Journal of Vocational Education and Training, Volume 56, Number 2, 2004

Increasing the Demand for Workplace Training: workforce development in practice DENISE THURSFIELD University of Hull, United Kingdom RICK HOLDEN Leeds Metropolitan University, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT This article provides a critical evaluation of demand-led training in practice. It focuses on the policy of workforce development and, in particular, on one workforce development pilot project. At the heart of the pilot is the notion of a ‘learning broker’ whose role is to stimulate demand for training in companies with little history or tradition of employee development, whilst simultaneously ensuring value for public funding. The article explores the tensions inherent to this role, and examines the contextual factors that constrain and enable the effectiveness of the broker. The article also addresses the issues of ownership and commitment to training. Finally, we show how the cases highlight certain systemic problems within publicly funded training in the United Kingdom (UK).

This article seeks to provide a critical evaluation of one, locally led, pilot initiative to address the United Kingdom (UK) skills ‘problem’ and move forward on the Government’s workforce development agenda. Under the auspices of a Learning and Skills Council (LSC) two ‘expert’ training brokers were funded to act as intermediaries between employers and suppliers. The main aim of this pilot initiative was to assess the efficacy of this particular ‘vehicle’ as one measure to stimulate and raise demand for skills. The article highlights three case studies to illustrate a range of practice implemented as part of the pilot programme, which serves as a basis for a critical discussion of the demand-led approach to workforce development. The article unfolds as follows. We initially provide an ‘academic’ perspective on the context in which the Government’s workforce development policy is located. We move then to describe the pilot initiative and the methodology we adopted as part of our evaluation. Three case studies follow, which are utilised to draw out a number of

291

Denise Thursfield & Rick Holden

practical and structural constraints that appeared, largely, to undermine the efficacy of this particular example of workforce development in practice. We conclude with a concern that unless the LSC and the Government reflect more seriously on the fundamental problem of counterbalancing the tendency to short-termism, workforce development may remain strong on rhetoric, but weak on impact. Background Although it has been recognised for some time, there remains a concern that the UK is struggling to ‘raise its game’ on skills (Performance Innovation Unit [PIU] 2001). A ‘skills revolution’ has been sought for some time, but deep-seated problems remain. Learning is not central to the culture of many firms; there are significant inequalities in access to learning and development at work and smaller firms are less likely to invest in learning and development (National Institute of Adult Continuing Education [NIACE], 1997; Matlay, 1999; Gibb, 2002). In its first report, the National Skills Task Force noted that ‘it would be a mistake to treat the current demands of employers and individuals for skills as coterminous with the needs of the economy’ (National Skills Task Force, 1998). In a separate research article for the Skills Task Force, Keep (2002) argues that it is highly questionable if employers, of their own volition, will be willing to train to meet wider, long-term economic goals. This is a complex problem involving many factors. Gibb (2002), for example, cites one factor as the uneasy dance in which employers and government are stuck as to who takes the lead and who pays. Keep & Mayhew (1999), for example, describe a ‘systemic’ failure resulting in a vicious circle of low productivity and low supply of skilled workers. Over the past two decades government initiatives to remedy the problem, underpinned by an essentially voluntarist approach (Stewart, 1999), have tended to focus on ‘supply-side’ policies. However, in many organisations skills are, in strategic management terms, normally thirdorder issues. First order questions concern competitive strategies with implications for second order choices about work organisation, job design and people management systems: Decisions about training nest within the wider contexts set by first/second order decision making ... To change employers’ approaches to providing skills to their adult workers it may be necessary to first alter competitive strategies and systems of work organisation. Conversely, public policy, by simply acting at third-order level by further enhancing the supply of skills may do little or nothing to alter first and second order priorities and path dependencies. (Keep, 2000, p. 11)

