Human Resources

INVITED ARTICLE

Why is organizing human resource development

so problematic? Perspectives from the learning-network

theory (Part II) Rob F. Poell

Department of Human Resource Studies, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands, and

Ferd Van Der Krogt Department of Education, Radboud Universiteit, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Abstract Purpose – Human resource development (HRD) is an important field within management. Developing employees is often regarded as an instrument to improve the internal labor market and support organizational change. Organizing HRD to these ends, however, is frequently a problematic affair, in terms of training effectiveness, participant motivation and added value. This study, which consists of two parts, aims to investigate the question of why this is the case. In this second part, two specific aspects of the learning- network theory are elaborated: multiple experiences in organizations forming the basis of employee learning and development, and different actor strategies for organizing HRD. Design/methodology/approach – The paper presents a conceptual framework to argue that one of the main reasons why organizing HRD is problematic lies in the limited and one-sided conceptualization of organizing HRD that is often used. Findings – Organizing HRD is mostly viewed as designing training courses and instruction sessions for employees; it is also predominantly understood as a tool of management. The paper proposes a network perspective on organizing HRD, which is better able to guide organizational actors than other approaches can, by taking into account a broader set of HRD practices and viewing employees (besides managers) as key stakeholders. Originality/value – The study argues that organizing HRD needs to take into account learning experiences that employees can gain from participating in work and career development as well (besides formal training); moreover, that employees’ HRD strategies are at least as important as those used by line managers and HR practitioners.

Keywords HRD, Employee development, Workplace learning, Human resource development, Actor strategies, Learning-network theory

Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction This paper is Part II of a two-part conceptual study. Part I outlined the core problem (“Why is organizing human resource development so problematic?”) as well as the backgrounds and key tenets of the learning-network theory to address that problem (Poell and Van Der

Learning- network theory

215

Received 9 December 2016 Revised 9 December 2016

Accepted 9 December 2016

The Learning Organization Vol. 24 No. 4, 2017

pp. 215-225 © EmeraldPublishingLimited

0969-6474 DOI 10.1108/TLO-12-2016-0094

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-6474.htm

Krogt, 2017). This Part II will be devoted to elaborating two aspects where the learning- network perspective offers a broader and, to our mind, more realistic conceptualization of organizing human resource development (HRD) compared to the “single” approaches reviewed in Part I:

� the multiple experiences in organizations that form the basis of employee learning and development; and

� the different actor strategies for organizing HRD (Poell and Van Der Krogt, 2017).

Conclusions and implications from both Part I and Part II are presented at the end of the current paper.

Gaining multiple experiences as a basis for HRD Organizing HRD is more than designing and delivering training courses. From the learning- network theory perspective, employees can learn from gaining experiences in three organizational processes:

� in the primary work process; � in human resource management (HRM) processes, especially career development;

and � in explicit HRD processes.

First of all, employees can learn from gaining experiences in the primary work process, as they perform and improve their work. For example, they contribute to work innovations and start using new equipment. Together with colleagues, clients and supervisors, they do their jobs and solve problems along the way. The experiences they gain will differ from one context to the next. Routine tasks will afford employees few different types of experiences, whereas in project-based work around complex issues, that diversity will be considerable.

Second, employees can learn from gaining experiences in HRM processes, especially in the career development process. Together with other actors (e.g. HRM practitioners, career counselors, supervisors), they pay attention to their careers and employability (labor market positions). They negotiate with them about their individual labor contracts and career progress. In this respect, employees will want to gain experiences in a wider range of tasks and jobs so as to acquire competencies that can bring them interesting new job positions.

Third, and best known, employees can learn from gaining experiences in explicitly organized HRD processes, for instance, learning programs and learning paths, which are especially intended for them to learn and develop themselves. Examples of such experiences are attending a seminar, taking a training course, engaging in self-study, participating in a study group, visiting a conference and reflecting on one’s performance. There they can gain experiences relevant to their learning, again with other actors as well (e.g. HRD practitioners, colleagues, experts).

