. 'The practitioners can also be made to create such rnodcls themselves in a classroom situat~on by asking them to conduct, reconstruct, or simulate business discussions and writc down or talk in turn of their inncr ~hrn~ghts and expectations ConccmIng the proceeding of the discusslntl and their partner's action strategy while thuy discuss.

The intervent~on~st constructs ~nodels of thc theories-~n-use uE the participants by analyz1r.g thc

protocols and spec~mens o f behavior. Iic or she k c d s both the exempl~fying data about lnteraction and the mode1 of the thcorics back lo thc actors and encourages thcin to study the inconsistencic_c and gaps that underline the rcasonlng In thcir act~ons. AJlctnat~ve, mqu~ty-enhancing thc'uiy of action is thcn presented to the actors, and they are encouraged ro practice apply- ing it . By such means, the intervention is supposed tu break the Irarning-inhibiting lurlps and creatc a new form of iniel-act~on that supports open Inquiry.

According to Enpstrom's theory, the ~nvolvement ofthe prsctitioncrs into a process of inqulry IS cmcial. Thc object of the inqu~ry, however. is not the nature ~f the practltloner's action theories. but the structure and inner contradictions of the activ~t\; systcm. The intcr- vention has to prov!cli: the actors w t h marcrial, conceptual and practical tools, and gu~dance to takc jo:ntly the expansive Iearn~ng actions needed in such an inqully and transformation of the work practice.

Normally. practitioners have quite I imited, conccptual tools for analvz~ng the activity and i ts historical devclopment as a whole. neforc the practltloners can engage themselves in lolnt inquiry. they have to be ahlc to become conscious of a common problem and hecomc interested in the a c t ~ v ~ t y system as a whole- not only in their individual tasks. This i s a paradoxical challenge because, to become involved In the process, the individuals have to expcriencc it as pel-sonally imponant; but, for anal yz~ng and solving the problcrns, they have to distance themselves from the immediate situation and look at it in a broader perspective. Bz- cause the object oft he activity is partly given (partly constructed). ~t IS important that the partic~pan ts are confronted with the object in a broader context andor in a different way than the way they routinely construct it so as to bccome conscious of the limitations and

Thresholds in Education ( Vol. XXLY. 2.2003)

Argyris & Schon

System of social interaction

Cognitive structures used in designing actions called theories-in- use

Empirical, ~nductive abstract~on of recurrent fealures

Becoming consciol~s of counter productive theories, learning productive ones

Engestrom

Systems of joint, object oriented activ~ly

Cultural mediation activity: inner contradictions activtty systems

Conceptual reconstruction of the development of the system and its inner contradictians

Expansive redemption of the activity

problems of the histor~caliy formed way of conceptualizing the object.

The Change Laboratory The Change Laboratory is an ~ntervention method

created by Engestrom to provide a local work team with the instrumentation needed for takrng expansive learning actions (see Engestrom, el a!., 1996; Virkkunen et al., 1996). The central tools in the laboratory are a 3 x 3 set of wall boards and a video dcvice to use for deplctlng the work activity. The vertical dimension on the wall board surface represents historlcnl change from the past, through the present. to the future, The horizontal dimet-tsion of the hoards represerlts different levtls oP abstraction and theoreti - cal generaliz-ation. At one end, the Mirror surface is use to dep~ct and examine the work practice. At the other end, the Mode1,Vision surface is used for modcllng the activiiy systems concerned as a whole.

'She th~rd surface in 111e middle is reserved for ideas and tools. Conceptual organizational diagrams and the like are used on these boards. As the participants move between the experiential mirror and the theoretical model. they produce partial solutions and ideas to be experimented with. tested, and used as components in the construction of a new model of the activity. These ideas arc also represented and developed on the Ideas. Tools surface.

A c h ~ n g e laboratory process was conducted from August to December, 1996, In the national news department of Finland's leading daily newspaper, Helsingin Sanomnl. Thc editor-in-chief was interested in helping the department reorganize its work while and after the installat~on of a new, computer- based, pagination system. The purpose was to help the department take advantage of the possibi lit~es to develop the content and quality of the paper created hy thc new technology.

Collective imagining and projecting

Collective remembering

Emotional encountering of realities; empathy with the client, tak~ng the client's perspective

Figure 4. Sociocognttive processes in Change Laboratory. Change Laboratory in the Helsingin Sanomat, a daily newspaper.

Perspective taking; learning from others, mutual

8 Thresholds in Education (Vol. XNX: 2,2003)

CHANGE LABORATORY, instruction, debate developing

A

7 DAILY WORK Change of context and producing perspective from producing

to developing

From Bureaucracy Toward the Learning Organization: New Possibilities

n this article. the organizational change as a transi- tion from the ideal type of burr~ucratic organi7aiion (Webzr. 1947) to the form of organization c~ l l cd the

learning organization is considered (Pedler. Rurgoync. & Boydell, 1997: Senge, 1940). Theat-ticle offers ncw possibilities for crcative learn~np. !nnovativr action, and bettrr organizat~onal performatlce in four parts l hegin with demonstrating that the bureaucratic form u f

organization is an almost complete ant~tl:csis to the learning organi~alion. Secondly, 1 argue that a bureaucratic form of organization c;ln~?ot survive in tomurrow's, fast-changing rvurld because it products working conditions where thc only possible actions arc confdrmist in naturc and must therefor? he rcplaced by a more flcsi ble syste tn like the learning organization. Then I prcsent data to ~llustratz how even small transitions from a bureaucratic form of organization tonard thc learning 01-panizat iotl csn produce n t w posslbiIitics to act in a more flexible and productive Ikay. Finally, 1 conclude the at-tlcle with a summary of the al-gclments and the cmpirical findings.

The Learning Organizatior: An Antithesis to the Bureaucratic Form of Organization

Thc ideal fonn of a bureaucratic organ~zat~on prexnts an antithcs~s to the form that Petcr Senge called the learning organization. In a bureaucracy. the staff is specialized in managing otlly their own clearly defincd jobs (Weber, 1 947). 'l'he employccs have learned both what is and 1s not expected of thcm. Ry contrast, in the learning organization, a great dcal of thr work is done collectively in mu1 t I-skilled teams and employees are encouraged to take more responsthility for the whole system of their work organization (Ptdler, Rurgo yne. & Boyde, 1997: Scnge, 1 990).

Secondly. !he current bureaucratrc form of organization is typically an author~ty hicrarchy wherein the managers are accountable to their imrnedialr superlor for both the conduct of their own jobs and those of everyhody below them ( Weber, 1 947). According to

Matti Laitinen University of Helsinki, Finland

Morgan (1 997). the supcrvisnrs and olhcr hierarchical forms of confro1 not only monltor the perfbrmancc ol the workers, but they also remo\;e rcsponsihll~ty tiam worker-s as thcir funct~nrl really becomes opcrationa! only when problems arise. Thus, the chain-of-com-

The structure of tlte Iearrzing organization sli mld be as

Jut as possible, and its leadership should be based

orr such principlvs as cooperation, enrpowermctzt, decentrnlized control, and

participatory policjvri a kiwg -.

mand encoutxgcs people to ohuy orders and kccp thr~r. places rather than takc a sr~tlcal interest in what thcy are doing. By contrast, the structure of thc lcarning organization shcbuld be as flat as possible, and i ~ s lcadersh~p should bc based or! such principles 35.

cooperallon, ernpowermcn~, decentral~zed control, and participatory policy-n~nk~ng (Pedler, Burguyne. & ljoydell, 199'7: Senge, 1990).

Next, the operations of bureaucracies are currently more ur less governcd by cons~slcnt rules laying down fixed procedures for thc perfortnance of each task (Weber, 1947). l'he rules, of course. also rcstrlct the creative actions of personnel because they arc cx- pected tu make rout~ne applications rather than takc the~r own initiatives on policy decisions. Acuord~ng to

Pedlcr et al., (1 9971, there are rules and prclccdures In the lcarning organization, too; but tht'ir a m is to be empowering rather than restricl t ve. In addition. rules and procedures are sccn as temporary structures that can be frequently changed to meet ncw job. customer, or innovation requirements.

-. . - -. . -. - - . .- ..

I 14 Thresholds in Education (Vol. XX IS: 2,2003) I

I

i

Employccs in conventiot~al bureaucrac;~~ are nurmallv expccted to behavc without personal consider- at ion of pcupIe as indiv~duals. As Webcr (1 947) nored long ago, the deal worker is "subjcct to an impersonal order to which his act~nns are oriented." B y contrast, the learning organization should encourage employees and customers to bc treated as individuals. Internally, the building o fa shared vision requires that values, concerns, and aspirations of all the staff should he taken inlo account (Sengc, 1990). Parallcl to this, employees should masttr their own sc1f-development and, Tul- example, dec~dc what t r a ~ n ~ n g and development they want (Peiller, tlurgoyne, & Boydell, 1997).

Fifth, once appointed, the employees o f a burcau- r1-3ttc organizat~on arc typically full-time and salaried. Each job in the hierarchy 113s J. definite and iixcd salarj, attached lo i t . Employccs are also expected to n~ake 3 career withln the organ~zation. Prvrnotion is based on seniority, achievements. or a combination of both (Weher, 1947). These structures arc now being ch3llrnged in the learning organization by uncoupl~ng the associaliun ot'development w t h promotion. As Pedler et al.. ( 1 997, p. 1 15) have noted. In many companies "hopping" rn~ght be more useful lhan "climbing" as a career metaphor. Tn addition, ~t IS

prob;lhlt: that pcople "lower" III, the hierarchy are earning more rhan somc considered "higher" in he hierarchy.

S~xth, in a typical bureaucracy. pcople do not own any part of the organlzatlon t r which they work nor can they use their position for private gain (Li'cber. 1947). By contrast, the learning urganization represents something that IS shared and something that has bccn crzated collectively. For this reason, t11c learning 01-ganlzation ~trstegy includes titlding ways to reward people jus t as the owners of thc organizat~un are rz~vardcd. .4s Pedler et al., (1997) have put it, the le~rning company is seen as shared in~cllcctual, emotional. and physical propet-ty: and the belonging or partnership contract must reflect this.

Finally, there 15 a separat~vn between the task of the employee wlthin a burcaucratic organizat~on and life outside the organization {Weher, 1 947). The learning organizat~on IS also breaking down this division. Ac- cording to Senge (19913, p. 307), the artificial boundmy between work and family is anathema to the system's thinking of thc learning organizat~on. He also points out that the learning organization cannot support personal mastery of work without supporting personal mastery in all aspects of life and that the learning organization

cannot foster a shared vision without ca l l~ng forth personal \.~sions- always Including desires fbr farn~ly lives. In othtr words, the learning organization 1s challenging, for cxample, the tahoo that has surrounded the topic of balancing work and family and has kept i t off the corporate agenda.

Form of Organization Connected with Encouraged 1,earning

Since the timc Weher (1947) detined his ldeal type ofbureaucratic form of orgir,izat~on, social sulrnt~sts have descrtbcd at5 negative aspects (Argyris, I W 7 ; 1973; Burns & Stalker, 1996; C'legg, 1990; Gouldner. 1954; &k Mlntzherg, 197911 989). [n thc light of their writings, bureaucracies have at least two serious Ilr;litations. Thuy cannot cope wlth an Increas- ing need to develop flcxibil~ty in a rapidly changlrlg environment in InIcnsc inturnational competition., In addition, work in a burcaucratic organizat~nn niay lcad to dchurnani71ng processes.

As wc have contrasted a bureaucratic form of organi~aflun with the lcnrning organization, we can zlcarly see that both Iitri~tations of the bureaucracy are connected to the p p e s of action and leaminy that are encouraged by the organization (sec Table 1 ).

Table 1. The category of actions with possible learning processes and results (applied from Jarvis 1992).

Actions

Repet~tive. People think less and presume more

Presumptive: People take for granted the situation and perform almost unthinkingly

R~tualistic: Presumptiorl becomes merely going through the motions

Alienating: Ritualistic act~on becomes oppressive or meaningless

Thresholds in Education (Lrul. XSIX: 2,2003) 15

Learning possibilities

Non-learning situation'

Non-learning situation

Minimal or non.learning slluations

Minimal or non-learning situations

Possible results

None

Nane

Nor,e or conformist action

None or conformist action

'The bureaucrallc Lorn1 of organization produces repet i t ivt.. presumptive, r~ tualistic, and al rznati tlg working cond~tlons wherein the only activn possible 1s

conforn~ist In nature (Jarvls, 1992). What IS important is that innovative action is only

possible in ekperimental siluations (Jarv~s, 1992). Because the authoritarian and controlling forms of' hurcaucratic organlzat~on do not support creat~ve action and risk-tak~ng, there are only a few pr~ss~hilities to create changc through employee Innoratlolls and crrati vity. Similarly, the ~ I ~ ~ I C C fur employee grnwth and personal dcvclopmcn~ is very limited+spcc~ally tbr thusc at the lower levels ot'thc organization's hierarchy.

In contrast tc, the bureaucratic fonn of organ~zat~un, the main idea k h i n d thc lcaming o r g a n ~ z a ~ ~ { ~ n is decentrall~ation of control. This is based on the prcniise that only flexiblc systems can ztlablc thc staff tv he flexible {Senge. 1 900). Ehperimental or creativc Icaming with innoval i~c results 1s only possible when openness. trust, and a setwe o f freedom are presrnr.

Learning Organization Increases Flexibility and Productivity

The cotlteut of a case study I want to discuss is a factory that is number one in the g l o h ~ l lighting market. I r dcvclops, produces. and markcts lights and electric light systems for p r l~a tc homes and public r1ffic.c.s. III acld~tion, the factoly 1s thc centcr of cnrporat~nn's ligtit~ng knowledge in Nord~c countr~cs. 11 IS also a market leader of tcchmcal lights in Flnland.

When the development prqccr started in 1992, the facton had a need to develop 3 n:ore flcxiblc and mnre prokitable \yay o f working because its structures and procedures wcrc considered to be too rigid and bureaucratic to meet thc challenges of ~ntensifying ~nterns- tional compet~tion. '['he final aim was 10 create leun urrti lcurning nrganlza t ion ~vhereln power and respon- s ~ b i l ~ t y \\ouId be delegated to the floor level.

'l'l~e factory was divided ~ n t o profit centers, and one of those, Profit Center Fivc (PCS), was choscn as a plot u n ~ t of development work. PC5 manufactured electric lights whlch were especially a~rned at buslness environments such as stores, hotels, and restaurants. In 1992, the variety of products was Increasing rapidly, and PC5 was ~mplrmenting a new product goup called Donnl i gh t

PCS's 24 employees \\ere working In assembling, machining, and painting (includ~ng surface treatment)

workshops. As so often in I:inland. all assembly workers were women and all mach~nists were mcn. The ast. oT employees ranged from 19 to 60 years. l'hc average age was 45 years. In this respect, the

Experimental or creative learning wit11 im~ovati~*t'

results is ordy possible wlzeti openness, trust, as d a serrse of

freedurn are y reselzt. ---

profit center was t~o t cxceptional because persons o r agcs 40-50 were the most common agc group in the thc!ory. The most typical educational background was complet~on of primary schrhnl. Most workers had fi-urn

tlaniza- ten to t~ t'nty years of work experience in thc or, tion, and some of them had madc their whole wat-k career thcre.

111 practice. the nature of cvcryday work was repetitive 311d corltr011~~1 by the foremen. For cxample, IVIIL-~I an assembler started to producc a ucw series, s!~e iirst read the work urJcr after which she chuckcd that the parts and the co~npc~nents were available in small contuners at her ivorkstation. Then she startcd to cotnh~nt. p;jrts of a stem w ~ t h a pneumatic: scre\c.- drivcr. Aiier that, she attached rlcc'trical components to the stem. I:~nally, the product w a 5 testcd visually and with an electric testing dev~ce. Affcr the testing, she glued her distinguishing mark and the othcr stickers (~ndicaliilg type of dexrlce. switchboard diagrams, etc.) on the finishcd pruduc!. The last phascs ivcl-s packing and transferring tn the m c k or shipping dt.pa~-~mcnt. Whcn the series was completed, the assen!hl<r re- portrd tu ~ h t ' forcman.

The Development Project The corr-ipany contacted the researchers in 1992.'

After many discussions. the aim of the project was determined: to develop a new, flexible 01-ganization model and to delegate power and responsih~l!t~es to the workshop floor. I n addition, the idea was that this new organ~zat ion mode1 would be based o n conti t~irous learn~ng and teams (Laitinen. 1998; Laitinen, Pul kkis. & Vartialnen, 1995).

The project management ivas based on a steering

Thresholds in Education (Vol. SXLX: 2,2003)

comrnitt re . This group consisted of rcpresentatlves from different Itvels of PC5 's production manager. produc t~on des~gner. supervisor, one worker from each of three wnrkshops. representative of occupat~onal health sorvice, and the researchers.

The steering committee meetlngs had three roles: an educative role, a dcclsion-making rolc, and an analyzing role (Laitincn, Pulkkls, & Vartiainen, 1995). In the beg~nning of the projtcr, the researchers tried to teach issues conrlocted with organ~zation development, organi7ation~l Izarn~ng, urganizatio~lal flex~bility, and team working to thc personnel of Profit Cenrer Fivc. A tlccision-making role refers to the working of the steering cornm:tt<e that was aimcd to rrach an agree- nlent about something to be done in the projtct. An analyz~ng rolc meant Ihut the rcscarchers and personnel of PC5 coi~ducted round-table discussrons in order to analy~e and underfrand situations, problems, advances, and fe'eel~ngs in the ficld.

Naturally, there wzrc many itcrat~ve processes durlng the dcvelopmcnt projcct. Howevcr, it is poss~blc to say tlmt the de1-el opr?~cn t projcct proceeded through four or five steps (see Figurc 1) including recoglitinn that sntnething must bc done. creating a common future vision, analyzing the present situation, contrasting the dcxriptiun ofthe present si~uation u 11h:he vis~on, making proposals for changes in c~rder to reach thc vision, and tinally try~ng to implemrnt new idcas.

The scope of thc project to create thc future vision w a s from thrcc tu Five years. The main issuc of the

rZ&lNPlTlON T~~SOME-IKT MUST BE DONE"

THE CHANGES

Figure 1 . The phases of the development project (adapted from Vartiainen, 1994).

Thresholds in Education ( Vol. XXIX: 2,2003)

future vis~on was to increase flexibility. In addition. there were hopes of better productiv~ty and ~ncreased 1 ob satisfaction. A mu1 tilcvzl and many-sided analysis (L'artiainen, 1994) of the present state con firmed that the organizat~on was rlgid and bureaucratic. 'I'he employees' rcaction to this finding was. "This IS ivhat we have always said." Afttr that, the mission of the ncxt twelve months' working was to plan what kind of changes the organizallon should implement to bridgc the gap between the vision and rcal~ty. Parallel with the planning and impler-t~entation phases, a trainir~g program was init jatzd to promote qualiticat~c~ns to rnanagc the production. to use Ihe computerizcd i ntrnlstion system. and IU work in teams.