292

INCREASING THE DEMAND FOR WORKPLACE TRAINING

A Cabinet Office project was established to provide a thorough analysis of the UK’s training problems, including a rigorous assessment of the full range of demand and supply factors that determines investment in workforce development. As a result, and in part influenced by the analysis of Keep and others, more recent policy has shifted towards a ‘demand-led’ system of workforce development. Whilst there remains minimal evidence of any consideration that the UK may need to move away from an essentially ‘weak’ VET framework (Hodgson & Spours, 1999) the PIU analysis has led to the admission that more supply initiatives on their own, would not be sufficient to solve the UK's longstanding skills problem (Keep, 2002). Workforce Development falls under the auspices of the national Learning and Skills Council (LSC) who articulate their vision for lifelong learning as ‘by 2010 young people and adults will have knowledge and productive skills matching the best in the world’ [Learning Skills Council (LSC, 2002)]. A strategic objective of the LSC is ‘to raise informed demand for employment – related skills among individuals and employers’ (LSC, 2002). Workforce development is at the heart of this vision and responsibility for its implementation is given over to local LSCs. As the national LSC document states ‘local LSC will develop local approaches to delivery, operating within the national framework’. In order to inform the management and operation of a wider programme of workforce development in the local LSC concerned, a specific pilot initiative was developed. The Pilot The pilot entailed a 9-month programme involving, principally, SMEs within one industrial sector: steel and metals. It was anticipated that 50 companies would form the pilot. A minimum of 35% of these would not have undertaken any training or development in the previous 12 months. Participation in Workforce Development entitled the firm to 40% of the total cost of training up to a maximum of £800. A key feature of the pilot was the utilisation of a ‘training broker’ to stimulate demand, especially in firms with little history or tradition of training. Two learning brokers were active in the pilot under investigation, both of whom were employed by an employers’ organisation that also provided training for the steel and metals sector. Three scenarios were constructed to guide the activities of the broker. First, a situation where the employer had already identified both training needs and a training supplier. In this scenario, the role of the broker was identified as simply one of assisting with funding issues. Scenario two was perceived as an employer who had already identified training needs, but who, for various reasons (including imprecise identification of needs), had not located a suitable training provider. Thirdly, a situation where 293

Denise Thursfield & Rick Holden

the firm required assistance with a whole gamut of training issues including, critically, training needs analysis itself. It was this latter scenario where it was anticipated that most added value from the role of the broker could be realised. It should be noted that the objective of generating demand for training through the resources of a ‘broker’ was also underpinned by the need to ensure that any training that ensued and was thus supported by public monies was ‘worthwhile’. Training should meet the needs of the business and not be carried out simply because funds were available, or were given to firms who would have undertaken the training with or without Workforce Development monies. Methodology and Methods The methodology adopted was geared to the particular characteristics of the pilot Workforce Development project. An appropriate balance was struck between utilisation of data generated by the working of the pilot itself (documentation charting the referral and take-up process) and data generated from the key stakeholders involved in the pilot. The research employed a qualitative case study methodology. Primary data was collected through semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders from the LSC, broker agencies and organisations (Directors, HR/training managers). Group interviews with employees involved in workforce development training were also carried out. The rationale for this approach concerns the advantages of comparing organisational context and the opportunity such comparison gives for the identification of special features within different organisations (Bryman, 1989). Fieldwork was conducted in 10 case study organisations, three of which form the basis of this article. Selection of these particular case studies is not intended to deceive the reader into accepting our arguments on incomplete evidence. Rather, our choice reflects the contextual variations between organisations that allow for a meaningful comparative analysis. The Case Studies The Tool Company The Tool Company is a subsidiary of a USA owned global tool manufacturer. In early 2002, it employed 116 individuals. This figure has been reduced, through redundancy, to 66. The majority of employees are ‘unskilled’ in the sense that no apprenticeship is needed. The reasons for this wave of redundancies are twofold. First is a lack of competitiveness in relation to developing economies. The major market for the firm’s product is the USA. It is cheaper, however, for the USA parent company to import tools from developing countries than to produce goods in the