Meaningful experiences These three processes afford an employee various types of experiences; however, this does not mean that all these experiences carry meaning for the employee, that they are relevant to his or her individual learning path. In order for learning to occur, the employee needs to have the impression that the experience can contribute to his development (in some domain). Redefining work, HRM and HRD experiences into meaningful steps on one’s learning path is a crucial mechanism here. Once again, the employee can do this alone or with others, who

TLO 24,4

216

will probably hold their own ideas about what constitutes a relevant experience in a particular context. Not all actors’ opinions carry equal weight in this process of clarifying how relevant to learning an experience is. Sometimes line managers leave a heavy mark, other times colleagues are more influential and oftentimes the employee places the main emphasis. Collective notions as expressed in learning policies or the HRD climate can have an impact as well.

Directing experiences in a learning path An employee can gain experiences in work, HRM and HRD processes. In a learning path, the individual employee gains, interprets and links these different experiences. Often the learning path will not be a pre-determined route; rather, it will form along the way as the employee manages to link meaningful experiences together and starts looking for new experiences to inform the learning path. Employees can direct their experiences in several ways:

� thematizing; � problematizing; and � explicitly operating strategically (Poell and Van Der Krogt, 2014b).

Thematizing refers to establishing an explicit theme for the learning path, determining what it really is about. The traditional way of doing this is by setting learning goals. Employees can, however, do this differently as well. They may start gaining experiences with only a global notion in mind of what it is they want to learn about. Based on progressive insight, and finding out what are meaningful experiences in the learning path as it unfolds, employees can gradually develop a clearer picture of their learning theme.

Problematizing is another way to direct experiences and means working to reduce problems that occur during learning-path creation. For example, employees can feel that their learning paths are too much focused on the current job, whereas they want to emphasize their career development more. Or the experiences they gain for their learning paths may be too difficult to incorporate into their lines of thinking. In these cases, employees can attempt to solve their problems by looking for other (types of) experiences that will be more meaningful to them.

Explicitly operating strategically is a final way for employees to direct their experiences. Once again, often this is done by setting learning goals, operating strategically toward a desired end point. Employees may also, however, direct their experiences on the basis of their own values, norms and insights. Thus, the learning path emerges on the basis of the employee’s ideas about organizing HRD, about the meaningfulness of affordances and about whom to involve in the learning path, to give a few examples (see Poell and Van Der Krogt, 2014b for a detailed account).

The role of networks in learning-path creation Networks have considerable impact on learning-path creation. The organization’s network structure (relations between management and employees) influences whom employees have access to for their learning paths (Poell et al., 2016). For example, in networks with many external relations, it is much easier for employees to involve external colleagues and experts in learning-path creation.

Networks also greatly affect the experiences that employees can gain in the three processes (work, HRM and HRD). Work experiences are determined largely by the employee’s job autonomy; if there can be more experimentation and problem-solving at

Learning- network theory

217

work, richer experiences are likely. As for HRM and HRD experiences, opportunities to set the agenda of one’s own appraisal interviews and access to educational facilities are good examples of how actors’ positions in the networks affect their possible experiences.

Finally, networks impact upon the directing of relevant learning-path experiences. Thematizing, for instance, depends on which actor(s) get(s) to set learning goals, establish HRD budgets and determine the topic of an on-the-job training course. The extent to which employees can engage in problematizing is equally dependent on powerful actors in the networks.

HRD strategies of employees and line managers Organizing HRD is more than following the HRD strategies of line managers. From the learning-network theory perspective, other actors can be equally important when it comes to organizing HRD. Especially, the HRD strategies that employees use are crucial in understanding how organizing HRD works.

All actors in and around the organization can attempt to use HRD to further their ideas and interests. Not every actor, however, has equal influence in realizing their own views about organizing HRD. Moreover, HRD processes are rather difficult to plan and direct; the idiosyncratic nature of HRD leaves it mark on the way HRD processes run. Employees have relatively much impact on HRD processes (“Who else could do the learning for them?”), while line managers have relatively little influence, certainly compared with other organizational processes (e.g. work organization, implementation of HRM practices).