The Organizational Change Diiring the pruject, PC3 took some steps toward

the learning organizatlon (see 'l'able 2). At the start of thc project, all employees had clearly defined individua1 tasks. This contrjbiited to the ~doption of att~rudcs such as, "It's not my job to worry about that," or "That's his1 her problem, rlot tnine." After the projcct, the wvrk wa5 done in sclf-directed teams. Thcse teams were

Table 2. Organizational change in workshop 8.

The dimension of the change

Job division

Authority System

Organizational rules

Employees' perso~ality

Career orientation

Ownership

work and life and home wr th balancing the outside it

other flexible work hours

Before the project

Clearly defined individual tasks

S~pervisor's role central

Fixed procedures

ance or each for the perform,-

task

Tradition to treat employees a s ind~viduals

No career without technical education

No ideas that organizatlon may represent something shared

After the project

Space for experiment~ng new ways to organize jobs

The idea of "an indiv~dual~stic team

No climbing but hopping from one work role to another

Small bonus reward based on the annual performance of the whole organizatron

collect~vely responsible for manufacturing products in keeping with the nccds of the customers. They also had responsibility for continuous development of their work and organization.

Before the change. the role of the supemisor was central to any functlnn in the workshop: in communica- !lot], In planning, and In decision-making. It was generally known that the employees hoped for more autonomy to do their work. One of thc most common slogans to describc the nature of the work was. "When 1 come here, 1 put my brun with my hat on the hat rack; and when 1 lcave the factory In the evctling, I agatn take thcm both with me." I11 othcr words. the workers were using irony to emphasize that they u-ere not expected to be more than hands doing what thcy had bccn told. Aftcr thz change, the teams worked in a self-directive Ivay without the supervisor.

When th t project began, there were kixed procedures for the performance of each task. Thc space for creativity was very restricted. In a new model, the teams (as well as individual team members) were cncouragcd to expzrimrnt with new ways to organizc their jobs and to cooperate with diffirztlt stakeholders such as ciistutners. The teams also had a righr to usc wurkrng time for common planning and dialogue.

Lt is difficult to evaluate how personal cans~deration of people as ind~vrduals changed. Thc factory was locatcd in a small town. and people knew cach othcr weli. So, ~t was a kind of tradition that people wcrc treated as individuals. llowevcr, perhaps thc introduc- t ~ u u of teamwork creatcd some new possibilities to take individual life 5thiations into consideration in everyday working.

At thc beginning of the project, the employees dtd not have any kind of career. In practice. it was impos- stble to receive promorlorIs without technical education. It was also difticult to change tasks at the same ~r~anizatiotlal level. One idca behind thc new model was that employees had flexible rolcs and collirborative leal-fling fields including all the aclivlties of the operative organization (Pulkkis, Vartiainen, & 1,ai t inen, 1997). This meant that the employees had an opportunity to belong concurrently to varlvus kinds of teams such as a production ream, a product~on control team. a design team, and a development team. The reward system was also changed; the workshop liad d~scont~nued its individual-based pay system in favor of a team-based system and developed new rneasurcs to evaluate the teams' performance. Thrrs, there becamc possib~lities

to mo\-e from one work role to another and perhaps have a higher salary.

Also at the heginn~ng of the project. there was a strict separation bctwecn work and life outside work. This changed partially during Ihc. project. Tt became nnrmal and acceptable to ~ i~scuss balancing tl~r: needs of ivork and homt.. .A concrete i~nprovernzt~t connected with these dlscuss~ons was the Introduction of flexihlc working hours. 'She teams gained the rlght to docide their day off accord~ng to the production plat~s. Tn addition. the teatns cnuld decide their ari-11-al and departure t11nc.s to and from thc workplrtcz.

As previously ~ndicated, the changes toward the learning organization were rnollcst rather than cshaus- tive. Hot\-ever, the rcyrcsentati ves of the organ~zat ion evaluated them as important. According to them, the development efforts and Improvemcnls n u d e in the project had a positive effect on flexibility ~ind productivity. Table 3 tells something ahuut the posstblc cfft'ot ot' the organizational changcs rmplemented during the project.

Table 3. The figures describ~ng development of productivity and flexibihty in PC5.

.- -. . . - - -. . . . . . . . - -. . .

18 Thresholds in Education (Vol. XXIX: 2,2003)

Conclusion As Tosey ( 1998) has said, thc lcaming organization

is a frame or theme-more than a coherent systcm of thought. In this article. I have tried to explore the

I i posstble relationships hetitoren tllc foml of organizat ion,

organizational learn~ng, and organ~zation's pcrt'ormance, particularly, by cun~ras t ing the hurzsucra t~c o rgan i~a t ion with the Icarning organization but also through the use

4 of data. I havc tried to demonstrate t l ~ c s u p e r ~ o r ~ t y of' thc Icarning organization compared with bureaucralic organ ~zation.

'I he comparison rcvcalcd that the deal tjpc of hur raucn~ t i c organization (Weher, 1947) is very oppo- s i l t lo the idea of the learning organ~zatiun (Prdlcr et

31.. 1 997; &2 Sc~i.gc, 1990) 1n ~ t s ideas of optimal job dcllnition, authority sy-stem, orgrrnizat~onal rules, cm- ployces' personalit).. carter orlentation ownership, and separation of work and 1 1 Ye. -1 IIC clt.gnnizations also producc totally differcnl bchavtors. The learning organization succceds 111 silpporilng cxpcrimental or creativc actions and leamlng with Innovative results where the bureaucralic organization has difficulties.

'1-hc data showed that parallel with thc urganlza- twnal changcs from bureaucratic toward learn lng o1-pn17at1r)n. t l ~ c organizational performance had risen. L ! I I ~ v I ~ I L I ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ there is insuflicicnt informat~on about the factnrs ~ v h l c h clt.tc.nnined the organization's nb~l l ty to increase flexibi!tty and product~vity. Howevcr, 1 believe that thls ~mprovemrn t process was closcly connected to the changes in the fonn vf organizat~on and thc lcaming that was encouraged.

Endnotcs 'This trlay also bc a potentla1 lealn~ng slmatliln rf the actors

are practicing a new b c h a ~ lor (Jar\ 11. I992 ) 'The development project conductrd in cooperation with

the rcsuarcher s .4nnell Pulkk~s and Math Vartia~rler~ from Helsinki Ilnixerr~ty of Techlology

Referencrs Argyr~s. C { 1973 1. Personality and organization thcnn

re\ ~sited. ArInllnrjt~ atlw Science Qrrtr~.terly l 8 ( 2 ) . 14 I - 167

1

Argyr~s. C . ( 1'957). Prr.sonn11~. trt~ri u?xnni,-irrio,~s Luntlo~l' Harper & Kaw

Bums, T.. 8 Stalker. G (1 966). Tlrr rrii~nrzg~mc~~rf r!f rrrr~o~~irfrm (Ld ed.). London: Tavistock.

Clegs, S. ( l Y ) O ) , jVo(i~rn or4g(ti~r:i1fion.s. 0rg~i111:1i~1011 . ~ f ! t r i / r , ~ ~n rhr postt~tnclt't.n wot.l(i. 1.otldon: Sagc.

(-iouIdner, A. ( 1951). Prrrlr,t.t;s of-itrrilrs I,-ioi hurc.r~rrcmcy. New York: Free Press.

Jarvts. P. ( 1 992). P r ~ l - ~ ~ l r t o ~ ~ , . ~ n/lctitt~rtr,y. Ot1 hr~r,o~rrtig rrtr

iridi\~i(i~tnl rtr ~ o r i c f ) . San Franc iscn Jossey-Bass. t .aitinen, M. (199%). IIntrr\r.nlln la rr~uutoh

kokoonpanotyossa. S11rly111lni.n i~sroh~:~utuviin rhymiin teol1isuusy1-itykstsha. I Ic I~~ngln yllopiston Kasvatust~eteil Iiiitokse~) rutk~muks~a 160. (in Finnish).

Laitinen. hl., Pulkkis, A.. & Vartiaincn, M. (19951. l o w a r d a grouplikuor~ar117~tiona11dcmployees'~ohcont1~nl J n h . Kaupp~, S Kontrarncn. K. Nut'tni, J. Tuornisto, k T \, 'al~ci\~a (lid< .-/(111h I L Y I I ~ I I ~ I ~ X ~ t z ( I c i ~ l t r ~ r ( ~ l c o t r f t , ~ / :'i~lu!t Lduca~ion Rrsearih Society tn Finland. Ilnivcrsrty ol- I lcls~nki. Laht~ R~hscarch and Training Cvntrc.

Min17hcrg. H . 1 1989) W i r ~ t - b a t ~ otl mnn(ig~t~c.tlr I .ondon: Prenlice Hall.

Minlzberg, 11. ( 1 '170). T ~ L . ~[t- i iot i /~. ing nf otgr~tzi:crlior~s. London: Prcntice Hall.

Morgan. (2 ( 1997). Irt i i~g~, .~ .sm/ i/t.:_.rrtri:nrrot~. Tt~ousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J . & Bv~Jr.11, T. ( 1997). Thc l t , m ~ ~ r n g uo?npqy . !. ~tn-rrrcyyfil~. .~rr.\riiirlr~bk rl~,vc/ul)t~lcrrt (2"* ' ed.). London: MvlcGraw-li 1 1 1

Pulkkis: A , . Vartiainen, M., & Lailinun, M. (1307). TGwards grouplike organi7atiun by networklcluster devvlupmer~t o t comFanlcs. In W. Hacker, P. Richter, &T. ilagncr(t.:ds ). Anl~!\:rr r citr0 r i a ~gtr ni rtlolrol work. IV Workshop T1' He1sink1-TV Uresdct~. I jecembur 1995.

Senge, P. ( 1990) T'l1c.fiftlr tl~soiplirle. The clrf nnripro(,rrr-r c,j'

t l ~ u Ir,iir-rlrng o,gnn~:i~rtr~n. I.ot~don: Century Bus~ncs5. Tosey, P. ( 199k). 'l'he lramit~g organi7at1on. In P. Jarv~s, 3.

Holrord, 8t C. Crrif'fin (Eds.) 7Ilc r h ~ o t y r ~ n t l y m r ~ r u e uf

Icm-rring. 1.ondon: Kegan Page Vartiainen. M. (1994). Tyon rnuutokset~ tyovalrt~c.t.t:

tnuutnksen hallinnan s o s i o t e k ~ ~ s r ~ ~nenctclt~~nt Espoo, Cltatieto. (in Finnish).

il,'ehrr, M . (1947). Thr theo~?: cj.rociol nnd ccot~nttric otyi~~riznrion. I Ienderson, A. k Parsons, '1.. ( t ram. ) .

Eilitcd with an introduction by T. Parsons. New York: The Free Press.

Thresholds in Educatiot~ ( Vol. XXLX: 2,2003) 19

Transformation at Work: Challenges for Learning

Antti Kauppi Helia School of Vocational Teacher Education Helsinki, Finland

0 ne of the r ~ c h c s ~ and most intIi~et~tr;ll pcople in level. Castclls (1996) studied the changu into thc thc world, Hill Gates. C'l-rninnan and CEO of intclm~atcd work and sho\~cd thruugl~ global statist~c, Microsoft C:orpora~~on. shows the way tu a how the labor Corce is diim~dzd ~rito core labor forccs.

digital tl~turo in his new hook, f3winev.s (cij 1T1c Spiyc>~I formed by inK(>rmation-bascd managers and d~sposabl? r$I'~~uzigI~~ ( 1 990). By using information technology. labor force t h a ~ can bc automated andior 11 11-t.d!fircdl more and niirrc companies are producing products and off-shored, depend~ng lipon markct dcmand and labor scrvices on n global scalc morc eflicicntly and bcttcr cvsts. The main challenge for the cnnqun1t.s is to tic posrtioncci ior the custon~ers on thc lucal frame. The thi-ough the information f o w thesc dtfferent autono- digital future that is already here ch,~t~gzs not only the nmus parts oCa ncli\;ork to add value for thc company work but also the competenct. rcquircments In every atld its customers and p;ir:ncrs. Ievcl of the company. Ciater. uses examplcs from Thc visions also have ivelght in thc political rhetoric Microsoft and its custonwrl; to sho~v the changes ~ a k ~ n g since the U S h11111stt.r of Labor. Robert Rerch, pi~h- place. "With these smart systrms in place, wc'rc able lished his book I ' l r ~ !Fork of ! l ' c r r t i ~ t r . v ( 109 I ) . IIe to shift people from rcpctitive, nnn- showed h o ~ v 111c "symbol analysts" thinking work to more productive will be the key group in thc future activities." sL~ys Keith Bogg, Marks Tlirorrgll the US^ \I-nrk force and hen the in forma- LC. Spcnccr's divisional director f i l l - tlun and knowledge will he t11c k c . 1T and logistics" (C;;i~cs. 1999, p. 'f infornzafiotz? .fpyo,,,t,, ill I 1 2 3 ) . kit o?~kd'ge workers cet~tut-h. Since then. the d l w i ~ s s ~ o n

The message IS clear. Ncw in- nnd intellectirul has continued in mmy bcjoks. formation technology enables an in- articles. mcmcbs. and papers. foorrnatiun flow at the workplaces work nre becomitlg the Another 111:c ~n thc discirssiun that brlngs the necessary, up-to-date key conrprtitive force has becn ~ h c argument raising infornut rot1 to the hands of all work- lcaming in thc hext of inl'ormation ers. By using the information. i t IS itt the P C O / Z O ~ Y . society (c.g., EU's White Papur, possible to rnakc bctter quality work . -- 1995). Whereas thc industrial faster and more muan~rtgful. How- 5uc'lcty was a labor soc~cty, the ever, this also requires changcs in the organ~zat~on and knonlcdgc society i s a learning socioty. The cont~nu- workforce. Gates ( 1 399) discusses shiftrtlg people into ous change, inurcascd information flow, aulomarcd thinkiny work, raising the corporate intell~gzt~cc, cm- processes. etc.. build up requlrrmcnts for indiv~dual~. powcring the line workers, etc. It seems that, through chang~ng and learning. It also may be that the nature the use of Information, the knowledge workers and of changing and learn~ng is drt‘krcnt in a closed indus- intellectuai work are becoming the key competitive trial society from an open nctworked society. The. force in the economy learning of rcpet~tive tasks and obedience I S a different

Gate's arguments are supported by many research kind of learnlng from the learning of procebh construc- efforts and policy documents. For example, Zuboff r~on and knowledge creation. ( 1 988) studied at thc company floor change from 'The change m socrety ch3llges the biographies of manual to automated processes and realized the change ~ndividuals. The studies of ~ndivrdual life histone5 show Into requirements for concepiual think~ng. In a macro the change taking place In thc way indlv~duals interpret

- - .- -- - - - - - - - .


Leadership Cohorts: An Approach for Corporate

Leadership Development Valeria J. Stokes Northern Illinois University

T hcmajorp~~rposcofthisp~l~~t.cxplorrltnrq;study t~onal.~~c'~o-c'~~lt~~t-;ll~~ct~vo~~k~t'~rcareerdevelopn~ent was to offer contextualizcd insights inlo a nun- and tra1111ng progrnms: ~rlcoq~tirat~ng the developmental traditional approach to leaderdl I]> develop- needs and capat111 I ties o t'c.~r~plclyccs horn n knowledge

merit -a 1,eadershlp Root camp. This stlldy pro\-ldcJ ot'tht organ~rallcln;~l c.;~p;~hlllty needs of the corpora- investigators' observations and subj~e~ti\-e vle\\-points tion, anti asccrla tt11ng the silpptirt of senior managcrs in from a group of fifteen managers eml>lo>;Jed 111 leader- tht: value of e n ~ p l o ~ z e Ie;lilrr.;lllp development slratc-

ship positiuns within thc coiyoi-ate AI-ena. Survey glec.

rcsults W C ~ C U S C ~ to ~vaiua1c 111~ V ; I I L I C ;IS a Icildcrsh~p 'l'hls pilot ~xpIo!,3tilty st~lily ivas to consider the

development method that tile pr lnc lp lcs of ac t l on ~ U C S ~ Ion, what 1s the prrceivrd value of S C ~ C C ~ C ~ , high

lcaming, detemlnes future Instruztlonal desl stratc- potrntlal, mlddle, and executive managers lollowing

gics Cor lcaclership dcvclopmcnt, ant1 t h e ~ r prt~clpation in a non-tradi-

investigates accelerated techmyucs tlonrll rlppro~ch to leadership

uscd to foster leadership competency PaYtiCipalltS viewed dcvclupmcnt th:lt is labeled as a

ncccssary to broadcn thc corporalc leadership boot camp? The

talent bench strength. the b00f camp US objeclivcs oC this s ~ u d y wcre to (1)

- 1 he incthc,Jology fur tilc an hpilctful method lhe effectii-elless eta .;tudy was adapted from thc Ccntcr leadership developincnl mcthod

for C'rent~ve t .zadership's modd for for leadership that utilizes the princ~p~es nf action

111d1~1di191 cie~zlop~ncnl which sug- developm en f. learning, (2) determine tuture

rests that the Icast impaclful stral- --- instructional dcsi~n str ;ir cg~c*s fur Icadcrship dcvclopment. and ( 3 1 cgy tor ~ n d ~ v ~ d u a l development is

invcstigatc acuelcrated techniques necessar): to V(ostrr classroom or xtninar training. A valuc: chain analysis leadership competency to expand corporate t;llcnt ot 'erwt~ng, c.ot-poratc lcaming and duvulopmcnt mcth- bench strength. Underlying assumptions ot'the stlid!

ods was comp tcted and scrvcd as thc thcorctical were as follow:

fratnework for launching a non-traditional leadership Leadership development is necessary for

<ievrlopn~r.nt method that tbcused on ernployee d e w - ensuring ongoing capability of corporate Ic.3dsr 3nd

opnlen t. high potentla1 employees. :In evaluat~on of the outcomes of the 1.eadership Leadership training that integrates parl~c~pants'

Lhot Camp and an analysis of subjective feedback of corporate workliifc situations and experiences 111 a n thc participant's viewpoint on the value of the develop- cffcctivc method for shared learning. nlcnt process were obtained from nominal and ordlnrtl Regrettable employee turnover of h ~ g h potential dala generated tiom information derived from the candidates for senior leadership roles I S decreased structured, five-point ageenlent scale and open-ended if people systems are designed to fos~cr a dcvclop- survey. I t was cnricluded that participants viewed the mental work culturc. boot camp as an inipactful method for leadership Lcarning is an integral process of the work development. Future implications for human resource nlvironment and is necessary to ensure ~ o b compe- development includcd forming supportive, intra-lnstitu- tency and improvement in work practices.