294

INCREASING THE DEMAND FOR WORKPLACE TRAINING

UK. A second problem is that of a general fall in demand for the Tool Company’s particular products. Previous training at the company has tended to be of the ‘on-the-job’ variety. There is, nonetheless, a training plan in place through which the firm attempts to identify and meet training needs on an ongoing basis. The rationale for management’s decision to participate in the pilot relates to a pressing need to improve competitiveness through a change in work practices. This change requires both technical and behavioural training. It is, according to the General Manager, essential that the Tool Company develops a more timely response to customer demand. The lead-time for the delivery of orders is weeks and the company aims to reduce this to days. To achieve this aim will require a shift away from an inflexible ‘process-based’ system of production to a more flexible customer-based approach. This entails transition from a Taylorist method of production to one in which self-sufficient, multi-skilled teams form, what the company terms, ‘customer-based cells’. Effectuation of this change has proved somewhat problematic due to the narrow nature of employees’ skills. Adoption of the ‘customer-based cell’ approach requires individuals who possess the whole range of competencies needed throughout the production process. The Tool Company employees are, for the most part, skilled in only one aspect of production. People are not equipped to perform the range of tasks required by the new system. The Tool Company’s response to the need for change was not to provide training in the technical aspects of the new production methods. Rather, it was to effectuate the system change prior to reskilling in technical competencies, and to provide training in team working, rather than in technical skills. It was this teamwork training that was, in part, funded by Workforce Development Pilot monies. The training itself was customised for the Tool Company and provided by a training supplier recommended by the learning broker. All employees participated in the training which involved one-day’s attendance at a workshop. Workshops were delivered in a local hotel over a period of 3 days. The rationale for this delivery structure was to train individuals simultaneously with the transformation of the factory layout needed to accommodate the new production system. The learning broker’s role in the implementation of workforce development in this particular company was relatively in-depth. Assistance was given with analysis of training needs, identification of a training provider and with the paperwork required for participation. The Impact of the Workforce Development funded training is the subject of discord between managers and workers. Whilst recognising that one or two individuals were resistant to change, managers articulate a view that employees benefited from the training, and that it was successful in facilitating the planned organisational change. For example:

295

Denise Thursfield & Rick Holden

On the whole it’s been very successful. They seem to have enjoyed the training and even if they won’t admit it it’s changed the way they think. A few of them don’t like the changes but some people never will accept change. (Production Manager) This generally optimistic assessment is not, however, fully supported by the workforce. Whilst the majority of employees interviewed enjoyed the 1-day sessions, they feel unable, for two reasons, to put the training into practice. First, they do not believe that they have the technical skills to perform the tasks required under a multi-skill teamwork system. Secondly, a lack of trust on the part of management to allow people to take some control of their work undermines the notion of self-sufficient, multi-skilled teams. Finally, the effect of the redundancy programme has been to engender mistrust of management motives by the workforce. Thus: They expect us to do things we do not have the skills to do. We haven’t been trained so nothings changed really. It’s one thing to give us the training and another to trust us. They still control us and tell us what to do. I wish I had gone when I had the chance of redundancy. Working here’s not the same as it used to be. Who knows what will happen next. It would seem, then, that the divergence of opinion between management and workforce is largely the result of structural tensions, and a failure on the part of the company to achieve accordance between the production system and training requirements. There is, however, an additional mechanism generating disquiet amongst employees and that is the issue of choice. Decisions regarding training needs at the Tool Company are the sole province of management. Individual employees seldom request training and consultation over what is needed is rare. Although there is an active and recognised trade union it has no involvement with training matters. There is no real engagement in the process by employees and, therefore, no sense of ownership. The rationale for the designation of teamwork skills as a training priority rather than the technical skills needed to complete a task is unclear and has not facilitated an orderly change in production method. The availability of workforce development funding was, furthermore, a major factor in influencing the firm to engage in this particular training. Although the training would have gone ahead at some point in the future, it might not have been immediate and a cheaper alternative to the particular supplier would have been sought.