Actors operate strategically by participating in HRD processes in specific ways. For instance, they can choose to engage in certain HRD processes and not or less in others; line managers might leave employees’ learning paths for what they are, while employees might engage in a pre-conceived learning program only very superficially. Another example of actors operating strategically is using specific affordances of specific HRD processes (program parts, procedures, facilities) and ignoring others, based on perceived meaningfulness and usefulness; employees might choose to leave a personal development budget untouched if they have to spend half a day applying on paper for only a small amount of money. Finally, actors can operate strategically by emphasizing specific elements in HRD processes; for instance, line managers might decide to interact mostly with other managers, withhold certain work experiences from an employee or co-direct an employee’s learning path by helping his or her thematizing.

Three functions that HRD serves for actors HRD can fulfill three functions for actors in organizations:

(1) improving work; (2) furthering one’s career and enjoyable work; and (3) encouraging personal development (Figge, 2012; Van Roekel, 2012; Poell and Van

Der Krogt, 2014a).

Improving work is the traditional function attributed to HRD, often by line managers. Career development is closely linked to employability, a key function in the contemporary labor market. Personal development entails learning themes that are not directly linked to one’s work or career but could become relevant over time in terms of qualities for “working life” (e. g. analytical ability, initiative, assertiveness). These three functions that HRD can serve for managers and employees are summarized and illustrated with examples in Table I.

TLO 24,4

218

Besides these three functions, HRD can also help actors indirectly gain more influence on specific processes. HRD is an instrument for line managers and employees to support their ideas about work organization and career development. The less direct influence they can exert on work and careers (through planning and coordinating), the more they will probably call on HRD. Line managers, for instance, will invoke the help of HRD more often in complex and dynamic work processes (e.g. that of physicians in hospitals) than in highly standardized processes (e.g. that of operators in factories).

Line managers operating strategically HRD strategies of line managers are linked in literature to their positions and associated responsibilities; HRD is viewed as a tool of management, which they use to solve their organizational problems and to support their plans for organization development and innovation (Walton, 1999; Yorks, 2005).

The learning-network theory takes into account managers’ own views as well. How they want to use HRD and which functions they attribute to HRD in the organization affect how line managers will operate in HRD processes, which goals they will set and how they will help other actors in organizing HRD. Managers use the existing HRD structures to support their plans (Soekijad et al., 2011).

Line managers operate strategically by participating in the four HRD processes. By creating learning policies, managers can put new HRD structures in place and attempt to change other actors’ views on HRD (Soekijad et al., 2011). Learning-policy creation by line managers can be a way for them to try and influence the learning programs and learning paths that are created. Creating learning programs and supporting employees’ learning paths allow managers to change the existing HRD structure and culture incrementally (Poell and Van Der Krogt, 2014a). To what extent participating in individual learning processes brings line managers strategic potential is not clear; we propose this would seem unlikely in view of the largely implicit nature of individual learning processes, which makes them difficult to influence (Sitzmann and Ely, 2011; Margaryan et al., 2013).

The role of networks in line managers’ strategies. In the learning-network theory, relationships are expected between the positions of line managers in the organization and their HRD strategies. We propose that managers will use HRD interventions (e.g. learning programs) more often when they have little direct impact on the work process and internal labor market, i.e. when they are more dependent on employees to get their problems solved.

Their position in the HRD structure will also affect the way line managers operate in HRD processes. We propose that managers with little influence on learning programs and learning paths will more likely choose to direct employees’ experiences through HRD facilities (time, money) or by hiring external HRD practitioners; these managers will also

Table I. Three functions that HRD can serve for line managers and

employees

Functions served by HRD Actors

Line managers Employees

Work improvement Optimizing work processes Innovation

Fit between own qualities and work Job satisfaction

Career development Flexibility Internal labor market

Career options Labor conditions Labor contract

Personal development Commitment to organization Operating more flexibly on the labor market

Learning- network theory

219

enlist external subject matter experts more easily when they do not have such expertise at hand.