Thresholds in Education ( hbl. XXLX: 2,2003 ) 41

Corporate Learning and Development Methods Research from thr: Center for Creative Leadership

(1 987) has suggested that wadi tional seminar crainitlg has the least impact on individual development. Em- ployee~ c ~ t e job change. difficult assignments. and coaching as signiticant factors it1 their achievement of new ways of working and subsequently expanded skills. F~gures 1.2. and 3 prov~de conceptual models that illustrate an analysis of the corporate learning and organizations1 fi~nction to assist in determinlng alloca- rlon of timc, pcrsonncl, and resources.

Leadership Development

Performance Management and Development

/ j Job Change

360' feedback . tro1css Berichmarks

Mentor~ng

Expatr~ate Ass~gnrlients Role Model

I "Individual 8. Career Enhancement" I Focused

Talenl Inventory 7 Courageous

v e n t Bench Strength

Leadership (Boot Camp) Figure 2 . Performance Management and

WCBM Development Model (from the Center for Creat~ve Leadership, 7987)

Training

Event

Low High Impact

Figure 9. Leadership Development Model (from the Center for Creatlve Leadership, 1987)

The conctptual models provide a gulde to clnjhify dcvelopmenml approaches as either event-clriented or focused. Event-or~cntcd approaches ut I llzc instructional methodologies that are primarily seminar, lecture, and group work, and tend tn hiivc less transformatiun of senlrnar contcnt to real l i te work practices. Business- focused approaches include those lnstruclional m e t h ~ d s that utilize real case studics and job challenges. I:o- cused appl-o;ichcs tend to be more aligned with core busincss needs, providing opportun~ ties fur participants to readily iutcgate their learning withln the contcxt of their j ob role and responsibilities.

Rationale Critical to an exploratory study of a non-tradrt~onal.

leadership development method 1s an opcrat~onal defiil~tion of leadership. While exam~ning thc literature

Organizational Development Model

Business Strategy

Performance Support ~ Figure 3. Organizational Development Model (from the Center for Creative Leadership, 1987)


for an historical basis for leadership thought, leadership theories that support the old economy, corporate paradigm for work practices were identified. When leadership is examined, several theories placu the concept within the following paradigms:

I . l'rait theorists believe that an individual's lendcrship tra~ts affccl workgoup pcrfomancc (Stopdill, 1974): 2. Pcrsoi~al behavioral theorists vicw lcadcrship style as the rr1;ljar characteristic that affects workgroup performance (Flake L' Mouton, 1982); 3. Sltuatlonal thcorisls cmphasi~c 111e I-olc th;lt ~ht . favorablcncss ofthe workplace sltuatlon. dcclsrun- making styles nf the ident~fird leader. and en~plu>~ee performance expectations have o n leadership abilities (Fiedler, 1967); 4. Attr~butlonal theorists view employec beha\-lor as the major factor that causes a change In leadrr-

ship stylc (Mitchell et al., 198 I ); 5. Substitute theorists suggest that leaders are not needed (Kerr & Jermein, 1978): and 6. Vcrtical dyad linkages view lcadcrship s~ylcs as adaptations to the uniqueness of the ~ndividual worker (nansereau et al., 1975).

Ambiguity is found in each definition and thelr methnds of measurement. Each paradigm attempts to separate the two conct'pts. lcadcrship and followrrs. Pfefftr (1 977) suggested that thc conccpt of lcadersh~p 15

ambiguous. As Pfcffcr ( 1 977) suggcstcd, loacicrsh~p should be understood from within a phenomcnoiogical framework.

Through a phcnorncnological explanariotl of leadership, using an abductive approach ( S T ~ R J ~ T . I OS7), Stokes (1 992) studied the phenomennn of leading. Within t h ~ s approach. she utilized an irltrospective analysis that resulted in ~ h c identification ofconccpts or "eductions" (Stanage. 1 987. 164-166) necessary to expand her a~vareness and knowledge of leadership.

Strikes ahduct~~ely 1-:ewed leading as relating, partlsipating. discovering, sel f-directing, self-determinlng. self-actualiz~ng. advocat~ng. mentor~ng, facilitating, ~mprvving. cooperat~ng, empowering, transforming, motivating. accepting, consc~ousing, discovering, cmerglng. I~beratlng, and even educating. These concepts offered educt~ons as a metaphysical knowledge of lead~ng. Each may exist in itself or as an entrapolat~on of ano ther. Each provided a mechanism

to stimulate thought processes so that the phenomenon of leading would be derived from a phenon~cnological explanation. From this extrapolation, the Stokes I.eadership Continuum was developed to offer an intcrprctation of leading that reflected an interactlvc process.

Leading as an interactive proccss occurs hetiveen the persons in the role of leader and follower. It is a multifacctcd process that 1s composed clfvarious components that may be int~q7r~tc.d according to the context in which the Izadlng prvcess occurs or is described. Leading should bc vic~vcd as a n interactive prncess slnce 11 IS thrnuyh [his ~i~teract~mn that the lea Jer Irlc~litates l'olloivcr movonlcnt along the leading ~ ~ l l t l l l l l l l l l l .

Thr leading procesF ar a continuunl has cxtrcnies that 1-eilcct pl-cx~~css luward thc negative, oppressing extreme or toward the pos~t~ve, empowering extrcmc. -1.hc Stokes Lcadcrsh~p C'ont~nuurn 1s prvsentcd as Fl~ul-e 4. 111 order tilr thc intcracr~vc proccsscs to occur, the leader must transcerid the negative components of lead~ng by a cu-~ntcntiunal ~nvolvcmcnt lhai fac~l~tates the follower's partlc~pat~on In the leading pmcess and progression toward ernpo\verrnent. T h ~ s contit~i~iim ti)r the I c a d ~ n ~ pruccss allow> thc lcadcr to ~tlttrac. t with thc ft~lloivcr. T3y acknowledging this continiliitn, the leader can a5sess the interactive protxsssd of botl~. It'tl~c' follower 1s man~fcsting a

Stokes Leadership Continuum

Pos~tive Pole EMPOWERING LIBERATING SELF-DIRECTING CONSClOUSlNG DISCOVERING INQUIRING PARTICIPATING EDUCATING PRESCRf BlNG DETERMINING CONTROLLING SUBORDINATING DEHUMANIZING DOMINEERING OPPRESSING

Negative Pole

Figure 4. Stokes Leadership Continuum: A Phenomenological Analysis

Thresholds in Education ( Val. XXLX: 2,2003) 43

subordinate role, the leading may be foster~ng passivity or dependency.

Iflcadership IS viewcd as a n interact~ve prcbccss of lealling, the relationship between leader and follower ivlll become co-intentional w ~ t h cmpowerment of the follower. Through the educating component of Icacilng, thc person in 1ht. Ic.;idc.rship role w~l l fac~litatc critlcal inquiry and communication. Inquiry m;~y rcsul t in the follower's dcvcldprnent toward the libera t ~ng and empowcring compiltlents of Icading. Through this continuum, Icadership dovelopmen: 111 thc new economy will bc most irnpactful t'or buth thc individual and thc corporation through a non-rrad~ t~onal lcadcrship ilc-vcl- opmcnt method that results 111 communities of pr;lctrcc called leadership cohort groups.

Sccly Iiro\\ 11 and (;ray ( 1995) su~gest that comtnu- nitit's of pract~cc ctncrgcd in responfu to working and managing in the Knowledge Era-thc ncw economy. ~l~l ic increasing ambigi~ity. competltlotl, ancl new busi-

w~thln B cosnlnunity ofpractlce will he able to tmns-

form the~r ways of work~ng as knou lcdge of thcir reflect1 ve processes. Through corporate prow sion of' resources and information, cohort groups can locatc thcir practices In a broader context, al~bmlng across corporate boundaries In order to work together and, thus, contr~but~ng to the rneasurablc cfficlrnc) of the urganl7ation. htat~agcrs can use thelr shared hisrot-y as a S O C ' I ~ ~ I I.csource to accelerate thelr acqu~sitio~l of leallerchip cotnpetcncics t Li'cngcr. 1996). It 1s my hope tha! th15 study may explaill hov a Icadersh~p cuhort tnay at'(cc.1 lcacicrship esprrlzrlces and offcr rccom- mendations for human rcsourcc dc~elopment and adult educa t~on progr;] l-nb.

Methods and Frocedurcs I he managers included in this ln~c'si~gticrn were

%elected according to a career band classifical~on thal I included Band L. cxccut1i.e managers; Rand D. m i r i d l ~ I d

managrrs; and high pot~11~131 Band C', nliddle mnnagers. I !

Fifteen indi~,iduals wer.2 putyclr;uti~lly selected from s n I

' 1 ! I

employcc database and presented to thc cumpanq0 ' 1 8 , U't. HZ ldsf view k a r l t ~ l l ~ US work president and tllc \kc-prcsident ot'liulnan resources , I , -

atrd work as lcar~zitg. --

rless techniqucs threaten to overthrow decades of traditional husincss PI-actlces -- the old economy. li'cnger (1 99G,22) pt-opuscs communities of practice as a 1e;lming. nrganlzatior~al tool. lhrough thew catnmu- nities. mt.i~~Sc.rslcrnployees can access !camlng In all its forms in order to nurt~lru and connect it across the organuation.

Introducing a concept of the leadership cohort as a community of PI-acticr requires that learning of lcadct- ship capabilities he 2s practice-oriented a5 possibie. Within thc community of practrcc. tac~t knna ledge (intuition. judgment, common sense) ~ C C O ~ I ~ S the soc ial fabric that connects the communities (Szely Brown and Gray, 1995). Learnlng becomes less about absorbing ~nfmtiatlon through train~ng seminars and more a b o u ~ a social process of gaining ~nfomlat~on through worhng. As Wenger ( 1 996. p. 22) states, tve must view learn~t~g as work and work as learning.

From this pilot, exploratory study, I hope to substan- tiate the importance of learning as a pattern of social part~cipation for leadership development. By sharing tacit, as well as explicit lalow ledge, cohort participants

for approx,;ll to serve as participan~s 111 thc pilot study. 1 13ecau.w of this spucilicity. the nature ot' the idcntifica- I

tion oC these participants \v;is also based upon their at-allability to attcild the 2 .3 days oftraining ca1lt.d a !

hoot camp. , ,

The Investigaiivc Setting The 5ettlng for this study \\as a cnl-poration locatcd

in the not-th suburban area of a I:lrgu, mtdwestern city. 'The corporatiorl is a billion-dollar apenition era nation- ally known. United States bascd. Fortune 500. global entcrpi-ise. This North .Arncrican businer;~. h3s R

ivnrkfoi-cc u C appros I ma tely 6,000 ernployec~, Inca ted in the I Jnitcd Statcs. i';lll;ida, and Mcxico. 'l'he corporation offers a written organirational philoscrphy that supporl s human resource d c ~ cloymrn t programs and views t ts employees as its grtalcst asset.

I+11t. gender distribution included tive womcn and ten men from whom only t14o wonlen were classified as Band D and 3 3s Band C. All were full-time cinployees whose :enurt of employment fcll N i thin a time range of 1 - 10 years of servicc. 'The part ~cipants represented four sites: nine from the corporate head- quarters, one each from a Canadian and manufacturing location, three from the sales workforce, one from a Canadian and manufacturing location, three from the

44 Thresl~olds in Education (Vol. XXLX: 2,2003)

sales workforce, and one liom a strategic business unit. clistributed and the formal identificatiol~ of the partici- Of the twelve managers who had supcr~isory responsi- bil rty for direct rcports, only two were women.

Data Collection and Analysis Participants attended the 2.5 day Icndership boot

camp entitled Cotirageow Leutier:~hy). The obj cc- tiws for the boot camp were ( 1 ) to zvatnine leadcrsllip

I traits and ~ttributes, (2) to identify actions necessary to I ~ ~ l l d and niaintain leadership credikl l lty, and (3) to t.xpIm-e the leadership shift and ~ t s implications Tur the

4 2 1 :' I:entury.

In preparation fur the Ieadersh ip development experience and to a l su rc support for the action Icarnlng design of lhc dcvclvprncntal event and applicab~lity to real work practice issues. the participants were asked to complete pre-work assessmcnl ~uols on personal

pant group as rhr organization's Zrraug~trul Leaders hip Cohort. Meetrng dates were set for a three-month reunion a l~d the first, non-virtual meeting of the leader- s h ~ p cohort.

The learning and organ~zational development tcam desigt~cd and launched a knon,ledge management strategy for the cohort by establishing a Leadcrsh~p ('ohon websitc. This provided a means for thc managers to share their ~ v o r k practices and new Icarnlng through a pass~vr,l-d-protected. communicatiun nutivork. In add~t~on , the sitr provided Internet links to selectcd on-line training, newsletters, and profess~onal business journals; and it servcd as the l e h ~ c l c lo prepare thc ctjllrrrt fur i t s ncxt meeting.

Thc Grst Leadership Cohort meeting rcsultcd in the

I valucs and leadership cornpetencics. Brs~des thc prc- work. they were asked to prcpare the fnlloiving as part of an ind~vidu~l presentation. Unique to the instructiort al

Ptrsvi~al goals for attend~ng (completion of design of the boot camp was "Managmg Your Umn Learn~ng" survcy); the direct irzvoivernent of

Minimum o f t n o u\t.rheads w ~ t h no more than b u r bullet points c ; l ~ h rslldes ~f YOU choose to use the cotnpany presitiett t atld Power Point) for a 5-10 minu~c prcset-ttat on on a E Y ~ C U ~ ~ V P sell i0r vice-p-pre~idefl t. Ihcy p r ~ j c c t that (a) names the currcnt kej* project; --

(b) itlcntilies the expected business r c s~ l t s ; (2) lists any harriers you may have in cxccution, and (J) drscussion about thcir purpose and efCcctiveness ~n idcnlilies what you may need from lhc faculty or achieving pcrsonal leadersh~p gcj:~ll;. Recommendatiol~c others to ensure ~uccessful execution. for itnproring the comrnun~ca~lon {vebsite wcrc offered.

Wr~tten narrat~vz that speaks to the tag line of a (lnnsensus was obpainej as to the future directlon of nat~anal business publlcat\on cover page, i.e., thc cohort and the challenges that lay ahcarl. C'ompany X: One of the most adt-t~ired and profit- :~ble companies to work for. Conclusion

Unique to the instrucrlonal design ofthe boot cJmp was thc dircct ~nvolvernent of the company prcs~dent and cxecutlve senlor v~cz-president. 'l'hcy p~ ov~ded clanty ofthc ctwporate husiness strategy, feedback, and advicc on the part~cipants' project presentations, and they supported an open forum of cr~tlcal inqulry and d~dlogue. The opportun~ty to allend nn cvcning, Infor- ma1 d~nner with the two executives was ih t culm~nating event of'thr tirst day. The last day ~ncluded a leader- s h ~ p semlnar entitled Learler~,hip in tJzcr Next hlrlleti- riicrtji that lncludcd hcul ty from the corporate learning and organizational development function.

Upon completion nf the two days, evaluations were

'Shu conclusions i terc Ihrccfold: ( I ) 70 evalu;~te the cffect~veness of a l~3dcrsI1ip development method that u t~ l~zes the principlus of act~on learning; (2) To determinc design strategies tor Icadcrzhlp develupmcnt, and ( 3 ) To accelerate lcadcrsh~p conlprttncy In order ro expand bcnch strength.

l'welve of the fifteen part~c~pants compiclcd the evaluat~on survey. Cr~tena were evaluated on n rat~ng scale with 5 as strongly agrcclng through 1 as strongly disagreeing, and ~ncluiling Iearn~ng environment. ~nstnic- tional media, ~nshuctor eft'ect~veness, and course effectiveness. The overall ratlng of the ordinal data was a median score of 4.03. The data suggests that more than ha1 f of the respondents ra led the boot camp

Thresholds in Education ( Vol. XXl A: 2,2003) 45

criteria at scores of 4 and 5. Care f~~l examination of the data for il~structor effectiveness Identified two scores below the target acceptable score of 3.9: for {he instrurror ir,red rlrr tilrzu proliuctivt'ly, 3.336; and 3.64 f)r ~ h r . i r r ~ I I r t i v lo t . t;//erlivelt~ presented the ~tzuterial. Wntten comments seein to suppurt these scores as 1ndlcatt.d b) these statclllcl~ts u l ~ e n asked the question, what suggestion do you have for Improv- Ing thc course?

+ "Bc nwre clear on what the content is. Make sure the numrnatrotlb arc that-not just Iast-mlnute fill-lns. hIakr people attend. Don't have my direct reports 111 w ~ t h me.''

"Cnmmiinic~tz bettcr what the class is and

~sn't. Flnd a way to f-wll~tate the d~scussions in a more struc turcd nay."

Thesc rcsponscs may indicate an clnfjmiliarity of the participants In action Icarning aclivltics since many or thcir training experiences have involl-ed stand-up train~ng with lectures and handouts.

'lb determine future ~nstructional des~yii sir-ategies for leadership development, we carefully cxamlned t l ~ c ordinal data for each criteria identified a% bzlo~v the standard, acceptable target score of 3.9 wit 11 ;i I ~ I C ~ I ; ~ I I

score of 3.67. Removal of the ordinal data fivm instructional media identified a collective med1:ln scul-e of 4.08. The data suggcsls h a t thc ins~ructional materials were acceptable since $even tn nlnz of the respondents rated this cr i tcr~a a1 scores 0 t '5 and 4. Written conlments suggested favor,tblr: agrszmztlt :IS

"Teachable polrlt of view. Leader credibility."

To ~nvestigate accelerated techniques necessary to foster Iz~dership conipe tenc y to expand talent bcnch sttrt~gth, \re first recognized that consistent w ~ t h e?;istitlg corparatc dcmogaphic cmploycc management data, the gender and minority participation was meager. Of the twelve managers who had supervisory responsibility for direct reports, otlly two wcrt: womcn matlag- ers. There were no ethnic minority participants. Though Ihc pilot group was small, it did rcflcct thc propensity of a predominantly white male selection in talent assessment and carecr p lacc~~~cn t . Yct. goals toward achieving thls purpose were established through the pilot exploratory study.

During the three months follnw lng [he boot camp. two of the women participan~s ivlio h;ld bc.c.11 ~Jcnli t ' i~d as high potential managers were ptomo!ud. One 11-3s

promoted to Rand E from Hand I) to a por;ition clf

scnior director: and another advanced frv~n Band C to Band to the position nfd~rector. There was also a fcmalc, Band 1) direc~or rvhosc ]oh W A S cup:~t~dcd In scope and responsih~llty. Tti sullptirt her c3rr.c.r aspirations for Band E, shc alscl ctltct-cd thu intctn:iI 300- Jspes assessment, development. and coachitlg pro- el-am. These career advancements of utidsr-rsprc- L.

scnted groups may indicate corporato ackno~v- ledgement of the leadership hoot camp initiatives as J. tmvl for building leadership talcnl bcnch strength.

