Skip to main content
Log in

Routine-Generating and Regenerative Workplace Learning

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Vocations and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The research discussed in this article focuses on workplace learning in industrial manufacturing work. Everyday work episodes contributing to workplace learning are investigated in four companies operating in the Finnish and Swedish package-supplier sectors. The research adopts a qualitative, interpretive approach. Interviews with employees and managers along with workplace observations were used to gather data on work and learning. The findings indicate that workplace learning may have two purposes: routine-generating learning that contributes to the basic job mastery, and regenerative learning that promotes employees’ ongoing competence and generates new work methods. Routine-generating learning occurs when an employee joins an organization and is planned, supported, and assessed in the companies. However, the lack of job rotation delimits further routine-generating learning. Regenerative learning takes place at the individual level but is not adequately supported at the collective level. The paper advances practical ideas on how to promote these two instances of workplace learning in industrial work.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Antonacopoulou, E. P. (2006). The relationship between individual and organizational learning: new evidence from managerial learning practices. Management Learning, 37(4), 455–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashton, D. N. (2004). The impact of organizational structure and practices on learning in the workplace. International Journal of Training and Development, 8(1), 43–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, R. (1999). Learning to work and working to learn. In D. Boud & J. Garrick (Eds.), Understanding learning at work (pp. 29–43). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, C. R. (1977). Informal learning in organizations. Personnel Journal, 56, 280–283 & 313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Billett, S. (1999). Guided learning at work. In D. Boud & J. Garrick (Eds.), Understanding learning at work (pp. 151–164). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Billett, S. (2001). Learning through work: workplace affordances and individual engagement. Journal of Workplace Learning, 13(5/6), 209–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billett, S. (2002). Workplace pedagogic practice: co-participation and learning. British Journal of Education Studies, 50(4), 457–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billett, S. (2006). Constituting the workplace curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(1), 31–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bratton, J. A. (2001). Why workers are reluctant learners: the case of the Canadian pulp and paper industry. Journal of Workplace Learning, 13(7/8), 333–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brockman, J. L., & Dirkx, J. M. (2006). Learning to become a machine operator: the dialogical relationship between context, self, and content. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 17(2), 199–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casey, A. (2005). Enhancing individual and organizational learning. A Sociological model. Management Learning, 36(2), 131–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collin, K. (2002). Developing engineers’ conceptions of learning at work. Studies in Continuing Education, 24(2), 133–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collin, K. (2006). Connecting work and learning: design engineers’ learning at work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 18(7/8), 403–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 522–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delbridge, R. (1998). Life on the line in contemporary manufacturing. The workplace experiences of lean production and the ‘Japanese’ model. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkjaer, B. (2004). Organizational learning: the ‘third way’. Management Learning, 35(4), 419–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engelhardt, C. S., & Simmons, P. R. (2002). Creating an organizational space for learning. The Learning Organization, 9(1), 39–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, K., & Kersh, N. (2004). Recognition of tacit skills and knowledge. Sustaining learning outcomes in workplace environments. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(1/2), 63–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frieling, E., Bernard, H., Bigalk, D., & Müller, R. F. (2006). Lernen durch Arbeit. Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gherardi, S., Nicolini, D., & Odella, F. (1998). Toward a social understanding of how people learn in organizations. The notion of situated curriculum. Management Learning, 29(3), 273–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). Redesigning work design theories: the rise of relational and proactive perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 3, 317–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groen, G. J., & Patel, V. L. (1988). The realationship between comprehension and reasoning in medical expertise. In M. T. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. J. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. 287–310). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R., Oldham, G., Janson, R., & Purdy, K. (1982). A new strategy for job enrichment. In H. L. Tosi & W. C. Hamner (Eds.), Organizational behavior and management: A contingency approach (pp. 423–441). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Illeris, K. (2004). A model for learning in working life. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(8), 431–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karakowsky, L., & McBey, K. (1999). The lessons of work: toward an understanding of the implications of the workplace for adult learning and development. Journal of Workplace Learning, 11(6), 192–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work. Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kira, M. (2007). Learning in the process of industrial work — A comparative study between Finland, Sweden, and Germany. International Journal of Training and Development, 11(2), 86–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kira, M., & Frieling, E. (2007). Bureaucratic boundaries for collective learning in industrial work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 19(5), 296–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kira, M., & Van Eijnatten, F. M. (2009). Sustained by work: Individual and social sustainability in work organizations. In P. Docherty, M. Kira, & A. B. Shani (Eds.), Creating sustainable work systems: Developing social sustainability (pp. 233–245). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kira, M., Balkin, D. B., & Van Eijnatten, F. M. (2009). An overture to sustainable work crafting. A paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, August 7-11, Chicago, USA.

  • Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, P. (2003). Workplace learning by action learning: a practical example. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15(1), 14–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I. (1994). Dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prawat, R. S. (1989). Promoting access to knowledge, strategy, and disposition in students: a research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 59(1), 1–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichborn, A. N., & Gruer, T.-E. (2002). Veiviser til lærende arbeit. Et arbeidsprogram for bedre lærevilkår. Oslo: FAFO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandberg, J. (2005). How do we justify knowledge produced within interpretive approaches? Organizational Research Methods, 8(1), 41–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (1999). Looking toward the 21st century: challenges of educational theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28(7), 4–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, P. (2008). Job analysis for a changing workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 18(2), 87–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skule, S. (2004). Learning conditions at work: a framework to understand and assess informal learning in the workplace. International Journal of Training and Development, 8(1), 8–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skule, S., & Reichborn, A. N. (2000). Lærende arbeid. En kartlegging av lærevilkår i norsk arbeidsliv, FAFO-report 333. Oslo: FAFO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straka, G. A. (2000). Lernen unter informellen Bedingungen (informelles Lernen). Begriffsbestimmung, Diskussion in Deutschland, Evaluation und Desiderate. In Arbeitsgemeinschaft Qualifikations-Entwicklungs-Management, Geschäftsstelle der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Betriebliche Weiterbildungs-forchung (Eds.), Kompetenzentwicklung 2000: Lernen in Wandel — Wandel durch Lernen (pp. 15–70). Münster: Waxmann.

  • Thorsrud, E., & Emery, F. E. (1969). Medinflytande och engagemang i arbetet. Norska försök med självstyrande grupper. Stockholm: Utvecklingsrådet för Samarbetsfrågor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torraco, R. J. (2005). Work design theory: a review and critique with implications for human resource development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(1), 85–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (2004). Learning for a small planet. A research agenda, version 1.1. http://www.ewenger.com/research/index.htm. Accessed 10 May 2004.

  • Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., & Roos, D. (1990). The machine that changed the world. New York: Rawson Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research. Design and methods. Newbury Park: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by a Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship within the 6th European Community Framework Programme and by Academy of Finland (grant number: 119612). I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Ekkehart Frieling, Institut für Arbeitswissenschaft at University of Kassel, and the four companies studied, for their support to this research. I would also like to thank the associate editor of the Journal and three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mari Kira.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kira, M. Routine-Generating and Regenerative Workplace Learning. Vocations and Learning 3, 71–90 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-009-9032-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-009-9032-7

Keywords

Navigation