Employees operating strategically In much of the literature, the ways in which employees operate in HRD are derived from the HRD policies and plans that line managers and HRD practitioners design to push employees’ qualities in the direction deemed necessary for the organization by management (Walton, 1999; Yorks, 2005). Basically, employees are expected to operate in line with managers’ HRD strategies.

The learning-network theory posits a rather different role of employees in organizing HRD. It does take into account employees’ positions (tasks and responsibilities); however, their own views will be at least as influential in how they operate. It is not taken for granted, therefore, that employees follow the HRD structures and goals proposed by line managers. What is more, employees are relatively influential when it comes to organizing HRD processes; managers and HRD practitioners are dependent on employees’ efforts, especially in learning paths and individual learning processes (“No one else can learn on the employee’s behalf”).

Employees, too, operate strategically by participating in all four HRD processes. Learning policies and plans are created (often by managers and HRD practitioners) to provide a framework for organizing HRD activities in the organization. In practice, however, employees (and sometimes even line managers and HRD practitioners) do not operate in line with these policies and plans all that much (Harrison and Kessels, 2004; Poell and Van Der Krogt, 2005; Anderson, 2009; De Jong, 2010; Boxall and Purcell, 2011; Beausaert et al., 2012). Once again, managers and HRD practitioners are highly dependent on the efforts of employees in conducting learning programs, paths and processes. Learning programs and, especially, learning paths offer employees many opportunities to operate strategically and use HRD for their own interests (Sitzmann and Ely, 2011). As for individual learning processes, which occur largely implicitly, employees can operate strategically just by responding to meaningful opportunities for gaining experiences as they arise (Van Der Sluis and Poell, 2002). This is actually a rather promising strategy, as employees usually do not have very explicit ideas about HRD and do not participate very actively in learning programs (Margaryan et al., 2013; Poell and Van Der Krogt, 2014a). Reacting to others’ initiatives as they occur in that case is a meaningful way to operate strategically for employees.

Although employees usually do not hold strong ideas about HRD, the learning-network theory emphatically assumes that they want to act in line with their own values and norms, also when it comes to organizing HRD. Hence, they will put more effort into HRD processes if these fit with their values and norms. For example, a heavily standardized learning program will not be much appreciated by an employee who values critical questioning, whereas it could actually be meaningful for an employee who is used to just following orders.

A learning path created by an employee does not have to be a full-blown, integrated whole. A modest learning path is probably much more realistic and attractive to them. For example, they could participate in a training course and then just wait to find out what effect it has on the job. Or they could draw up a personal development plan but not invest instantly in its materialization. Progressive insight will enable them to pick up where they left off when it is meaningful and relevant to them.

TLO 24,4

220

Employees thus have a choice to what extent they want to operate strategically. The learning-network theory distinguishes among four ways of operating strategically by employees:

(1) passive participation; (2) selective participation; (3) a piecemeal strategy; and (4) an integrated strategy.

Employees who opt for passive participation do so usually because they feel obliged to. For instance, their supervisor made them attend a workshop. Those who choose selective participation go along with other actors’ initiatives but do so with a keen eye for their own ideas and interests, which may not be in line with others’ plans. For example, they sign up for a training course but skip the sessions they deem irrelevant, which the trainer may view as a lack of motivation. Employees operating a piecemeal strategy take their own initiative to organize an HRD process; however, they focus on some of its aspects only (e.g. mobilizing other actors), which will most probably affect other aspects (e.g. available facilities) unintentionally. Finally, those who operate an integrated strategy explicitly develop a comprehensive HRD plan at their own initiative, encompassing many different meaningful experiences. This plan is based on their own vision of how HRD should be organized in all its aspects to further their own learning and development. The latter type, incidentally, may not be feasible for many employees.

The role of networks in employees’ strategies. The positions of employees in the networks affect how they operate strategically in HRD, according to the learning-network theory. HRD is a tool for employees, too, to realize their ideas about work processes and career development. The less direct impact they can exert on their own work and career, the more they will call upon HRD opportunities. For example, employees with little job security will probably want to take an external certified training course rather than gain on-the-job experiences. In this sense, operating strategically in HRD is a form of compensation for many employees with little job autonomy.