This first leadership cohort group participated in the basic knowledge inarlagenleilt and communication network setup for the initial 1.eadership Cohort website.

Thougli the pilot grolrp was srtzall, it did reflect the y ropensity of a predominarrtly white male sclectiott in talent

assessment and career placernetzt. - - -. - -. . . . - . -. . -

ind~catcd by the following statements when asked the question, what aspects of this course (exercises, discussions, etc.,) did you find most valuable, and why'?

"The free-flowing discussion among my future leadership peers."

"Some discussion-resulting in validat~ng my

own thoughts." "Confirmed that I am not ~solated."

lnfoimal feedback ~dcntified a need by somc of thc participants for the importance of prov~d~ng a safe, authentic nem ork fo r communicating frnstrit~oni, challenges. and m~strlkes In a non-carecr-threatening atmosphere. It was felt that thcrc would be issues that s~m~lar ly class~fied managers would want lo sharc w~thout b a n g mtsunderstood by thelr direct rcporls. A fhared curlcern was expressed as, "Don't have my

46 Tluesholds in Education (Vol. XXIX: 2,2003) i

direct reports in with me." "More involvement frotn Senior leadership. Mr: Xwas great, but need nlore ~nvolvcment." "Have small core (esscut we leaders) take values r c . s ~ and publ~sh sumrnaiy results." This statement may reflect an orgnn~za!~onal culture that i s familiar w ~ t h status managti- positions and managerial segregation.

The participants v1crtc.d the future potential of thc

clcvclopmcnt should recognize the importance of developing programs that assist interaction within and across population groups. Through leadership cohorts, the HKL) professional can ensure an acceleration ot' thc lcadcrship drvelclpment process. As a comtnunity of practice, the leadersh~p cohort 1s a network of leaders who share wol-li pracl~rcs ~r il!~tn a broader, boundaryless, organ~za~ !on;il ~11-uclurc.

The rapidly charrgirzg tech nology and tlze re-ertgirr rering of the managemerzt structure tit rough do wttsizing alld eari) r~~tirement

necessitate education u I stuat~gies to accelerate skius development. . . .... - . - - - - - -

Lcadcrshrp Cohort as important to their personal Jevelnptncnt. Statcments to illustrate this vlewpolnt were "Likc the Idea of the cohort and rcpcllllvc tcin-

I I

fclrccment greatly." "Small coro needs to hear thz I comments." "Small core needs to go through tralnitlg."

The f~rs t meeting of the cohort generated the foilow~ng u~ggcs t~d dctions:

1 . Dcfrne courageous leadership. Sct standards; llve by those standards; and dnkc a ncw leadership attltude wl thln ourselves, our teams/circles of ~nilucnce, and our orgmization. 2 Embract. 3 nciv altitude that reflects the boot camp thrtt~e. R~ii ld lnx u Clrl.sirle.sLs Czillure tJlut lVoi.k.5 . 3. ldenttfy opportunities for critical change. 4. Act as a forum to provlde crltical feedback. 5. Scrvc as a self-support netn clrk for our tndt- vidua1 leadership devcloprnent

lmplications for Human Resource Development Practice

The rapidly changing technology and thc rc- engineering of the management structure through downsizing and early retirement necessitate sdiica t ional strategies to accelerate skills development. 'I'h~s re~nforces the role HRD professtorlals have In promot- Ing ongoing continuing education of individuals within the workplace. l hus . the role of the HRD executive in strat eglc plann~ng and organizational development is reinforced.

The H R n professional who is study~ng executive

Through 11KI) p r o p m s such as Icadcrshlp cohorts, the organi~a~ion can provide a work cnvlrun- ment that encourages interact~on among employee g r j u p s by maintain~ng a supportive, soc in-cul t u r d network that ~ncorporates the developmental ncclls and capshilities of employees. By aligning cohort nperatrng principles with thc organizatiunal capabilities ot'tt~e

d 1 t! to corporation. the IIRD prorcssional should b e , I I ensure senlor manasvr support. The ~deolog~cal space of the cohort nrna!; Iw hclpftil In re l~ev~ng the stressful job factors 1ha111s mc~nbzrs encounter and in providing a social n c ~ w o r k for ad\-:ce and carccr cnhancemcnt.

Appendix A (Deiiaiiions) 1. Iligh potential: Employe~s who have bcen iden11 tied through thc talent inventory process as canclidatzs h r proniotlon to senior-lcvcl, manager positions. 2. Manager position: All job descriptions within a workplace environment that arc clil551 i'ied according to orgamzatlonal, hierarchical, managemen1 levels. 3. Corporate arcna: A workplacc envirnnmcnt that is organized for profit, and whose ownersh~p and governance is determined by a holdlng corn- pany with a board of d~rcctors. 4. Leadership competencies: l'hc common attributes, sk~ll sets. and behaviors that havc bccn ~dent~fied as important to an organization's leaders' pcrfvrmance success. 5. C o m ~ n u n ~ t ~ c s uf practice: An informal or


formal g o u p nctwork r>f employees whu know, hwe worked with, atld trust each othcr. 6 . Root camp: Notl-traditional approach to

leadership drveloprnent that includes the fbnnation oflcadt.rship cohorts. 7 . Leadership cohort: 11 cruss-scction of employccs in nltddle and executive manager pos~tions who functlotl :IS a formal comli lun~ ty trt' practice. 8. Middle manager: Par~lclpanls \vho represctlt scconcl and third Icvel. tuiddle management JS 3.

C'areer Rand C 01- D c la~s i t i ca t ion ~ v i l h lob t~tles of tcam leader, direc~or, or tnanager. 0. Executive manzlgcr: Participants who have responsibility for supervisors or rnanJgcrs as a Carccr Band F, classification 1 ~ 1 t h job titlcb uf execi~t11 u d~tec to r , officer. vicu-prestdrnt, or prcsidun~. 10. Survey: 1;ivc-point ratrng scalc that ~ t l c ludr s hot11 fixed and preilc1cnn1nt.d tesponscs as wull a s opcrl-ended, unstructurtd, slcm statements that allow for participant ~nterpretalion, clariti~ation, verrfication. and confirmation of 32ra. 11. Managing your own learn~ng survcy: -4 self- asscssmcnt tool that is designed to crcate J personal Ic;~nllng agenda and action plans for personal pcrfomrance lmpruvcincnl to ~dunt i fy learning expect:~lions and outco~l~es tht-ough the co-inter)- tivnal involven-ient of thr ind~vldual wit11 hisker coach or supervisor.

References Blake, R., & Moulon, J . ( Ig82). A c o r r l p a r a i ~ ~ ~ nnalysisof

sih~ationalism and ninc, Ilitie n~ariagernenl by priticiple 01-gcrtri;nfiunrli Dj-nnmic.7, 10. 20-42.

Da11sert.a~. I:. Jr., Graen, G. & 1 l.lga, U!. I, 1975). A vertical ! d j .i J I Inkage approach to 1eadet.shlp within formal orgali~zalioni. Orgn~~izirrrotli~l B~hnvior irtrrl f l i t ~ t ~ ~ ~ r i I

i P(~!-fornlrrrrc.e, I J ( 1 ). 46-78, I

F~edIur, F. ( 1 967). Tlr~,rlr?,<!/ 1~cld~)t'r:~hrp c f f i , c l r~ .r~n~>r~. NCW 1 1

Ynrk: McCrraw-l 1111 1

Krrr. S.. 8: Jel~nein. (1978). Snh~tihltes f'ul Icadersh~p: Thull 1 n3,uaning and ~nuilsurenient. Clr;~crtri;ntrt~r~i~I Bclrn~~ir~r ( i t ; ( / I / U I I I ( I I I P(vfur. tn(i~~~,i , , 12.

L~ndsu). I-. H.. Homes. ir.. k JlcUall. M . W., 11.. ( 1987). KC;^ C L . C I I ~ . ~ 1 1 1 r:i ~ * r ~ l t ~ i l ' ~ . c ' 111-15. G~L'CI IS~OSO, Li: C V [ I ~ C I tor

C r e a ~ ~ v c I,cadesshlp. Mitvhcll, I.., Green, S.. MJord . R. (198 I ) . An a n ~ - i b u r ~ r ~ ~ : ~ l

rrlndel of lt.adc.rsliip 2nd rhr poor pc~-fosrn~r~g sttbolci~natl: I r i L. Cunlmings $2 R Slaw f Edx.). Ki,sr,irr.c.h 111

ui~~rrrtorio~rrrl ht.l1i11,io?.. Gi-C~IIIYIC~I. CT- I.41 Press. Pfefl'er, J. ( 1977). The ambiguity of lradrrsli~p 4 ~ 1 ( l ( v ? ~ j , (d

.:l.lirtrcrgt,~?~r.~/f /?c'~~/ i , )r: 2. 104- 1 12. Stanage. S. { 1 487). 4d1ilt ( ~ O ~ t u ~ t i o ~ ~ o i ~ ( i / ) ~ ~ r ~ ~ o ~ ) ~ c ~ ~ ~ o l o y i r ( z l

~-t~~crrrr.lr. Llalabar. FL: Roburt 1.1.:. Krieger Puhlish~ng Cornpiii~y

Seely Uroan, J., & Gray, E. (1995, Noven~ber). Thcpcnple arc rhu i(>ltlpaI1y. First Co~rrprrttj,. lit)-07.

Sccly Hrown, J., & Duguid. P. (199 1 ) . Toward a urntied viuw of uorklng, learning. snd iimovation. Otg(~~,r:~r!ion ~ S C ~ ~ ~ I I L ~ ~ ~ . 2 ( 1 1. 40-3?.

Stngditl, R.M. ( 1974 ). .i'~ogriiiii hrrrlrll7ot~X c,lIr~rtt l~r:~hrp: A S I I I T ~ ~ . q f ' t i i ,~v ; i . r i ! l t / ~.t..s~nlu.lr. New 1 ork: Frcc Prrss Publishing.

Stokes, V ( 1W2) . A ~ ,nse r f l i i f \~ elf -!fi ,~i C I ~ I - A I ~ I C I . ~ ( ' ( I P Z I I . U T I I ~ , T I i C-nr p ~ . i t / ~ * Imd~v..~lrip r?.vprat.r ~ , r i r ts . 170t~ J ~ > . Y J I I ( I /

~ 7 l t ~ ~ / i ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ . 7 , f 0 ~ ' /2lt111iltl ?'C',Xf~ll?'CL, d i ' ! '~ ' !O~? l~~ ' l l~ . I~n~~i ib l is l~rc l doctoral dissertation. Northein 1llir101~ I ,ulversity. DrKalb. Ill~nors.

n'enger. E. (1996, Ju ly .4ugust). How tu optilni:? organizatiunal leal-nlng. Ht'rrltl~c(r~.~, I - ' o r ~ i r ~ ) r J ~ ~ r ~ ~ r ~ r r l . 22- 13.

48 Thresholds in Education (Vol. XXK: 2,2003)

Bringing Worker Perspective into Interorganizational Collaboration

Hanna Toiviainen Center for Activity Theoryand Developmental

Work Research University of Helsinki, Finland

T 111s article IS based on my d~ssertation entitlcd

i LL~LZI-)ring to I f bt.k in 1Vehvovk.r- in ,SLI ~ C O I I -

/rclr,lrng C'otnl~rl,lic.%. A group of sixteon. small cornpanics in the Finnlsh tnctal industries. decided to fon11 a spcclal forum for strengthening their collabora-

! tive potentla1 and discussing the nrtwork philosophy. 'I'hc "Club," as I shall call it, reprzsei;tcd quite a nt-\v tvpe of horizontal collaboration amoily small, ma rnIb0 family-owncd, subcontracting firms. 1 .ater. two c ~ l ' t l ~ c tirms intensified their collaboration an11 fin;llli built up 3

group oiiivc companies called an "Alli3nce" whicll I S

the background of this article. As an outcome of the histor~cal analys~s, 1 have

dcpicted the activity of the C:liib as the multl-levcl, \:eterogeneous cullaboralion shown In Figure 1 . Con- trary to the instrumental-rational co~lceptioils of networks (llakansson & Sharma, 100 t) ), collaboratioil turns out to 'ne au emergent proccss that creates objccts of v;lr~oiis k~nds. 0 t 1 the ~dzological level. the object of collaborrlt~ol; is thc C'lub itself, typically developed through discu5fions ~ n j o ~ n t nleetings of the managers. 'Ihc object of the p!,t~ject level i T a project planned and carried out by the C'lub n~cmbcrs and

I possibly other outslde consultantf and zvperts as in the case of a qual~ty managenlent project. 'I'hc product~on level represents the inlerfirm collaboration, the everyday ac t iv~ ty ofa tirm (usually between two Club member conlpanies) whcre the object is a product they supply to the customer. Finally. thc case of thc Alllance

1 brought ahout the worker level addressing the tasks and competencies of workers who face the rcquirements and potent~als ofthe intensified, interfirm networking.

i Uonstdering the worker level, I c la~m the research l lterature lacks examples of what intensified collabora-

employees who are rled to the machines in production a n J who have no acccss lo computer network5 and eIectronic mail with the daily contacts being the ncarcst co-workers In the iir~n. I will refer to thlh domain through thc case of Alliance. The. task 1s two-fold: to bring the worker perspective into networking \<sues anil to develop mcthods for describing and annly71ng the cmcrgence and evolulion of the multi-la?;c.rccl. hctoro- zhronic, collaborative interaction in a ncrwork. In search of the worker perspcctivc. 1%-e car r~ed o u t an ltltervention callcd the Developmental Dialogue (DF)) bascd on a worker-level. collaborative discoursc.

From an educational point a t'vicw, it 1s espec~ally interesting to look at hoiv learning I S transferring across the lcvels. I have Jlsccn~ccl 1v.o main directions: learning frol-n ;lqtwve and learning from below; and I will ask if these d l r sc l~ons meet somewhere in thc middle. in this article. 1 shall study whether it is possible to foster worker-lcvcl Inlllatl ves through an educational intervention and to what extcnt 31-c these lnltiatives permeating tllc lcvuls of the network activity. The qucstion is wherher ailythiilg stable (in the hrm o f a shared objcct of work) comes out of the colI;~horat~cln on the worker-level. Is i t possible for a worker 10

Learning Learn~ng from-above from- below

Ideological level I .? T ?--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - f - I : Project /eve/ 2' $7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii-

Production level L

f tlon has to offcr for ord~nary, on the field, blur-collar workers in indivtdual companies. Despite all enthusl- 1 : .- Worker Ievel - .. .

asm for flexible work. remote control, d~spersed, occupational communities and computer-mediated Figure 1. The levels of learning in inter- commun~cat~on, there are st111 great nun~hers of organizational colla borat [on

Thresholds in Education ( Vol. X X IX: 2,2003) J'I

rcauh any well-established practices through interfirm collaburat~on'!

I h3vc formulated three main research qucstluns of n.hic11 numbers 1 and 3 will bc the focus of rhls artlcle: (1 ) [[ow does a worker perspective emcrgt. through an educational 111 tervention aimed at encoumgltlg collabcl- rativc discourse acrvss orpanizationai boundaries'! ( 2 ) Consider~ng thc organiz3tion31 innovation produced in workers' collaborative discourse, how ducs it meet a workcr's needs for work development'? (3) How can it be anchored in the organizational views ofthe management of the .4l I iatlce'.) I Iow can worker-level learning bu conceptualized with~n the framc of intcr- o~-~anlzat~onal collaboralion?

Followmg, I shall theorize on thc wvi-hcr pcrspt'v- 1i1 r. Fcl\lowing the activity theoretical research ;~genda, tt1tt.r-organizational collaboration is analyzed though jointly created objects (Engestroni, 19F;7). The concept of boundary object is used as a rcscarch un~t to grasp the hctcrogcneous, dispersed, and rver-chang~ng

actions in a netwurk. Hcrc. the boundary object will he the team project matzrial~zing the workcr pcrspcctive as well as bringing tngetl'ler different levels of net- xvorked collaburat~on. Then, the worker-level Ican~ing challcngc is designed hy contextualizing lhe case of a worker, Mikko, and thc tcam project through which the collaborat~on is achtevzd. The principal idcas orthe Llevzlopmental Dialoguc intervention will be presented I1r:efly. Thc main methods and tlic 1-c.5c.arch data are thcn introduced with emphasis bcing on the analytlc tools for discursive material. Finally. t l i t cmcrgcnce of thc worker perspective in six phascs 1s presented tbllowed by conclusions.

Conceptualizing the Worker Perspective in the Inter-organizatio~~al Collaboration

Bcsidcs the dom~ nant managemcnt perspective on interfirm collaborat~on, thcre is a research tradition which slarls from the changing work paltoms of employees 1n disttibi~tccl organizations. At least two types of questions have emerged. First, what are the e1Tccts of inter-organizational , computer-medla ted communication (and other ~n tbrrnat ion-~nedrating technology) on the work of the so-callcd knowledge workers and autonomous protess~onaIs (Or ltkowski, ct a!., 1995; Pickering & King, 1995; Zetka, L998)? Second, what are the effects ot'network organizations on employce participation and conunitnlent, especially in the manufacturing il~dustry which i s today becoming

more and more organized into geographically dispersed production units (Koch Kr Buhl, 1998; Leis~nk & Sandberg, 1998)? The former addresses the issues of horizontal, peer-to-peer collahorat ion (Holand B 'Tcnkasi, 1995) and offcrs some descriptions of actual work practices in profkss~onal groups, whereas the

i I 1

vertical authority relaticlns :ltc no1 bcing too much highlightcd. 'l'hc lattcr onc deals with tradittonal, vertic31. \i-orker-employer themes I ike participation and ;lutonomy ;it work but without coupling thcsc issucs lo the materlal objects of work, such as what I F helng produced by ~i~hlch tools. rulcs. and divislol~ oKlahol:

In thc activity theoret~cal terms, the wnrkrr perspective 15 ;~pproachcd hcrc on thc lcvel of actions nlani rested by a n individual. The quest~nr~ the11 15 how

to connect Ihc findings o f thc analysis with the level of collective activity In firms and In !hc nctwork. Will the

I worker pcrspectivc hclvc ;lny linkage or impact on the

I firm's activity and. furthcl-, cln the activity of thc ncl- I work? This is a suhnance question, hut also a methodological onc. 'I'hc 1-csc~ii-cl~cr nccds conccpts which link the levels ot';lst~or~ and activity without falling into the tr3p vfcontradicting the individual and collective.

1 I

Thus the methodological challcngc of my ;in;~lysis is to collut.ptua1 lze the individual point of vicw In t hc I'1-;11nc u i i ' u l l c ~ t l ~ ~ l y grounded activity (theory). I shill/ disc.uss t ~ v o inter-mediating concepts only briefly: the

I

pzrspecLIve and the bounda~y ohjcc~. I'hc Pcrspcctivc: Lvcn though {vorkcr prrspectl ve

is achicvcd on 311 il~dividual level from Mikko's po~nt of

view. the perspective as such IS not to be understood in J

individual teriix. Per~pt-ct~ ve is socio-culturally con- structcd. 'lo shoiv tliis. I~tcralurc rcview is needed.

The Boundaq Object: Roland and Tenkas~ ( 1995) interpret a bnundr~t-y ot~jt-ct (adopted from Star. 1089) to bc a visiblc rcpr~senta t lo~~ ut' an individual 's or community's knowledge (perspective) that provides grounds for perspcctivc-taking by uthcrl; in anutlicr community. This concept supports the ldra that at1

artifact can both mediate collaborailon and bccomc i tzrnporarlly a shared object of col1abor;it Ion. wl~ether for cooperation or conflict. 'l'hus a boundary object IS

both a11 objcct of collaboration and a mrd~ating tool ft)r collaboration.

The concept uP tamw work has been chosen fnr a boundary object In studylng the worker perspcclivc. 11 is stable enough as a cultural artifact to mediate collaboration in a network. It is culturally givan but must he re-conccptual~~cd by the actors. Different

i 1

Thresholds in Education (Val. SXCX: 2,2003)

articulations on thc toamwork by the actors shall manifcst diffcrcnt pcrspcctives on thc collaborat~un. Typically for a boundary object. teamwork turns out to be shifting by nature. In the consclusion. I shall come back to the shlfts emergrng through the phases of Mikko's team project.

The Learning Challenge: Developing Work through 1 nter-organizational Collahoratio~~

The worker perspective is here represented by Mikko. He is a young, mechanic assembler in a small company in central Finland. In the beginning of I09$. he participated in a training course u hlch brought together workers from five firms. I le previously had not known most of them. In Mi!-Ao's small group, thcrc were Lissa from 1:irm U and Karl fi-ol-n Fi1-1-n ;\ The background of organizing this cvurst. 14 as the All lance that these firms had formed. 'l'hc milnsgement group of the Alliance had started a prcycct to develop Inter- organizational collaboration among the firm%. The situation was quite new to MiUo and to the rest of tht. group (see Appendix I and 2).

b b ~ o c ~ ~ ~ person" \A "Consultant" talks about hls work leads the dialogue

,. . w~th the Focus person

I + m i

"Observe? .-/ - -/ 7,:- ' I , obserues and ,.- ..,.-. ~nterventionist-

gives feedback . w-/ ' consultant

~the'&rnall groups

Figure 2. Tr,e settrng of the Developmental Dialogue ~ntervention

The origins of the Alllance begin in the 1980s with two subcontracting firms, Firm A and Firm B. In 1988, these two companies shared efforts in marketing having representatives from both firms traveling in rural Finland a s agents to offer their products and services to potential customers and main suppl~ers. In early 1990,

thc managers nf both companies entered a ncw kind of networking Club of subcontractors. Altogether. 16 managers of the firms first jolt~cd the Club. aiming at an expansion of the trad~tinnal part supply toward producing and assemhl~ng higgcr components. This aim proved r o be too amb~guous, but the C.:lub went o n with other projccts 5uch as tratnlng, y ual~ty cert~fication, and national subcontrac~ing e x l ~ t h t t ~ a n s . In the sphere of ~ m d u c t ~ o n , the C'iub mcrnbcrship encouraged bilateral anrl trilateral hustness p~rtnersh~ps articulatcd with thu day-to-day a z t ~ k ttics ot'tllc tirms. Firms A and R took an acllvc part ~n the C'lub collaboration horn thc

beginning, t lawcvct-, ttlc 1rl;ktlaSctnent of A and I3 witntcd to gn decpzr In h u s ~ n r v collaboration than they con~1dcrc.d possible. in lhc auspices of the Club. Par- Ilclpatiun In thc Club activities prepared thein lo take he next 5tep. C)ur~ng 1995 and 1006: thcy founded two companies, 1-~rms L) and E (scc Table 1) . 'The contours ot'the Alllance h3J thus been drawn.

The plantling of'the organ17at1nrl and activity of the Alliancc intcnsi ficd in 1997. 1;rom ~ h c managcmcnt's point of view. an Alliance represented a strategy of growth for small companies. However: tht leaders considered the change to involve quite extr*nsivc conscqucnces for the whole staff and the w;1! of ivorking In the member firms. Networks wcru seen as

more than strategic tools Cur thc rnanagemcnl. Pcopl e on all levels of companies were encouraged to ruslcr lhcir pcrsonal networks and become aware of the collaborative potentials of the All lance. With the financial support from thc Ministry of Labor, tht*y started, in the turn of the year 1998, a devclopl-ncnt project called "Together We Are More" in order to penetrate the whole organization of the Alliancc with thc idea of network collaboratron. During Spnng, 1908. 26 projects were ~nitiated or gcncratcd by the manasp- ment-among them, a project for irnprov~ng teamwork.

One of my tirst tasks as a researcher-~ntervention- 1st for the change process was to gathcr a b ~ o u p of shop floorworkers from he Alliance firms to discuss their work and posstbilities for interfirm cooperatrun. I invited my collcaguc to lead a Developmental nialogue procedure wherein the final outcome is a personal dcvclopment project for each participant to be crtrrled out at work. However some of the projects grew over the limits of the personal level to concern the whole work place or even the Alllance. One of those was a team project taken up by the employees of Firm C, Mi kko.

Thresholds in Education ( Vol. XXIX: 2.2003)

'The foundation of the Alliance and Together -1 he analysis of each phase is hascd on discussion Progam thus started dcvclopmcnl sci cral Ievc.15 or ep~sodes. The Jiscussic~n eplsocte 15 the unit of analysis collaboration. From a worker's perspective, the that 1s selected from a piece of d m , such as a tran- learning challcngc is depicted in Figui-c. 2. scription ofa meeting. To focus the selection, only

those meetings wtlcrc hlihko was present are consid- t.1 ed. The d~scuss~on episock st;lrts when the team-

OBJECT OF wurk of Firrn C sn~rrgss as rhc topic of collaborative

COLLABORATION discuursc. and it ends where ariother topic emcrgcs- . -. . - - - -. - hl- examplt.. fhc tcanls ~i L+'irttl B. Phase 1 is excep- WORKER t i ~ n a l a s I ? 1s tlr klrr the ~nlc~gc'nc'c of Mikko's team PERSPECTIVE

L - . . . . . . . COLLABORATbON . . prqcc t . I'llc topics at Pti~.;e I are the problems of

- - - . -. . -. - - ~ t n r k , articularrc! by h t iMo AIILI tllc tcalns of Firm R

I,sa:Frrm I ~ ~ I - ~ I C U I ; I I U ~ by Ll~ca. I

. The discussion C ~ I S O C ~ C S ;IS 1/11' utlits of analyses Karl!Flrm A arc sys t~m; l t i~aI ly 3naly7eJ t'ron~ the d ~ t a . 111 olhcr

wnrds, all episodes in intcr-org~;lni~atiot~ijl discourse, hav~ng the tram prnlect nt' Firnl C' as thr' topic and Mlkko as a partlclpanl. arc studied. i~ddition, other cxccrpts of discuss~ons and interviews are used in

, I order to lead the narrative through thc phases. The

. - - - - \

- - - _ - _ _ + - research units are summarized in Table 1 .

Figure 3. The learning challenge: Developing work in in terorganizational collaboration.

1,rvrn a wvrkcr's pcrspcctivc., is i t possiblc to find meaningful o b ~ c c t ~ of inter-organizational collaboration? Lloes a worker bc. tlr: ti t ft-om intcrfirn~ collaboration?

Methods and Data I'hc atl:lll;zcd tr:Ijectoty starts from the Develop-

rnsntsl n131ogue intervetltion during which the worker MiMo articulatt.d his needs for work development. The atlrllysis ctl~ls at IIIC pIl;lsc tvilcrc tcamwork was belng ~tnplztnzntsil at h l ~ kkil's wot.kplace in the produc- t ~ o n of Fiml C'. Phases arc identified in terms of the boundary object ivhich is teamwork in i ts shifting hnns (projects). When the content of the team project has changed from the przvwus cltlr, i t implies a ncw phasc IS beginning. It I S not always possible to define the exact beginning and end of the phase due to the selectivcncss of t h t data. Phascs can also be partly overlapping (for example, Phases 5 and 6 "Joining the team project of Firm B and implcmcnting teamwork in production in Firm C). At each phase of the trajectory, I analyze: What i s the boundary object of col laboration from the worker Mikko's perspective? How does the boundary object change? ~ h d are involved as col labo- Table 1. the definit~on of the research units of the rators? (see Appendix 3). discourse data

Unit of Research

Trajectory

Phase of Trajectory

Discussion episode at a

52 Thresholds in Education (Val. S.Uri: 2,2003)

single phase C, expect at the phase 1, before the emergence of teamwork.

Conceptual for defining a unit

M ikko's perspective

Boundary object (BO) of Collaboration: Teamwork

Topic

Criteria for the definition of a unit

From the articulation of the Problems of Mikko's work to Ihe implementation of teamwork in Firm C

A shift in the 80 implicates a new phase, BO manifesting itself in team projects

Topic is about the teamwork in Firm

The Emergence of the Worker Perspective through the Phases of the Team Project

Phase I : ijt Scurrh of a Pcr.~onuI Developt?lenlul Xlsk

The context of studying a worker perspective was most speci t'ic In thls case. The object oCcollaborat~on was not emerging in everyday production actlvlty, but it was creatcd through a researcher ~nter\en:~rrn. We can definc the Dewlopmental Dialogl~e (DD) intervention as a boundav ohjec t of intcr-organizational collaboration at Phase 1 . The DL) proccss, as such, was niednt to bring workers from thc Alllancu companies together. Must of the participants had not known each other prev~ously. 'l'o get along, they startcd lo follow the dialoguc procedure as they were askccl to do. The meta-comments (in i tal i~s) attached to the qucs!lot~s and answers, were shaped by the DD procedure, not by the emerglng topics. in the follow~ng manner.

(Excerpt 1) Kari: Wcll, the next question 1s about the social

backgound. fum~ly relationships, and hobbles Mikko: Social background: My dad is a clr~ver.

Mom works in the same f i m ~ as inc. I have one sister and my hobbies are rinbhall. Sootball. and motor sport. fhat 's all.

Kari: Could you dcscribe your work h ~ ~ ; t ~ > r y . It is ''could you," so it's probably not oblig;~tory, but let's ask it anyway.

Mikko: Well, my workhislory is st111 qulte short. I went to Firm C' in '94, '95, after thc military service. Before the Army, I had wclrked there a k w months. Thay's why they hired me. And bccorc hat , I made somc car rncchan~c work-very little.

To be succcss ful, t hc D n process s hvuid result u ~ t h personal developmental tasks for the partic~pants. The nn ~ntervent~on I S ~nstrumental for reachlng that purpose, not an end in itscli. In Mikko's case, the participants gradually got acquainted with the DD procedure and w~th each other and bccame ~nvolved In the discuss~on. 'I'hc talk was more and more relatcd to

the work of the focus pcrson, M~kko. M~kko raised problems of work, came hack to

them, and elaborated on them in different parts of the d~alogue. One of his concerns dealt with the cornmunl- cation inside the fiml-espec~ally between the workers

and managers. First, he c1almt.d one never received posit~ve feedback from the managers. Second. it was practically ~n~possible to suggest some irnprovcments or new ideas to the managers: They would 11nt Itsten. Third, projects were srartcd but not complc~td. People forgot what was agreed.

As a potential development are2 at work, Mlkkv saw thc production and rnainren3nzz of tools. Tools are tnstallcd it1 the machines 10 manuticture a ccrtaln product. The quality of the tools is natur;i!Iy criiclal Tor the nutcome. that is, for thc quality of the pi-oduct. Planning. manufacturing, and the maintenance of !he tools was located outs~dc thc cotnpany in Iilrrn A. Flrm A was the mothcr company of Firm C' atld was locatcd geographically more than 400 k~lnmeters from Firm C'. '1-hus, hl~kko could not communiciltc with the tool rnechan~cs at the planning phase, nnr could he ur his colleagurs take cart. of the maintenance work w ~ t h lhc lack ofproper instruments and sk~ll .

Discussion in lhc small group was still qu~te fi jrrnal fulloiving the I>D procedure. OnIy Ihc problem of tools rnaintznance was elaborated tn inc collaborative dlscoursc. To ~dentily Ihc cmerging hound:lry object of the discourw. we tbllow the DL) pl-uCudurz to the ncxt round. Nou-. Llisa from Firm C is the focus person and Mikko is her consultant. Along thc discussion, I .iisa mentioncd the teamwork uC hcr firm many timcs. C'ommci~ts were rciatcd to the problems that Mikko had previously articulated. For cxarnple, in the next e x c r ~ y ~ Ll~sa deals with ~ h c Icudback in teams and in the firm, collaboralivc planning and impruvcmc~~ts i n

teams, and wol-krrs' possibilities to inlluence the work.

(Excerpt 2) .Mikko: In which dirccr~on is your work unit

developing right now'! Do yo11 pzrtic'ipate in the development work?

Liira: U'rll. rzrc have at least tried ti? dc\.cli~p teamwork, but it seems as ~f we took three s:eps fonvard and then 1 6 steps back. It hasn't prncesded lately. But the teams thtmselves have tried to make it work, to make the workplace more ct~mfortable. We have paid attention lo everyday c!eanl~r~css and, in gcneral, tried to give straight feedback and all kinds of collaboration. This is what we have rcally tried to maintain.

Mikko: The next question deals with the same issue. Do you work alone or together with otllcrs, and are you satisfied with the sltuat~on?

Thrcsholds in Education ( Vol. XXIX: 2,2003)

1,issa: Most time 1 work alone, but then we have that somcbady has to rush to deliver an order in timc SLIC h production lincs that two or three if us work w h ~ l e others make stock goods. an J still others are together, or few of us are In sssetnbly. But, as we d o ~ t ~ g nothing. have teams, we are f i ~ e in the night shift. We do talk Liisa: How'? about prohlems cven though work ~tself is being done hlikko: Why can't someone go and help'! alone. And 1 am satistied wlth the situat~on -- if that Liisa: \ e l l . yes. . . was the question. Kari (Firm B): Go ahead.

Mikko: Do you get support, or do you cupect Liisa: How do you organize work'? 1 mean ~ '110

support from anybody? puts the work cards on the loading board'? Liisa: Well, the most important support comes Mikko: It's Juha, the guy who is also here [in

from work pcers. anutlicr group). Mikko: Not so much i'rorn siipe~~isors'! Liisa: What kind of~bstcrn h a w you got in 1,iisa: Not so much. Yes, t h y talk a lot and try lo dcciding who's going to w j r k a t w h ~ c h machinu, or

motivate us to develop, etcetera. Once you invent h ~ v e you got two machines? something. tlicy say we have no tiinc. It's not poss~blc. What we hsve got arc the monthly meet~ngs team by The discussion about thc prohlems and challengus team W ~ C C C we check what has been done during thc ofMikko's continued. focused on, and related to month, and complaints, so that we hear ahout positive the need of tt.;lmwurk. Both Lisa's and Kari's qucs- and negative feedback. But straight t'ectdback rrom tions retlrctrd the~r experiences from the pract~ces of foremen at work, we don't get too much of it. thcir own firnis. Liisa related the issuc lo ~ h c tcam-

work of Firm B; Karl more to the problem< he tlad From the excerpt, we can notice that I.iisa did not faccd in Firm A. The need for de\.cloplng tcarnwot-k in

present teams and teatt~work ~n an idealized manner. Mikko's firm was furrhc.1- articulated in the dialogue. On nnt. hand. teams had soived problems and suppot-ted L~isa was urging Mikko tu take teamwork to his collaboration. On the othcr hand, L iisa shared many clevelopmental task in F~rnl C'.

problems with Mikko. I interpret thesc fca1u1-es as boundarlc.5 emerging between Mlkko's and Liisa's (Exccrpt 4) pzrspzctiv2s. Ln addition, Lilsa could expand the issue Mihko: Wc havc thc whole system rrnlly in its of teams outside Mikko's articulated problems by infancy. .-1lwaq.s the busiest job is bcing doue next. If describing how the tcdms worked. we I~ad kit~d o f tcarns. WC could circl~late a little bit-

one could help the other when w~rrkit~g on something Pllusc 2: The lnwnriotl rf Teci~~~work that has many production st:~gcs. It could be-we

In the second DD scss~on. two weeks aClcr the could make it. I

first one. two problems of Mikko's work became topics Liisa: So t h a ~ i l wuuld hc in line-one startlug i of tlie collaborative discussion. The first one was the already the stage. . .

manuracturing and maintenance of tools and rnainte- Mikko: Ei.5, iu I i t l r ' . I t -s funny, you see, tlie 1 j

nancr of machines. Mikko saw thai thcy were not women tn ist springs by hand niac11lnt.s. s p r i n ~ by prop~rly organized in the firm and was even intcrosted spring-J ust crazy amounts. ilnd wc arc bchind the i

1 in expanding his own work tasks for thc sake of schedule. Anothcr guy silting ncxl niake~ standard 4

variety. Tool ma~ntenance evoked a lively discussion ;)roduc.t~on, stock goods. He can't hclp that other guy. during which K a n and Liisa explained the practices of Liisa: Wouldn't that be a p1uc.c fc~r some develop- their firms. The other topic that emerged in the discus- ment?

I 4

sion was teamwork. After the tools discuss~on, Mikko Mikko: Wcll. tliat would really he! [Laughing1 summed up as stated in a DD form: One could split thc whole thing into teams, and 111 lcanis

they could finish the work. (Excerpt 3)

Mikko: I can write down these things like tool l'eamwork was seer1 as a solution to the chronic maintenance and the teamwork. t have talked about it hurry and being bchind schedule. MikLo claimed that in the firm, but it's not so easy. What's most irritating is the foreman alone could nnt manage the planning of

- . - -. .. - . - - - - - - . - .- .

54 Thresholds in Education (Vol. XXLX: 2,2003)

production. and that the workers dld not take responsl- bility in the prevailing system.

After the first DD sessron. Mikko tallied about the tuam idea with his r~~rc.ni:in. .luli;i, who also p;irticipatrd in the DD intervention. The foreman supported his tdea. Also, some of their collzagues at the worlipl3ce took a positivu stance. 'Teamwork 14-2s srtn as ;I

solution to the monotonous work. Work \\.a5 at th31 time organized so that princ~pally one i\orker ascclnl- plished a production process of a certain item 0-om the beg~nning to the end. 'l'he aim was to avoid rcpctlt~vc assembly-line u~ol-k where a worker is to do one simple stage of production. IIo~vcvcr, now cach workcr had lo manuhcturc largc scries of ~tems which also made work monotonous and isolated him or her from their colleagues.