Conclusions and perspectives: actors organize HRD strategically from networks This study set out to investigate the question of why organizing HRD is frequently a problematic affair, in terms of training effectiveness, participant motivation and added value. It has argued that one of the main reasons lies in the limited and one-sided conceptualization of organizing HRD that is usually employed, which is no longer sufficient in contemporary organizations. Organizing HRD is often viewed, certainly in HRM literature, as designing training courses and instruction sessions for employees; it is also predominantly understood as a tool of management. Recent literature on informal workplace learning, employee self-direction, employability and lifelong learning points to a much broader picture of what organizing HRD entails, both in terms of relevant learning activities (besides training) and in terms of employee strategies (besides line manager strategies). But how can these theoretical insights about learning be deployed usefully in organizing HRD?

In this study, the possibilities to do so offered by the learning-network theory have been explored. Compared to “single” approaches to organizing HRD, this network perspective takes into account a broader set of HRD practices and views employees as key stakeholders too. Employees can gain meaningful experiences in everyday work, HRM (career

Learning- network theory

221

development) and explicit HRD processes, from which they can learn. Several actors (not least employees) operate strategically in these processes, based on their positions, views and interests. It seems plausible that the relationships among actors in the organizational and HRD networks determine to a large extent which relevant experiences employees can gain; for instance, to what extent they can improve their own work, affect their labor conditions, further their career and participate in explicit HRD processes.

Perspectives for further investigation and practical implications The learning-network theory perspective on HRD offers a number of opportunities to further investigate, analyze and ultimately impact salient management and HRD issues in organizations. Five of these will be elaborated below:

(1) employee motivation in HRD; (2) the effectiveness of HRD; (3) collective learning; (4) the idiosyncratic nature of HRD; and (5) the personal-development motive.

Employee motivation in HRD. Much of the HRD literature acknowledges the importance of employee motivation to learn (Hutchins et al., 2013). From a network perspective, however, this is not just an issue of personal motivation; it is rather a strategic issue, in that employees’ personal views are placed in the organizational context. Is an employee who skips various sessions in a training course based on perceived usefulness not motivated to learn? Or is he or she operating strategically when it comes to HRD? Moreover, learning motivation from a network perspective is not just general learning readiness or learning orientation; it is rather more tied to specific themes and functions attributed to HRD. Does an employee who refuses to go to quality circle meetings, because he or she would rather invest in career planning sessions, have no learning motivation? Or is he or she emphasizing other motives underpinning HRD efforts than the manager would like?

Besides such theoretical notions worthy of further study, some practical implications in this area can be drawn from the learning-network theory. Managers and HR(D) practitioners should recognize that employees have their own motives and interests in HRD participation, which are likely to be different from the interests of management and HR(D). Taking these differences seriously will facilitate the negotiations that (should) surround their HRD efforts.

Effectiveness of HRD. As described at the outset of this study, corporate training efforts are often not as effective as intended (Harrison and Kessels, 2004; Poell and Van Der Krogt, 2005; Anderson, 2009; De Jong, 2010; Beausaert et al., 2012), just as many intended HRM practices are not always implemented well in actual practice (Boxall and Purcell, 2011). Transfer-enhancing measures can be put in place to increase the effectiveness of training. From a network perspective, this whole issue can be analyzed in terms of gaining experiences in various types of organizational processes (explicit HRD and on-the-job experiences) (Poell, 2017). Many employees who are sent on training courses (explicit HRD) have little room to gain relevant on-the-job learning experiences. The work relationships between managers and employees in these contexts are much more vertical than their HRD relationships are (“You can force me to do this task but you cannot force me to learn from it”). Moreover, a training course that was ineffective as perceived by the line manager may have been highly meaningful to one or several of the employees who participated, so whose view of effectiveness should we be looking at?