Pltasc 3: Dcfcnciitzg th c Idea of Teem I'roject 'l'he DD intervention was followed by an evaluation

meeting a week after the third DD session. It gathered together reprcscntatives of DD participants, ont. from each firm, the interventionists, managers of the firms, and the management group of the Together project. Mikko represented Firm C.

'l'hc aim of thc meeting was to present the outcomes of DJl intervention and to discuss whcthcr the DD st.ssions should be continued in the frame of the 'lbgether program. 'I'he interventionist-consultant of the DD process presented the results - -that is, the kind of personal development projcc ts that had emerged. There had been twelve participants whose developmental tasks rcprcsentcd themes like learning IT, learning English, mastering time schedules, and developing tcamwork. As an example. she showed the outcomes of Juha's DD process. Juha was the fore- inan of Firm C, and he had also namcd toamwork as his developmental task. In the discussion, the pcrsonncl manager (PM) ofthe Alliance pointed out that projects like teamwork are quitc large and grow to cvver the whole Alliance. The manager of Mikko's Firm C was very doubtful and even unsympathetic to the idea of learn project.

(Excerpt 5 ) Manager C: Some of those projects are very

large such as teamwork. They are quite a b ~ g challenge to firms and to the Alliance as a whole. Within the frame of the Alliance, we really get enough projects, and if the developmental dialogues brlng along

such large projects-l~kc slai-ting tcamwork and other p ~ - u j c c t ~ c ~ i that level-we will certainly bc swarnptd with Ihem' Of cuursc. cach \vorkplace h a s the free- J v ~ n tn conslder what it will carry out: but, somc-how, I undcrsland that lhtse \4-oiild be on the personal level of developing oneself. profc.ssiunal skills, and the like

Aftur this. Managers ,A and 13 talked long about thc prolects of tlic:llliai~c'c \iliich Mcre at that time bring planned in the managenicnt group of I l g c ~ h u r projcct. 1 hcy c.111phasizt.J p ~r>l-ltlzlng [he project? and rcsourccs 111 the scope of the N holc :llllancc. Managcr A almod 31 5 h o ~ ~ n g Ihnt. in hct. the planned projects of the ,Alliance already dealt wit11 thc thc'nics whlch h;ld come o u ~ vf thc DD pi-ocess in a f ~ r m of pzrsimal dcvclup- mental t a 5 h ~ . He claimcd th3t. rlfic.1 thc manaScment group had in;ldc 111c pl;ln ~ e ; l d . the ~)rqccts tvi)uld enter the firms.

(Exccrpt 6) Manager A: All In a l l . lvhat has been listed on

that paper (thc dcvclop~~icntal d~;lIupuc. thcrncs ), thcrc I S already something happening there. n r w e Are planning those projects. And. 14c ;Ire p i n g tu dcill \ Y I I ~

thcm next Monday In our managenicnt g o u p M a ybe the grouping of the projects I S nor final yet; but, okay, thc t~tles take shape and, aftcr hat . 1 think thcy will be transferred to the firms and then i t IF, ot'cour5e, the staff that is active. Rut there art. ct.i-t;i~n frames

figures out, rn which we act. . . As has been warned hcrc of having too many projects goiny nn, the r ~ s k is real, but these must bc pr~ont~zcd and rclatcd to thc resources.

'1-hc planncd model for the project activity was such that one firm was to act as a piloting firm, and the results would then be spread into other companies. Right after this, Mikko took the flvur ancl commented on the pnorit~zing issue. A short debate was taking place.

(Excerpt 7) Mikko: We, in our firm, have actually agccd

with Juha that teamwork 1s going to be the niost important thing for us, the big th~ng. The other tasks are smaller; they are carrled out on the side. Just kind of talked that F~rrn B has teamwork already tn actlon. We should visit them first.

Manager B: Or, they have been Icanlitlg it: I t is it1


no way in action jut!

[Overlapping speech: Encouragement as a rsactlon to ttw negative assessment o f Manager B.]

hlikko: But more advanccd anyway so to know in which direction. . .

hlanager R: [Overlapping speech] One can exchange thoughts. 'They h a w still gained some kind of expcricncc.

The meeting as a whole provided a ground for

networkcd interaction. At the same time, it furthered n~ainly ideological level d~scussion which dlspla yed tension-laden pcrspcctivcs cmci-ging in thc nctwork. Thls appeared clearly in the context of the team projcct. 'l'hc managcr of Mikko's firm, Managcr C, expressed h ~ s doubts about carrying out such large developmental projects as the oulcomc of the DD process. Manager A representing the management group of'l'ogether supported workcrs' projects but wanted to organize them under the Together sub- projects. Mikko, however. was very determined referring to the support he got from his own firm and Flrm R .

'I'camwork bccamc a topic of collaborative discourse. I interpret that the boundary object of the collaborative discourse at this phasc was Ihc tcam projectofthe Alliance. Itwasnot specifically M ~ k k o ' s teatn project nor the team project of Fiml C' or 1 ;1m B. It was rather an idcal prcjcct for the Alliance conceptu- alizud by different perspectives. It seems that in the analyzed meeting, the boundary object remained spli t and contradictory. From Mikko's point of vieic; the idea of teamwork was rlcither encouraged tlor rejected.

Phi~sc 4: Slat-frrrp fht. f i r z n ~ PI-rycct ztz Firm L' Desp~tc ~ h c dchalc and doubts, team project started

In Miklio's t)rm soon after the DD intervention. A few wccbs Iatcr. M i k o and the foreman, Juha, came to the first. follow-up rneet~ngof the Developmental Dialoguc 11 Int I\ here tllcy cxplalncd to their colleagues from uthcr .41Iiance cornpanles how the development work had proceeded thus far. L was chairing thc meeting along with Ihe personnel manager (PM) of the Alllance

(Excerpt 8) PM: Could you first tell how you have proceeded

In F i m ~ C? Juha: We have got train~ng from a person partly

oiitslde the company who has trained us. And then we

have takcn a little bit of Influence from Firm 13 con- cerning these issues. This idea came from the Devel- opmental Dialogue and from people of1;irm B, whereby Mikko and me started to run it further. We thought we were on the right track, but the first com- ment there was that it will not fit hcrc.

hlikka: Yeah, not at all. Juha: 'l'hat "we are so few here that it will nut

work." But sonlcwhcrc thc liltle inspiration. i t started in fact more from below. I mean. from thc workcrs. and t l ~ c ~ i unc I S forccd t o join in f m m the lop. The start was x-ery action-packed. and noxv ivc hrl\-c cvc!~ organi~cd pcople intrl tenl-ns. Next. we are going to organize the \vork 3s I\ c I I . 10 pliin. 10 shi~rc, also

roIlcc.mii~g the pl-oductlnn planning. l i e have not decided ?;et when we arc gu~ng to takc thc ncxt leap to tcst 11 in p-actlce. Nest week. ure are st111 golng to have a two-hour tra~nlng scssron for cacll tcrrm. Next wcck, we art: going to 11;lve still one training period, two hours per team.

(Excerpt 9) Pkl: What kind ot'prohlerns did you face'! Ju ha: First of all. thc hctcrogerleity of thc person-

nel, hnw to get thsm to work ~n teams. And then we doubtcd LVIICIIIC~. \VZ C'OLIIJ manage to do a certn~n a ork in the franlr of a tram. I personally h a w the

rrspotlstbtlit~or iltgan17ing work, so I was worry lng. Is I [ rc;tlly teamwork i f clnc ancl thc sat-t~c order rs being dotlt. it1 t ~ 0 t ca t~~s ' ) ~ V S haven't yet ga~nsd r'urther hnowlzdgz o l h o w work 1s allc\tvccl lo bcha\c it1

teamwork. Should teams have strlct boundar~es so that one group could do the work, or n hat is the di vision?

hlikka: Now we have kind of tried to do sn that teams could accompltsh thc work from the boglnn~ng lo the cnd. One wouldn't need to toss ~t among teams.

We learn that the development of teamxvork in Finn C got the first impulse from the Dcvelopmcntal Dialogue pilot, particularly from the workers of Firm U. Thus. an extensive project in Juha's and Mikko's firm had actually grown out of inter-organizational discussions among workers. The training and organizing phase was going on, and they planned the next step which was to implement teams in the production work. Juha mentioned two kinds of problems: First. how to make different people work together in teams, and second, how to share the work between the teams. For example, he wondered if it mattered if one and the

Thresholds in Education (Vol. XXIX: 2,2003)

same work has to pass through two teams. 'I'his was what he expected to happen based on his experience.

Being a foreman, Juha's concern was naturally how he would manage to master the production in the change from individual to collective organization of work. IIe faced a diletnma, "I personally have the responsibility for orgnn~zing work, so I was worrying, "Is it really tearnhork it'one and the same order IS

b c ~ i ~ g dcmc in two teanls?" without considering the poss~b~lity crf tesrni<,cjt-k stlifting his individual responsibility 111 h v u r of teams. Mtkko wanted to push this issue a l~tt le by commtntlng, "Now we have kind of tried to d o so that teams could accomplish the work from the brginning to thc end. One wouldn't need to toss ~t among teams."

The teamwork in Mikko's and Juha's Firm C' was 111 the focus of discussion. It was rnumentarlly the boundary object of thc follow-up meeting. organwing t hc collaborative discourse betwcen 111c p u p members. The Excerpts 8 and 9 point out that the question of tcams was closely tied to the actual object of Firm C which was, of course, product ion. However, work itself was on the background compared to the acute- ness of the team project. Juha's point is revealing, as he stated: "U'e havcn' t yet gained further knowledge of how work is allowed to behave in tcamwork." The tension is evidently between the teamwork as a formal organizational solu~iun and thc tlntiire of work that was actually being organ zed.

Phase 5: ./oinitlg [he Tc~znz Projccl of Firm B At the tlme that Firm C began the team prnject, the

mal-iagemcnt group of the Alliance decided lo Intc,g~atc it with the team project o1Flrm B which was the u tficlal tcarn projcct of the Alllance. From the workers' ~n~tiatlve the personnel of C visitcd Firm B to len~n about tciltntvork in March, 1998. Later, Firm C was ~ n b 11ed to join the team development meetings of F ~ n n B. ? h e first joint meeting was In September, 1998, and the second was In October, 1998, from which the follow~ng excerpt? are derived. In the meeting, the team project ofFinn B was d~scussed most of the time. Toward the end of the meeting, issues of Finn C were also taken up. Typically, the part~cipants fom Firm C debated with each other. The representatives of Ftrm B made some questions and then went on reflecting how they had solved the problem or how they had experienced the issue in questton. I t appeared that Firm C had not implemented tcamwork In productlon

yet. Mikku commented critically the way team project had been started. Workers had not been heard, he claimed, regardless of long and profound jolnt planning. The Manager C questioned the team concept- whether ~t was applicable to firms llke C and R .

Mtkko suggested that as they could not apply tramwork In productlon itself, thcy should exerclse tcarn working ancl collaboration wtth malntenancc cards. I'hls meant that tcams would takc care of the nlnlntenance of ccrtaln rnachlne groups. F~rst. cstabllsh the maintenance documents and then kccp them updated and take responstb~l~t, for the cond~t~on ofthe machines. The main problel-n of implcmcntit~~ teamwork was that the production uTa certain product clld not follow the boundaries of teams as thc forrman. Juha, had worried earlrer. Mailagcr 3 (the head. not the local) joked that, "We must stop worktng and do teamwork lnstcad."

(Excerpt 10) Workcr B: . . .You said that teams don't work.

What do you mcan by that? hlikko: They do tvotk ~n principle, but as we've

got many ordcrs to do s~ruultatlcously. we can't do thcm In collaboratlun. but ~t varies . .

Liisa: You mean you ha ie shared the respons~bili- t ~ e s to teams, what belongs . . .

Mikho: ln principle we have, acc~rding to the machines, but now. . .

Trainer C: . . .Mostly according to ~ I I C machines. Liisa: . . .I see, and now you can't follow that

because you have got something else to do. Yeah. Wr cuuld. . .

hlanagcr B: You must call XX (Ihc sales manager of .\) and ask him to stop sending orders now w c concentr;lte on toainwork Instead! [Joklng, laughing]

Trainer C:: Yeah, or we takc only certain kinds of orders that fit ollr team

l'wo problems 1~ h ~ c h were ant~cipatcd on Phase 4 starting the learn project are strengthcnitlg here: ( I ) teamwork vs. old practices, and (2) teamwork as the object, not work as the ubj ect .

In the final phase, I w1l1 elaborate by add~ng some ethnography from Firm C. Mlkko explains his rnamte- nance card idea. The personnel of Firm C feel that they have not proceeded in thew team project. I observed that the production planning board had been moved nearer the production hall. The foreman

Tllresholds in Education (Vol. XXUC: 2,2003)

explained to me the use of the board. The usc was stil I quite individual. not a regular tool for the teams. I suggested that the most ~mportant change in the firm was that people had started a dl scussion about work and collaboration and became aware of the collaborative potential of the All~ance f rrns.

PIzuse 6: I?rlplrmc'l~li~rg Ttlrrmwork in the P1-0llucllotl W0l.X-

During the wlntcr ol' IOOS-OQ, the team project of the Alliarlcc organtzed tear11 leader t1 aining for pcoplc frv~n Firms B and C. ln addition, the management of the Together program organized wcektnds for the project groups to intensify development ivurk inzludjng thc team project. Representatives of both firnis participated in thesc seminars-one being held In .41~11. 1989.

Thc dcvclopment of teamwork was In dlffercnt phases in the team projccl Firms B and C'. In Fir~rl B, a dcbate was going on about the rewarding of tcanls and ~ h o u t power and responsibilities of teams. It1 F ~ r m C, the implementation of teamwork was on14 starting, 2nd very profound discussions had been carrled out among thc personnel. It n:as not a t all easy to change thc deeply rooted habits and roles in Ihc company. The participants of the scmlnar referred to the different phases and need< ot- the firms. In the joint discussions, they could st111 find sharcd, tcam-related topics which interested both partrrs. The boundary objcct in the seminar 14'3s the teilt~l p r o j ~ c t of Fims R and C as it was in Phase 5. Rut i t soon became obvious that the needs of the par-t~c~pating firms were quite different. What secmod to be comnion to both of them was that teamwork was problematic and proceeded very slowly in thcse firms.

A new phase of teamwork waf abour to elmel-yc. In August, 1999, the Dcvcloymental Dialogue pllnt group had the second follow-up rnccring chaired by the researcher and thc interventionist-cons111 t3nt (DO]. Mikko described the state of the teamwork in hrs tirm:

(Excerpt 11) Mikko: In the team project. ire have joined the

team training of'Firm B. We have been hang~ng along- sornetin~cs going up, sometimes coming down.

DO: What do you mean by coming down? Miklio: Sometrmes ~t feels like ~t would end right

now; it's no sense to go on; but then ~t turns bettcr. There are so many different people that ~t seems that ~t

docstl't l i t everyone. But now we are going high again and look~t~g forward to the team leaders' training that starts next month.

DO: Yeah. What do you think about it yourself? Mikko: Well, I thlnl; ~t 1s okay. I don't know

whether it makcs work easier. but 11 is different from what it used to he. One can make a little bit more decisions by oncscl f. This 113s bccn the worst problem: we get responslblllty, bur no real power.

DO: What would Ire a recent example of having responsibility wi thou pou rr'?

Mililio: I t IS l~nkcil t o thc production management, in principle, to thz work c x d s to these systcn~s. Wc can f i x the systems by ourselves. \.i!hat we are going to do and how? That's the worst. They intervene-no matter what you havc agreed [in team].

Mikko referred to the problem that was already antlcipatcd at thc carlier phascs. Parallcl lo ~ h c ne14- team-based system, there existed the old practice ot* the firm. No matter bow teams negotiated and plailncd the~r work, the managcr could intervene and bring a n urgent task "in between." A short but revealing discussion took placc between Mlkko and Jukka . a forenlan from Firm A, and one participanr ol'thc L)L) group.

(Excerpt 12) Jukka: I see. I call vow boss, and hc brings it

immediately to the prt3ducr1on hall! [T.augh] Mikko: Yeah. Jukka: Yeah. Mikko: Of course, he must do that. . . Jukka: As the cilstomer has called me first. Mikko: . . .sonlztrmz.~, hut it can't be like that all

the tiniz!

This brought the problems of tean~work In Finn C' to a new level wh~ch had been practically ~gnorcd In the tearn prujcct of the Alliance, namcly thc Icxcl vl'

production in inter firm context. Regarding the resrarc h data, this d~scussion was a turning point In the cnllabo- rat~ve discourse. Thus far, teams had been concclvcd as an sntrafim mode of organizing work; and cveu therc, othcr issues than the condtt~ons of the product~on had been in the focus - -such as motlvatton of ~t~div~diial ~ o r k e r s and group dynam~cs.

The problem of teamwork turned out to be a chain of problems In the network in the tbllowtng manner. Teams cannot work autonomously bccausc

58 Thresholds in Education (Vol. XXLX: 2,2003)

the miinagcrs inlcr\-cnc cunslrlnlly. Maniigcrs in tcrvcnc (a) ht.ciiust. there IS I ILI I - I -~ , and (b) b e c a u ~ e the colleagues In the mother company A cummunicate with t hc managers and not with the teams. 'l'hci-c is hun-y becr~iise I-aw 111af el-] a l s ~I -OII I

Firm A are late and, thus. the 1 1 3 1 ~ ~ of'del ~ver?- arc lalc. Raw materials are late because ( 3 ) F ~ n n C does not or cannot anticipate ~ h c 11t.c.d and g ~ v ~ an order to F ~ r m .4 in time, (b) Firm !I has chronic problems in materials administration. and (c) Firm A is dcpcndent on foreign matcri;il supplicrs.

Conclusion Beginn~ng this article was the concern that the

[letwork research mostly lacks the worker perspective. We know relatively little about the potential and learning challenges that inter-organizational collaboration brings to shop floorworkers in traditional mctal industries. The Developmental Dialogue intervention turned out to he successful in encouraging worker-level discussion across the firms. It was possible for participants to f nd joint objccts to organize collaboration.

The idea of teamwork, invented and claboratcd in Mikko's DD group, was typically a boundary object that brought together a variety of perspcctivcs from different lcvcls. It was simultaneously broad and specific enough to serve various developmental inlcr- ests from worker level up to the ideological level of the management of the Alliance and Together program. Mikko's initiative led to the integration of Firm C Into thc overall development process ofAl11ance first through the worker level and then through the project level collaboration with Firm B (the owner of the official team project of the Together program.

The problems of teamwork faced in the collaborative d~scourse through the team project point to the learning challenges the network firms were facing. Teamwork, within the framework of a single firm, turned out to he too narrow regxding the requirement of work in inter-organizational context. In the end of the analyzed trajectory, Mikko and his colleagues articulated problems pointing to the production work in interfirm collaboration. The work inside the firms is networked, and even more so in the conditions of intens1 fied collaboration brought about by the Alliance and its Together program.

'1 hc Ic,lrnlny challenge for the lxorker level IS to create collab~rat~vely objects In the production work ~ t s e l f o r g m ~ ~ z ~ n ~ nct~\ltles het~veen the focus firm, ~ t s mother company. custurnc1.s. i11atc.l-la1 suppliers, and tinally \\ ith clther Alliance firms. 11 is tllc nctwork cumpetzncics of hlihkn and h ~ s collsagucs that art. rlct~~ally 3t S I J ~ C \i 11cn hr~nsing no1 her perspect~ve i n t o

~nter-organizational collaboration.

Endnnk ':ZJtIrcssrng I ; n o ~ ~ I c r l ~ v - i n t ~ ~ i s ~ ~ r hi-111s. lhty 1151 ;IS such

ub!rrl> s311x 111;1p5. nnrl.ltI\ c Indl?s. models, cl,~>>ific,~!iun> . ~ n d >shcmr>. I lhinb that pracucally any b~ntl vf ~ r l l T . i u l ur nia~vr~i~lrz.~tinn c a n l , r con~t a boundary O ~ J L ~ U ~ lhal mrd~ates uul1.1bnrntinn In the course of' ~ntrrdcrlun of d~riirent p,ir!lcb L\ 'n thnugh 13nlai)d anrl Trnba~i ( 1991) t . rnpha51~~~ mutr1.11 undc~ ctaiid~ng, tlwy alsu ~ l i l t ~ r r thdl bo~~ndary objec-r ". . .cn,~blv ~onvcrqatlon ~ ~ t h i > i l t rnlorc~rig commonl\. h r r d rnc.anlnps Boundnr)' o b ~ e c ~ s ~211 . of C O U I S ~ . I v a crilrer ol' 111tenrr ~ o n f l ~ c t AS

easily a5 one o l ' c o ~ p e ~ a t n e el!'lvrl bid. 3 0 2 )

Referer~ccs Boland, R. J., & Ienkclsi. K Y I l)O!) I'c~spcct~vc ~ndk~ng and

perspective taklng In conunuliillrs o f knuwlllg Orgrrrrizi~t;ori Scre~zr.t,. 6 ( 4 ). 350-37:.

Engestrom, Y. (1 987. Lt.lr~ r r r ~ ~ g h ~ , t , ~ - p r r ~ ~ r l t t ~ g . Helr~nki, Oricnta-Krlnn~ltit.

IIakansson, I I . , & Shanna, D, D. ( 1996). Sti~ltcgjo ~ l l ~ ~ n c u s In

a letw work perspective. In D. I,~cobucci (Ed 1. h'r~\t,or-k~ in Mnl-kerirrg, (p. 108- 1 24). Londoi~: Save I'uhlicatin~iq.

Koch, C., t2 Buhl, iI. ( 1 '198). (Totirrr)~,irr~,or uIt>~r [finrent? Pa~ricipr~rinn nnd social irlj7trc.t;ii~ i,t; in j ; ) r rnr~~ion t e c h r r o l o ~ ~ it1 di.rfrihtrtud orgatlr:r~~rr)r;r. Paper presented for the ISA XlV Congress. Inlernat~ollal Sociological Association. World Uong1-e55 of Sociology, July 26-August, 1998. Montreal: Canada.

Lcisink. P., & Sandberg. A. ( 199&), N ~ w ~ o t - k z ? ~ g orgr~~riz(~fior;s rr~rd urnployet, pi~??ic~putio?~ Draft verslon. Paper prepared for the ISA XI\..' Congress, International Sociolog~cal Assoc~ation. N'orld Congress of' Sociology. July 26-August 1, 1308. Montreal: Canada

Orlikowski, W. J.,Yates, J., Ukamura, K.. & Fu~j~nloto, M. ( 1995). Shaping electronic commun~cations. The metastructuring of technology in the context of use. Utgrmizurion Sc~ence, 15 (4), 47'1-486.

Pickering, J. M., & Kmg, J. L.. ( 1995). Hardwiring lvuak ties:

Inter-organizational computer-med~ated canuilun~catiat~. occupational communities, and organizational cl~atlgr. 0rguni:ution Sctence. 6 (4 ), 479-486.

Star, S. I,. (1989). The structure of 111-struch~rcd solut~ar~s: Boundary objects and heterogeneous d~st r~bi~te i i problem-solving. I n L. Gasser & M. N. Huhns (Eds.).


1 Distributed clrrificid intel1igcnr.e. Vol~rrne 11, pp. 17-54. or~enird slrlkclurcs in ncw work organ~zatlons: London: Pitman Publishing. Theore~lcal notes from the case of abdormnal surgury. I

Zetka, J. R., Jr. (1 998). The tech~~ological foutldations of task- Work nnd Ooc~rpufiot~s. 25 ( 3 ) , 356-379. i 1 I I

: 1

Appendix 1. 'I11e founder companies of the Alliance and thcir corc competencies

The Alliance - metal sector cooperation network The g o u p of Alliance companies is called Meconet Group. i.c. a cooperation nctwnl-k for compallles In the meials and technical engineering sector. Its total tun1ovt.r at the end of Scptctnber, 199s. \ \a< FIh1 107 ~nr l l~on 111 thr prrLlous y a r . it rval; FIM 88. Duri~ig the lnterlm period, the staff had incrrasud from 162 iu 195. 1 Ile A ~ ~ I ~ I ~ C T 15 a ! ~ n i ~ ~ p a1 3 rurnuvrr Itvel of over FIM 250 in f i ~ , e years with a staff of 250 people. "The aim is tu dl-\-clnp Intn a n'o~ld-claqs suppl~rr in our own area of expert~se," Manager A describes his vision.

Tug'tkrr We Are More devclopmer~t program Launchtd in 1997, the project which promotes networking anlong the all~anvr companies is designed tn create a new type o f functioning unlt ofsubcontractors. It IS based on interaction across corporate boundaries and the intunsification nf business. relat~onships. The drvrlopment needs arose horn the inadequac~ts of the traditiunal bul;u~uss-operating tnodels and technological solut~ons. 011 the other hand, intensified cooperation brings wit11 ~t cl~allrtlges to employee skills and attitudes. In personnel development, t h t aim is to achieve network coopcratlon sk~lls and encourage employees to be active and take a constant interest in developing themselves. "All In a l l , i t is a qiiestiot~ fundamental change in corporate ideology from the management to the s l~op floor," says Manager A. 'The National Workplace Development Programme started to suppart dlr project. The entire staff of the Alliance gathered at an initial mreting held in January, 1998, to hear about the project. During Spring, 1998, the development work was divided into 26 sub-projects. Not all of these begdtl at the sattle time. The sub-projects were to be spread among member companies and encourage employees to gst ~ ~ ~ v o l v c i l with the networking project.

60 Thresl~o~ds in Education (Vol. XXIX: 2,2003)

Position in the Alliatlce

t3iggest partner in the volumc of annual sales and the nurnber of persorulel. Manager A is the pi-imus rnotor of tllr Alliance. F ~ r m is located in t11c liclsinki area.

Long partnership with A. Prodtiction was 1nnvcd to Cet~tral Finland in 1996. Sales. marketing, tools, productioti arid technolo_cy developru~ent stayed in I Iulsinki.

['he subsidiary of A sillce 1989. Salus and material supplies thl.ough A. Small firm in C:un~ral Finla~~d.

FoundedbyAa11dHandbythethlrdpart l ler i1l1995.Ir1 addition to thc ~ r ~ a i n customers, serves other Alliar~cc Firms I thc production of prototypes. Locatcd I I I thr t Iulsinki arca.

t:nunded by A ar~d 13 ~n 1996. The dutrrmatcd p~,rs. ; i t i~ technolog)- f i o n ~ A and U \ \ a s allociitcd tn I: l'he sut't' came from CI (11; t l ' s ~rorgan~zation). L.ncatriI I ~ I He[slrkl 111 the h r m r r s ~ l e u T H. I

FirnlA

' I I I

t;irni C'

FinnD

Firm E

<:ore Cornpetet~ce

I ,a r~e-sca l t .sc r~a lproduu~wnot ' l~c l~sa l sprlngs ant1 turn1 sprlnys. L e : ~ d ~ t l ~ sprit~g rndnuticlurer in F i ~ t l a ~ ~ d . Fntnily-o~vr~ed foun~lcrl In 1986.

I)cs~gn and manuhcture ilt'th~n-ir.:~llcd seamlrss metal conlpclncllts. Fxt~~~ly-o\vt~ed, foundrd ~n 1986.

Sm~ll-scale srrlal p r o d i ~ ~ ~ ~ u n of I l c l ~ c ~ l s p ~ n p ai1d form springs.

S ~ i i ; t l l - ~ i a l c s c r i a l p ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ o f ~ ~ ~ l l ~ h t . ~ t r n ~ * t ; ~ l pariq for rhe elrctrrcal and e1ectranlc.s ~ndustr~cs

Largr-scale serial production of small and mud~unl-sircd shuet mctnl parts for the large volume manufacturing industry.

The Developmental Dialogue Intervention (DD) The first sub-project of Together program was a pilot intervention "Developmental Dialogue," a special method For personnel duvtllopment by using peer group discussions. WE researchers gathered a group of twelvc workers from five Alliance companies to discuss their work in snlall groups. The aim was to offer workers an opportunity to think about their developnlental challenges in the f i r m wh:le, at the same time, to get them acquainted with each other a s potential network~ng resources and to foster a culrurc of dialogue and network interaction in the Alltatwe. After the pilot, the management of the Alliance decided to include DD in the haltling program of the Al l~ante and sradually organized DD courses for the whole staff The outcome of the DD prucedurc is a personal drvelopmeni pro;ect for each participant to be carr~rd out at work. The tdea of a personal project IS tu link the needs of an individual workcr with the currcnt challenges of thr: orgai~lzatioll in wh~ch people are workiny.

I 3 . 'l'he tra;ectory, phases, and the data of the a n a l y s ~ s

Thresholds in Education ( Vol. XXIX: 2,2003) 61

PIIASE Monthffear

Phase 1: In search of a personal Jcvcloptnental task I .:'I 998

Phase 2: The invcnt ion of teamwork 111998-211998

Phase 3: Defending the idea of team prr4ect 31 1998

Phase 4: Starting the team project In Firm C 41 19%-511998

Phase 5: Joining the tonm project of Firm B 91 1998

Phast 6: Irnplementlng tearn~vork in the production of Firm C

DATA & CONTEXT A-E FtRMS D n = Developmental Dialogue lntcrvention

Urire- 28.01.02 Mecfing: The 15' DD g~uup discussion Cdl~~bor~rt iun: DD group of Mikko Pnrticipunrs: MIUD-C', Liisa-B, Kari-A

D~ILC: 10.02.911 Mcetit~g - The Ind DD group d~scuss~on C'~llrrbnr~ii /rot~: DD group of Mikko P,gi-tzrlpti~~tc: h*fikko-C. Liisa-B. Ii arl-A

Ilatu. 10.03.98 Meenltg: 10.03.98 C~ollc~hol-ntion: Represr.n~ativcs of nn, intervcntionlsts, and nlansgernent nf Alliance Prtrricipn~lis: Many

Dure 08.05.98 Meeting- The 1 >' U D follow-up Cnllnborn!~urr. DD pilot group Pnrticipanr.r- 1 U workcrs, A-E, researchrr as DD leader, ;ind personnel manager of Alliance

( I ) Date. 27.10.98 Mtjetrng. The team project or All~a~lce 8 C'o/l~lho~ntion: Project group-R&C, team traincr-B, and researcher Prrrric~panrs Many ( 2 ) Llare: 28.10.95 Ethnogrclphy: Interviews, observation o f work Col~aboruiion: Personnel of F~rm C Pcrriicipants: Many

Dnfe: 26.08.99 Meeting The 2" DD follow-up CollaI~oratiori: DD pilot group Participrrnf~: Mikko-C, Kari-A, Jukka-A, X-A, X-B, X-E interventiomsts

Workplace Training Evaluation Plan- From Survival to Success

Christina A. Kamer Northern Illinois University

T his project was rnitiated to evaluate ( 1 ) ncw hire 11-aining program design. (2 ) lumover o t'ernploy- res during and after training, (3) role of the

tra~tlzr-tta iner developn~ent, (4) rcconmendationf to

improve training design and d z l ~ v q , and ( 5 ) rcductlons of turnover of f~afi'. Kablc News Company, Inc. 15 a supplier of circulai~on and dircct markcling .services to the publishing mcdla and direct markct ~ n g industry. Olrsr the past sevcral years, the local comn~unity col lc~e designed customized training programs for the cutnpany. Therefore, thc com~nunity college was actively involved in the research and design of this project.

Theoretical Framework A 19'19 casz study identifying siinrla~ problems of

staff turnover was used in the original des~gn of t h ~ s project. Since there h a s n ~ t sufficient timc to research tllc signifjcance of multiple interventions as duscribcd in the case study, this prnject focused entirely nn !mprulJ- ing new-hire training as a thctor in reducing cmplnyee turnover.

Hatcher (1999) studied a text~le company in Arkansas operating in a restrained labor markct with limited availabil~ty of semi-skillcd labor. Similarly, Kablc News Company, Inc. 1% lucatcd in a town with a population of 3,000. Rccause recruitment of t r a ~ ~ ? c d staff is dilficult, the ct~mpany provided paid, wl-t hc-job tralning for all new hires.

Turnover at the textilc company during Hatcher's study w a ~ 84%, occurring moslly in the first 2 1 wccks of employment. Similarly, tumovcr ranged from 20'Yi to 64% at Kable in the six departmer~ts targeted for improvement, and employees were leaving at'tcr ten weeks ofemployment. Hatcher's study idcn~ified various causes of turnover lhrough a performance analys~s and tracked the results of implrrnrntation of multiple interventions designed lo alleviate turnover of operators over a relatively long pcriod of time. His research indicated that employee retention is I inked to

organiz3tional cornmi tn~n~t and job satistaction. 'l'hc design of the Kahle Ncns projcct focused on

factors that may conti-ibute to the turr lover prohlctn, ~ndud ing the use of ~ncons~stent technical material, lack of pre- and post-ilsscssment instruments. the abscncc

of using adult learnrng prlnciplcs, and undocumented

This project focrrsed entirely on improving new-hire trnitzitzg as a factor in

redrr c h g emnpluyee turn o ver. - - .

rm[jloyee evaluations. Ktscarchers familiar ~ l t h Knowles' (1 990) theories cl f adult lcamtng uscd t hls

knowlcd:!~ M h ~ l e evaluating the way ncw h~rch ucrc

belng tra I ned.

Research Structure The research was structured ~n three parts: Scc-

tlon I included the est~l~l i t ;hrncn~ of objectives for thc evaluation, evaluat Ion of ti-a~nmg conduclcd agn~nst industry standards h r tra~ning and developlnmlt ot' new staff, nrld thc impact of ncw-hire training otl t i~r~luvcr among newly hircd crnplc>ycc.s. Scctinn 11 ~ncludcd cvaluatlons of the ~tldividuals cunducllng the training and rcco~nmending inimed!att. anrl longcr-tcmi chaiige in the methods and delivery ot'uot~k~-rIacc cducation. Section 111 included the recommendation to conduct a Train-the-Traintr class for trainers who had n u ('orma1 adult education traltling.

S~~crron I. Problenr I~lc~rrrficr-rrio~~ The eight objectives estalllished for each depart-

ment included 1 . Evaluate train~ng and supportive mater~als.

2. Identify learnlng ubjrctivcs for all training programs. 3. Identify tralning prercquls~tes. 4. Clarify job descril~tlons and tasks. 5. Revicw training evaluations. 6 . Observe and evaluate training methods. 7. Revise t r a~n~ng programs. 8 Reduce cost of turnover due to inadequate tr;ilnlng

S I X out of twenty-tive departments wcrc selected tor cvalual~on due to theit !,elatively higher tumovcr as compared to the rest of thc company's turnover.

Evcriualion Merkorf The steps completed in the el-aluntion were as

follow. Interviews w ~ t h the dcpartmcnt director and trnincr wcre conducted. Written training matcrlals norre developed for specific job filnct~ons, and all doctiments and data used by the trainer ~relatlng to fut~ctional training wcre documented. Job descriptions were written. Participant evaluation forms from prev~oudy conducted training wcrc analyzed. Opinions of dcpartacnt dircctor and trainer regarding barriers to effective trainmg methods were gamcd. 'l'cnninated employec stalislics for rhose who did not complctc new-hire training as wcll as department turnover statistics were rzvlrurd.

Re.ssiits of l ~ r t e r ~ . ~ c w s u~irl? Di?ecror rtnd Truir~er Only five departmcnts were scheduled for inter-

views because onc dcpartmcnt dircctor was rtss~gned to a priority capital project and was unavailable. L l i i t ~ l

they understood that the objective was to enhancc thclr department tralning program and not to criticize i t . ~ n ~ t ~ a l l y sott~t: directors were defensive in responding to our questions. Since the community college represen- tarlvc had pre\.~ously worked with many of the dlrec- tors, there was a high comfort level and an understand- lng that t h ~ s representative shared mutual goals of providing meaningful suggestions.

When asked whether the turnover of new employees was discussed in some cases even prior to completion of the training. nerther the dlrector nor the trainer seemed concerned with the problem. Few expressed any accountability for the problem In thcir department. All trainers seemed to be well Informed and/or lnvolved in the department operations alld acknowledged the

burden of staff turnover. A11 traincrs understood t l~c priority of training to assure that competent empl~yees were processed through training in an efficient manner to begrn a job 3s quickly as possible. If a new hli-c. completed the department training and was unablc to PI-furm zt'fectively on the job, then a solution was tu st;irt nver again, place the ncw hire hack into the 11-ainlilg pi-oglrtn, and hope that a sccond re-tralning nuuld bt. suffic~ent to produce thc dcsired results whcn asci~wed to the job.

Trainers sharcd their krlings o r sola at ion t't-tun othcr departments in the con1p;lny. At no tlnw did thc Iraincrs share knowledge of tlicir pruccsses or training experience wilh othcrs. Most trainers did nut know if there were trainers in othcr deprlrrrnentf of thc corn- pany. 'l'hc duty of the trainer may havc buen a n c ~ l l a r y to the other core responsibilit]i ot'hldher position. Although several tra~ners were responsible for quality control function in addition to their training function, trainers were not called upon lo solve problems associated w ~ t h the~r department. Qualityandtraining wcrc rcgardcd as twi) scparalc fi~nctions within the sanie department: Nu corrclatlot~ was madc between the relation.sh~p of the quality of the work produccd and the poorly trained employee nor was a correlation madu between the inahllity and the methods uscd by thc trainer. One department identi tied the usc uf mentors,

but no lonnal job description or purpose of mcntorship was provided.