TLO 24,4

222

In terms of practical implications, this particular notion points to the need for managers and HR(D) practitioners to acknowledge that employees have their own views of what constitutes effective HRD. It also urges them to become aware of the learning potential offered by work situations even if they were not intended for employee learning in the first place. Combining explicit HRD and on-the-job experiences is likely to be a good way of making HRD effective for all parties involved.

Collective learning. Popular themes in literature related to collective learning include knowledge management (Blankenship and Ruona, 2009), learning organizations (Swieringa and Wierdsma, 1992) and communities of practice (Wenger, 1998). Informal learning in the workplace, especially as a social process, is a key focus in most of these areas. From a network perspective, this emphasis is interesting and relevant but also rather one-sided. Where are the different interests that actors bring to the fore, also in collective learning; where is the influence of the network structure; where are the power relations among actors? With some notable exceptions (Lam, 2000; Roberts, 2006; Heizmann, 2011; Hotho et al., 2014), such critical questions are missing from the debates, even though they could shed a whole new light on the issue of why collective learning is so difficult to achieve.

Practical implications associated with this notion include making managers and HR(D) practitioners aware of the power relations involved in HRD as well as of the different network structures across organizations, which are likely to make collective learning much more difficult in some organizations than in other (especially team-based, horizontal) organizations.

Idiosyncratic nature of HRD. In the learning-network theory, HRD is largely a reflection of the standing organization (structure and culture). As indicated earlier, actors attempt to use HRD to solve their problems (e.g. related to innovation or the internal labor market). The expectation is that HRD will bring a problem-solving approach that could not be easily realized in the standing organization. The question is justified here to what extent this is possible: Can HRD processes be organized that deviate from the existing organization structure and culture (Poell and Van Der Krogt, 2014a)? From a network perspective, probably the only way this will ever work is when powerful actors in the organization develop deviant ideas about organizing HRD. For example, they could bring in external consultants or give employees ample room in the organization to operate according to their own ideas.

A practical implication of this notion is that managers and HR(D) practitioners need to be conscious of the fact that bringing about real organizational change will have to involve truly new ways of organizing HRD. HRD has the potential to act as a lever for such changes, but this is unlikely to occur if it is organized in complete accordance with the standing organization: deviance needs to be actively created.

Personal-development motive. Of the three functions that actors can attribute to HRD (Table I), personal development is the least developed or recognized in literature thus far. Improving work is a well-established function of HRD, as is contributing to career development and employability. Personal development could become a more important HRD function in the near future, with the increasing emphasis on talent development and strength-based approaches to HR (Meyers et al., 2013). Although Andersson (2012) questions whether training can bring about personal development at all, however valued a goal it may be, a worthwhile direction for further investigation would seem to be how employees (and line managers) participate in HRD processes with a view to furthering their (employees’) personal development. How does this motive relate to the motives of work and career for actors organizing HRD? How do their interpretations of the network structure affect actors’

Learning- network theory

223

emphasis on personal development in organizing HRD? The learning-network theory can be used as an analytical tool to frame and investigate these, and other, research questions.

In terms of practical implications, managers and HR(D) practitioners should ask employees, much more often than has previously been the case, to what extent they need support for personal development through HRD. This may not be relevant for all employees; however, pretending it is irrelevant for all employees does nothing to increase anyone’s understanding of why employee participation in HRD is indeed often as problematic as it is.

References Anderson, V. (2009), “Desperately seeking alignment: reflections of senior line managers and HRD

executives”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 263-277. Andersson, T. (2012), “Normative identity processes in managers' personal development training”,

Personnel Review, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 572-589. Beausaert, S., Segers, M., Fouarge, D. and Gijselaers, G. (2012), “Effect of using a personal development

plan on learning and development”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 145-158. Blankenship, S.S. and Ruona, W.E. (2009), “Exploring knowledge sharing in social structures: potential

contributions to an overall knowledge management strategy”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 290-306.

Boxall, P. and Purcell, J. (2011), Strategy and Human Resource Management, Palgrave MacMillan, Houndmills.

De Jong, T. (2010), Linking Social Capital to Knowledge Productivity: An Explorative Study on The Relationship Between Social Capital and Learning in Knowledge-Productive Networks, Springer, Houten.