Annij:cis of Truiui~lg Mcrtcriuls The training materials provided were incunsl stent

and ot'llmited value. Onc trainer gave us a I~ct of a11 job t a k s and prefaced her comrncnts with a Fairly rxhaust~ve index. She expressed that this ~ n d e x made the mater~als easy to use and wcrc a valuable resource for the empioyecs in the department. Anothcr department trainer kept documcntat~un on a bookshelf. This trainer said that there was no need h r reference

material to bc readily avaliable for tlciv hires during training because the job ~11311gcd SO frequently that the contents of the documenla~lon were outdated quickly and the employees could not bc expcclcd to keep track of c hanging procedures. 'rralncrs relied on handwritten notes taken at random dur~ng the training. Trainers also worked from their own written notes, but their notes were not establ~shzd in a formal manner that would allow another traltler to step in and conduct the training.


Adult learning prlnc~ples were not uscd in prcpara- tion of trainrng matcnals. Most tra tmng was conducted through lecture-mostly with copied handouts to be read by the tra~nee ~ h l l e listening to the ~nstructions of thc tralncr. Onc oC thc trainers gave a lecture about how the job )\as to be donc and discussed thc applica- tion to a cnmputer, but she did not have a computer ava~lable to demonstrate the appl~cat~ons of the teaching. She talhcd tlirough pr~nted screens and referenced specific tcip~cs fOr the trainecs In thc class.

Arro(\ssi~ (y;Joh nc>xlhripfior~s Job descriptions were written for each position,

including the trainer's. However, job tasks had changed in several departments and \%hell the essential job fuilctions were compared with those boing performed, we found a diffcrencc. Rather than not~tj:~ng thc Human Rusource Department ( I IN) that the descriptions were not accurate, tralners had compen- sated for this difference by teaching how the job was currently being performed. The s i p ] ficance o t' this discrepancy between job descript~on and job tasks IS

that thc HRD representatives who lntsrv~ewed and referred candidates for hire to thc indiv~dual dcpar-t- ~rients could be screening for the wrong skills, thus negat~vely 1111pact1ng1-ctentionofen~ployees. Since the job dc~cnp t~on is thc ~nstrumcnt uscd to screcn candidates, and fa thoroilgh department interview were not conducttd by the hir~ng manager, there could be dl <connect between what the candidate perceived the job tasks !o bc vcrsus the actual work required. The director and trainer agreed that all job descriptions would be reviewed and updated immediately.

Pnrticipant evalua!iorr jbrnls Participant evaluation forrns were not completed

during any part of the training process. Instead. ~ ~ e r b a l communicat~on between the trainer and tralnee oc- curred regularly with the trainer asklng the tra~nee i f further assistance was needed. Some tralnezs volun- teered that they were not gasping the concepts, at which time the trainer would provide lnd~v~dual attent ion to the request. In some cases, trainees helped each other with a problem.

Another form of evaluation 1s on-the-job performance. If a trainee completed training and was unahle to perform the essential functions of the job, this represented a belated evaluation-although very inefficient and expensive in terms of lost productivity

for the company. All departments have documented qua11 ty measures

of work performed. However, reporting prclczdurcs were incnns~stent. Some departments tracked by the employee, but "rol1t.d up" the data because they asserted that reporting by department 1s more socially acceptable to the employee pupulat~on to avoid embarrassment tn low perl'ormers. Othcr departments reportcd pcrrormance statistics d~rectly to the cmployee for performance and iccdback opportunities.

Trainers did not use training oblcctivcs or any training asscssmctlt itlsttunlcnts 10 measure the cffec- tivenesf nf' the training. Some quizzcs were used but were selfiscoring; scoring of other oh-specific quizzcs was not rigorous. The lack of instruments resulted in the inability to verify what the trainee knen a t thc cnd of the class. Also, neither the traincr nor the d~rector could rcport on the return on ~nvestment of thu training for their departments. The cost of the training got lost in the internal recording of department expenses.

Another problem related to the lack of appropr~ate training assessment data was that employees rrhircd in the same classification as the one lhcy were terminated from earlicr were trained in the same way as tlcivly hlrzd employees without proper consideration of previously learned ski1 l s. In other ~vords, Ihc training did not makc a l lo~ances for- a rehjre who had just left the company and returned versus a rchirc who left the coinpany car 1it.r ~ n d 1-ctlil71eJ to completely different department pmcesses. Measurcmcnt of the effective- ncss of work purformance was completed on the job, but employees were still requircd to participate in the original tralnlng class.

Bcrrrlers to E ~ ~ C I ~ I - L ' E'llltlillg

Further identified bamers to effective training 111cluded the lack of a designated training facility. Only one department had an area isolated from the day-today workflow. Although computer prokTams and applications were included in train~ng, some departments did not have access to computers for training. Training completed directly on the computer (either In groups or one-to-one) consisted of trainees en tcrlng I ~ v c data into active computer programs. To assure accu- racy of the entered data, the trainer had to e~thcr observe the entry very closely at the time ~t was entered or check the work of the entire class the tlevt day. This process was tedious and time-consuming for the trainer. Her time could have been spent training


staff or acting as a resource for newly trained employees. If trainees made mistakes, the tra~ner corrected the mistakes but did not report the errors to the trainees for their learning. Trainers told us that new hires and rehires did not give input to the trainer during the training process. Therefore, all training classes were structured the same way fur all trainees and were not modified if the trainee did not learn the content the first time.

Workplace training programs at t h ~ s company were designed using a teacher-director pedayog~cal model. Tuachcr-directed cducat lon is common where the trainer has full responsibiliry for makmg all decisions abotlt what will be learned, how 11 will be learned, when it will be Iearnzd, and if it has been learned (Knowlrs, 1990). 'l'he pedagogical design of this training program may explain why some trainccs left the training class and terminated their employment prior to the completion of training. Although the trainers were w ilhng to provide one-on-one instruct~on to the trainee, some tralnres did not ask for assistance, became frustrated with their lack of understanding of the suhjuct matter, and quit without informing the trainer of their inadcqua-

I cies.

The pedagogical design of this training program may explain

why some trainees left the train i zg cluss and terminated their employment prior to the

cornpIetion of trairting. .-

Teml inated Employee Stu tis tics Statistics were not documented in department

turnover reports for determining i f the employee were terminated due to inadequate tramrig. There was no category for this kind of informat~on to be retrieved from the terminating employee. Trainers made no reference to individual differences among trainees in their learning styles or their ability or inability to grasp the concepts of training. The job interview, past employment. and references were the only factors

considered when hirlng employees. To draw any meaningful conclusions regarding turnover, more information must be obtained from employees who terminate.

In summary, although the interviews with directors and trainers ~nclud~ng a review nn evaluation of train~ng materials was helpful, ~t was quite obvious to us that traincrs needed some specilic interventions to cnhance the tram t ~ g programs. U'I thout established learning objectlves, effectwe pre- and post-assessments, accurate job descnpliotls, a dedicated training facility, understanding vPaJult learning principles, effective training methods, computer equipment dedicated fur use in training classes, and flcxtblllty to allow new hrrrs to learn at their own pace, the company was losing employees who, with proper uricnlat\on and train~ng, may have become productive employees t'or the company.

Section 11. Recommendation and Results CVe assisted trainers In writing l c a n ~ ~ n g objectivcs

for their classes, and we found the trainers willing to learn how to write objectives and beconlz satisfied with this formal slep in modifying thelr program from its original dcsign. Job descriptions were updated qu~ckly to include all j ob tasks. and t hc HRD developcd job- speci fie questions to effrct~vzl y screen applicants likely to be successful in positions in which they were placed. It was recornmendcd that further scrccnlng instruments be identified for technical and behaylord shlls to promote effective ]oh placement.

Exit interu-~ew I'onns were revised to include madequate tralnlng as a reason fur leaving the corn- pany. This information w ~ l l prove valuable to the ongoing evaluation of this projcct when calculating turnovcr statistics.

A recommendation was made to the lnforn~ation Systems Department to acquire a non-livc vcrs!on of the company's co~nputer programs for tralners to use In all training programs. Such tesl software will also permit periodic assessment of current employees' skills. This element of the tra~ning propam is critical to the success of the trainee because, without knowledge of the computer, a major part of all training programs is ineffective. In addition, it was our opinion that the cost of the test software is eas~ly offset by the improved efficiency of the staff and would fund the improve- ments through reduced errors.

Trainers were introduced to a ten-step process to


validate assessmeilts used in evaluating applicants for positions, both intcmally and externally. The fundamental part of the validation process began w ~ t h measurable data obtained from actual job functions. Prior to our intervention, traincrs were unaware of employment laws and specific lcgal req~iirtments to use validated assessments for scretnlng, promotion. and placement. However: job-related ~nfounntic~n slill needs to be gathcred and rneasurettletlts cstabl~shcd for the assess- rncnt process is ~ i ~ l l itlconlplctc.

'I'he human resources rcprcscntati i c tracked the last ten employees hired in the Customer Service Dcpartrnent to deterninc if they perceived the loll to he as described in thc cmployment interview. After ~hree weeks of training, the HR representative folloivcd-up with thc ncw hires and learned that they had made suggcstions to the trainer. The newly hired cmp1oyc.t.s \kcre satisfied that their suggcstions Ikcrc heard and implemented by the trainer.

Section 111. Institutionalizing the Reslrlts To ensurt results ~ ' ~ u l d remain conststent, we

conducted a Tramthe Tr31ner class for traincrs who train on a full-t~me and part-tlmc basis. In preparation for the class, wc proiilrd the tralners and learned from t lc profile:

Ttrm of emplopen t by the company. from 6 to 22 years;

No tortual adult education training: Education: 3 cotnplzted high school, 2 had one

year of community college; Stipend: 3 arc houriy employees, 2 ate sala-

ried; 'Trainer Position: 1 is filll-tlmc. olhcrs 3rc part-

tlme or less; Salary Kange for Trainers: $k.30-$17.37 pc.1-

hour.

Curriculum for the Train-thc-Traincr c: lass ~ 1 1 1 include the value of cont~nuous learning, adu It learning tuzthods. motivat lng self and others, communication hkills to enhance s11~al1 goup discuss~on, facrlitatlon skills, problem-solv~ng sl\~lls. cross-training skills, and presentation shlls.

Atier the problems were identified and recornmen- dat~ons were determined, we met with all department dircctors and the Prestdent of the Fulfillment Divtsion to share our find~ngs. The researchers discussed how to

document a t ~ d institutionalize this process. We were tnfuznctd by the theory of Wognum and Bosker (1998) in our approach.

Wognum and Rosker (1 998) found that. theoreti- cally, optimal stratcgit policy-making should take place at the strategic. tacttcal. and the clpzrat~ons levels in organizations, with involvement of I-ele~ant stakeholders at each level. A ccntral ~ssuc is ~ h c .\lr.cit(~gic' uligjlirrg uf'fizrnlur~ Resoirr - ( .PA Dr~~eloptnc t~ t I O 111e co~trputy i sitzinr~nn, which means hat HRD rcprcscntatives and rclcvant company officials ~t the v;lrlous levels of the organization are the so-cnllrd st:ikeholdcrs. A second dimension concerns ths i r ~ j ; t r . t t ~ r t t l ~ ) ~ ~ needed to get more insight ~ n t o the problem and related HKL) nccds-to be able to decide which FIRD goal$ and ol-rje~-tiues are important to alikm HKD progrzlms lu thc company's plan. Athird dimension concerns the ~ I U I L ~ I . ~ of rile uligrzirlg pr-oc.i~ri~rt-u. which refers to I I I C more or less formal, consultative structures and information-gathering procedures in the alikqing process. TIIZ tourth dimens~on, r/t~c.ci.sintz-n~aki,~g, poin~ s to ~ h c process o f setting I IRD goals and objectives tor the HRD pro, (rrams.

During this meeting, there wmas ovcrwhcltnii~g support for the rzcommenda tions provided In our report. The c~)rnmuniry c.ollc.gc I-cpl-usentatlve askcd each director to sign 3 dclcument a g c e l n g to support the project, both fin;lilc~all~ ;lild behaviorally. The president endorsed the 5 1 3 1 f~cance of this project and committed to I T S cony~letio~i. 111 addition. hc askcd that all dcpartmcnts of thr' company- be ~ucluded in the project and ivznt otl to suggest the prior~ty of thc dcpartmcnts that tt40uld bent. t i t from thts evaluation.

Kanzanas and Rothivcll ( 1089) wrote about thc purpose of I I R D and suggested that we address issues related to a newly hircd workcr. From thc supervisor's standpoint, the iirst priorlty ofbusinecc I S to l inl'e the ncwcomcr know thc job tasks, work pruccdurc<. and organizational expectations. Such training I I I I I . ~ Y I t;~lic, place cvcn if the newconlcr has cxlcns~vc prlur education about the work or is experienced. Educat~r>n;rl preparation in school settings is gcncral~ztd and t ~ o l

adcqua~e (whereas I IKI) activities prepare o t ~ t ~ pethon to do one job in mte organization. In ally caw. organi- zatlolls vary by culture, jobs withjn and betweetl organ~zations varj somewhat by duties, and supervisors vary in &hat work and how much work they expect. As a result, any newcomer needs training to reach a minimally acc~ptable level of performance. Training is

Tluesholds in Education (Vol. XXIX: 2,2003)

thus an important part of every supervisor's job. Training can also serve another related purpose.

From the newcomer's standpoint, the first ordcr of business is often to learn not only about the lob hut also about other peuple-supcrvisors, co-worker5, and perhaps even subordinates. Learn~ng boil to get along with others is often as important for tlrwcomers as learning job tasks, work pru~cdures, attd orgar~tz:lttonal expectations. In this S C ~ F ; ~ , t r a ~ n ~ t ~ g t;tc'lli~ics. and socialization defined 3 5 * ' ; l c l l u t t i ~ ~ by ivt~ich A n ~ndividual comes to appreciate the values. ahilitic5, cx- petted beha\-iors. and w c ~ a l knnwledgz that are csst'ntial For assuming an nrganl~a~~onal role and fclt- participating ns an organizat~onal memher" IC>~hsori., Ivatlcevich, & Dunnclly, 1985. p. Cj 15). I t I S a gradual process in which nrwcolncrs bccunlr cnmm~tted to valucs and bcl~cfs of organ I 7ational mcmbers (CVanous, 1980).

In conclusl~n, the evaluation of in-house training programs is timely for the company to consider in its strategic planning. Due to the geographic location of the company in a small community, management has di t'ticulty recruiting and retaining qualified, experienced ernp1uyct.s. On-the-job training 1s very costly for the company. Retention of qualified staff is critical to meetlttg its organizational goals. External customers expcd si~perior customer service and do not recognize [hat poor service may be the result of employees ~tt~propcrly traitled. Customers support a busincss as long as their c.ontractua1 agreements with the company arc met. While the company has lost customers due to dissatis P~ction in level of senice provided, inadequate tralnlng progratns trlay contrtbutu to loss of customers and natf' turnover.

The company has h~storically relied on on-thc-job t ra~n~ng programs developed in-house to prepare employees for promotion to more responsible positions in the company. Our research ha5 ~ h c potcnttal of causing major organizational change as management stud~es the results. conclusions, and recommcnda!ions of researchers during each scgrnent of this project. Individuals entering the work force in thc ycar 2000 possess different skills than employees h~red five. ten. or twenty years ago. Since more of the newly hired employees who join the company ar; the~r first job understand the use of technology different 1 y from employees hired a generation ago, stratepc human resources development planning is a crltical consideration for the company.

This project is expected to takc an addit~onal two years for recommendations to bc completed. Department's turnover wi 11 be calculated at thr end of' each month. and a record of interventions will be kept to determine whether or not Ihc revision o f t h e training programs had a dircct influcncu on reducing turno\-er. I Iowever, as previously cited in the work of I Iatchcr ( 1999). multiple intenentions provided a bctlcr rclum

on invcstmcnt. Thus, turnover is not the only mcabui-c- mcnt management must evaluate. Spccific mcasui-c- munts may ~nclude employee satisfaction with thc amount of lraintng thuy recelved during their oricntation to the company, effectiveness of the technical training program, interpersonal skills of their supcrvisc.jr at~d co- workers, their rate of pay, and carccr progrcsslon. There may be a dircct llnk to all o f the tactors ne have identified as iv-ell as a number of othcr n~otivators thst will determine whether or not the company n i l l h a ~ c surficicnt rn~ployct*~ to meet the future ot>ject~ves ot' thc organlz;itrun. The som;lany cannot filnctlon 1 ~ 1 t h technology alunc as adcyu;i~cly tralnccl humall 1-c-

sources arc also r c syon~~b lc f(>r thc grotr:th and s ~ ~ c ' -

cess of the company.

References Gibson. J. L.: Ivanct.\ich. .1 M., S: Dunnully, Jr., J I 1 (19h5).

~ i z t i ~ t ; . i ; t i - 0 . - Husincss Publications: Planr?. Tcxas

Hatcher, T. ( 1999). I l o w nmult~ple inturvcntions Influenced employee tuino~cr: A case shtdy. IiHDQ. I0 (4). Sari Franc~sco: Josscy-Hass.

Ka~annas , H. U., 8: Kothwell, W. J. (1989) Str(~tcgic huwrml ~ ~ s o l t r c e rlci.~.l<>pt?lcnt t'rentice I Iall: Upper Saddle River, NJ

Knuwle.;. M. ( 1990). I'hc clri~rlt Ic,rrrner: A ttcglec.rr~l .spccir.\. Ciul t Puhltsh~ng Co: Houston, Texas.

L.ir~dernar~, E. ( 1 !I6 1 }. Thr ? ~ ~ u r ~ n i n g uj'rirlult crirtur~i~otr. Norm~t i . OK. Clri~versityof Oklahoma Printing Survicus.

Yewstrorn. 1. iy.. k Lengnick-Hall, M. I.. ( I001 ). One size does not f i t al I, li,crining at10 llrvcloptnetlt. 45 ( 6 ) 43-48. (FIUC' No. FJ 42% 054).

Stmth, R , hI. ( 19X2) I.~.arnit~g how to lenrn. Bngluwood Cl~tTs. N1. Cantbridge Adult Education, Prentice-Hall Regentj.

Wanous, J . 1' ( 19SO). Cltgotriznrionnl e n t q r~cruitr?~t.nt, s c l c ~ riot^, o t ~ d .soc~ul~:at~on of- ~zew~oomers. Addison- Wesley Publ~shlng Co. Inc.: Reading, MA.

Wognum, 1 ( A )A. M., & Bosker, R. J. ( 1998). Sb-afcgic HRU ultgning nnd HRD ejfec~iv~ness. AHRL) Conference Proceedings, Oak Brook, IL: AfIRD. 1 78- 186.


hrd in the new millennium editors' notes

Documents