Figge, L. (2012), “To what extent are learning programs attuned to individual learning paths?” MSc thesis Human Resource Studies, Tilburg University.

Harrison, R. and Kessels, J.W.M. (2004), Human Resource Development in a Knowledge Economy: An Organisational View, Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke.

Heizmann, H. (2011), “Knowledge sharing in a dispersed network of HR practice: zooming in on power/ knowledge struggles”, Management Learning, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 379-393.

Hotho, J., Saka-Helmhout, A. and Becker-Ritterspach, F. (2014), “Bringing context and structure back into situated learning”, Management Learning, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 57-80.

Hutchins, H.M., Nimon, K., Bates, R. and Holton, E. (2013), “Can the LTSI predict transfer performance? Testing intent to transfer as a proximal transfer of training outcome”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 251-263.

Lam, A. (2000), “Tacit knowledge, organizational learning and societal institutions: an integrated framework”, Organization Studies, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 487-513.

Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A. and Milligan, C. (2013), “Self-regulated learning in the workplace: strategies and factors in the attainment of learning goals”, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 245-259.

Meyers, M.C., Van Woerkom, M. and Bakker, A.B. (2013), “The added value of the positive: a literature review of positive psychology interventions in organizations”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 618-632.

Poell, R.F. (2017), “Time to ‘flip’ the training transfer tradition: employees create learning paths strategically”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 9-15.

Poell, R.F., Bang, A., Justice, S., Lundgren, H., Marsick, V.J., Sauquet Rovira, A., Sung, S.Y. and Yorks, L. (2016), “How do employees’ individual learning paths differ across occupations? A review of 10 years of empirical learning-network theory research”, Paper presented at the 17th International Conference on HRD Research and Practice across Europe, Manchester, MA, June, 2016.

TLO 24,4

224

Poell, R.F. and Van Der Krogt, F.J. (2005), “Customizing learning programs to the organization and its employees: how HRD practitioners create tailored learning programs”, International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 288-304.

Poell, R.F. and Van Der Krogt, F.J. (2014a), “The role of human resource development in organizational change: professional development strategies of employees, managers and HRD practitioners”, in Billett, S., Harteis, C. and Gruber, H. (Eds), International Handbook of Research in Professional and Practice-Based Learning, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 1043-1070.

Poell, R.F. and Van Der Krogt, F.J. (2014b), “The learning-network theory: actors organize dynamic HRD networks”, in Poell, R.F., Rocco, T.S. and Roth, G.L. (Eds), The Routledge Companion to Human Resource Development, Routledge, London, pp. 134-146.

Poell, R.F. and Van Der Krogt, F.J. (2017), “Why is organizing human resource development so problematic? perspectives from the learning-network theory (part I)”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 180-193.

Roberts, J. (2006), “Limits to communities of practice”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 623-639.

Sitzmann, T. and Ely, K. (2011), “A meta-analysis of self-regulated learning in work-related training and educational attainment: what we know and where we need to go”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 137 No. 3, pp. 421-442.

Soekijad, M., Van Den Hooff, B., Agterberg, M. and Huysman, M. (2011), “Leading to learn in networks of practice: two leadership strategies”, Organization Studies, Vol. 32 No. 8, pp. 1005-1027.

Swieringa, J. and Wierdsma, A.F.M. (1992), Becoming a Learning Organization, Addison-Wesley, Wokingham.

Van Der Sluis, E.C. and Poell, R.F. (2002), “Learning opportunities and learning behavior: a study among MBAs in their early career stage”, Management Learning, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 291-312.

Van Roekel, M. (2012), “Learning path strategies of teachers in secondary schools based on learning activities and learning motives: what is the effect of job tenure?”, MSc thesis Human Resource Studies, Tilburg University.

Walton, J. (1999), Strategic Human Resource Development, Prentice Hall, Harlow. Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, University Press,

Cambridge, MA. Yorks, L. (2005), Strategic Human Resource Development, Thomson South-Western, Mason, OH.

Corresponding author Rob F. Poell can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

Learning- network theory

225