296

INCREASING THE DEMAND FOR WORKPLACE TRAINING

Steel Structures Ltd Steel Structures Ltd is in the business of designing and manufacturing steel frames for commercial buildings. They are a subsidiary of a larger corporation and employ 120 people, 85 of whom work on the shop floor. The remaining 35 consist of management, designers, administrative and sales staff. The skill profile of the company is varied. Shop floor employees are, in the main, skilled welders, whilst designers are graduates. Steel Structures operate in a competitive market, and efficiency and quality of service to the customer are viewed as fundamental to future success. The key to efficiency and quality is, according to one of the company’s Directors, the training and development of staff. The company is Investors in People accredited. Thus: In order to maintain standards there are certain things that we have done and do, things like appraisals, and I create training plans and in theory try to be systematic about what training we actually do. (Director) A crucial area for development throughout Steel Structures Ltd is Information Technology (IT). Thus: IT cuts across both efficiency and service because if we can get the customer information systems working properly it can help us improve customer service and impact on how effectively we make things. (HR Director) Workforce development funding was used to part-finance IT training in Microsoft Excel and Access. In the past individuals had developed and were using their own personal data storage systems. This made the exchange and comparison of information difficult and slow. Management hoped that by providing all employees with training in the use of Excel and Access such problems might be overcome. Seventy employees from all occupational grades were chosen to undertake the 1-day training course. They attended, or were in the process of attending, in groups of eight. The training provider tailored the course content to the needs of Steel Structures Ltd. Unlike The Tool Company, both management and employees believed the training to be worthwhile. Although those employees interviewed considered the IT training beneficial to themselves, they were not involved in identification of IT as a development need. This was the sole responsibility of management and, as with the Tool Company, raises issues of ownership. On the other hand, employees not originally selected to attend the training and who expressed a wish to do so were given the opportunity to take part. The appraisal system also gives employees an opportunity to identify personal development needs. Thus,

297

Denise Thursfield & Rick Holden

employees at Steel Structures Ltd appear to have a greater degree of input into their personal training and development than do employees of the Tool Company. With respect to the issue of trade union input, shop floor employees are unionised, but the union have little involvement in training matters. The involvement of the training broker was, in the case of Steel Structures Ltd, relatively limited. The company had already identified the training and located a suitable provider prior to the involvement of the broker. His function in this instance was to assist with the complexities of the funding system and administrative requirements of the scheme. The Director did, however, feel that continuation of some relationship with the broker would be advantageous to the company. Despite the positive attitudes to the workforce development training at Steel Structures, it is difficult to argue that it was instrumental in engendering a training culture. A commitment to training was already a feature of the business plan and the specific training was planned and financed well in advance of the Director learning of the programme through a contact in the steel industry. As he himself admitted: We would have done the training no matter what, but it was the opportunity to get some of the costs back (Director). Metal Tubes Ltd Metal Tubes Ltd is a subsidiary of a larger company employing around 100 individuals, the firm manufactures hollow steel tubes using a roll press. It is one of the larger tube-manufacturing firms in Europe and one of only three still using a manual roll press. The majority of companies now use automated methods. The process is highly labour-intensive, but more flexible than automated machinery. Product changes are easier to achieve enabling the company to pick up business more readily. Workers at Metal Tubes are, in the main, unskilled in the sense that no apprenticeship is needed. The work does, nevertheless, require tacit skills, which are learned ‘on the job’: Our people are highly skilled. It’s not something you can walk in off the street and pick up easily. You have to know how to lift the tubes and use the roll press. (HR/Training Manager) An important business issue facing Metal Tubes relates to skill and the external labour market. The firm is unable to find people who are skilled in certain aspects of their production process, nor are any training courses available locally. This is a consequence of the manual nature of production and a lack of demand for the type of training required by Metal Tubes:

298

INCREASING THE DEMAND FOR WORKPLACE TRAINING

There’s plenty of training available locally if you want management skills, forklift driver or IT. There is very little provision for the ‘old trades’ or anything that is not mainstream. (HR/Training Manager) The firm also experience problems recruiting unskilled labour due to the heavy and dirty nature of the work. There is a training policy in operation and a training matrix is used to monitor training needs. Training needs are also identified through appraisal in conjunction with the business plan. Training tends to be carried out ‘on the job’. In terms of the three scenarios developed by the LSC, Metal Tubes are an example of the third category. The need for training had been identified, although the issue of what type of training was imprecise. The firm learned of the workforce development pilot from its parent company who, in turn, learned of the initiative from the learning broker agency. Initial interest was aroused for two reasons: the possibility of funding towards training and a pressing need for skills specific to the firm’s manual production process. Following a telephone call from the Training Manager, the learning broker came to visit metal tubes and involved himself in the firm’s training needs analysis. He then attempted to locate suitable training courses, but none were available locally that closely matched Metal Tubes’ needs. He did, however, suggest a ‘Train the Trainer’ course provided by the employers’ federation. This course provided an existing, suitably skilled, employee with the necessary skills to train others. Although this company would have carried out the training at some point in the future, they could not have done it immediately without the Workforce Development funding. Discussion Through analysis of the three cases a number of issues emerge in respect of both the concept, and the practice, of demand-led training. Our discussion of these is ordered around the following two themes. First is consideration of the role of the learning broker in practice. In particular, we note a number of intrinsic contradictions that impinged upon the broker’s effectiveness. Secondly, we address issues of ‘ownership’ and ‘commitment’. We argue that the exclusion of individual learners from the decision-making process results in a failure to secure commitment and/or engage employers effectively. This outcome was exacerbated by the lack of trade union involvement in training and development in the predominantly small firms. Thirdly, and more widely, we suggest, the cases highlight certain systemic problems with publicly funded training in the UK.

299

Denise Thursfield & Rick Holden

The Learning Broker In order to evaluate the role of the learning broker in relation to workforce development, it is necessary to provide a meaningful definition of the term. The notion of a learning broker has emerged from the realisation that the UK needs to improve its record on training and development (PIU, 2001). The concept is, as yet, ambiguous, although we have, based on extensive research in the area of workplace learning, constructed a model comprising of four ideal-type learning brokers (Thursfield et al, 2003). Common functions of each of these types are to increase demand for training by individuals and companies, and to bring together employers, learners and training suppliers in a mutually beneficial relationship. The type of learning brokerage associated with workforce development is tasked with stimulating demand in firms with little or no history of training, and helping such firms undertake training needs analysis. Both these functions are enhanced through the development of a long-term relationship between the broker and the company and involve the broker giving impartial advice to companies. There are, however, a number of inherent contradictions to the learning broker function in relation to workforce development. The first concerns the position of the broker and, in particular, the extent to which he or she is autonomous of vested interests. Autonomy exists along two dimensions. The first refers to what we have termed the ‘internal’ aspects of autonomy. That is, the degree to which brokerage is embedded in a particular employing institution and employment relationship. Although neither of the brokers had formal links with employers, more subtle associations were discernible. Brokers were linked to employing organisations through informal networks, evidenced, for example, by the ways in which companies were made aware of the pilot. On the matter of possible conflict of interest between the employer and employee, it seems clear that the employer is the primary concern. The needs and/or wishes of employees are of second order importance when demand for training is the issue. This top–down approach that excludes input from employees does little to engender ownership and commitment on the part of the employee, an issue that will be returned to later. The second dimension of autonomy, external, refers to the independent status of the broker and his or her freedom of action to provide objective advice. Such freedom of action is, however, compromised by the broker’s own position in the network of vested interests. The broker is himself an employee of the employers’ organisation and as such is constrained by his employer’s interests. Both the employers’ organisations for which our two brokers work provide training and have an interest in developing a relationship with companies; as a means, for example, of increasing membership. Whilst no evidence of any impropriety was uncovered during this research,

300

INCREASING THE DEMAND FOR WORKPLACE TRAINING

questions will inevitably arise over the lack of autonomy and independence from training providers, and the possibility for tension and conflict of interest. A second contradiction concerns the tension between the broker’s need to meet short-term targets for stimulating demand and a broader obligation to ensure value for public monies. There is evidence in this pilot that the LSC had inherited the TEC legacy of somewhat short-term and narrowly conceived approaches to ‘measuring’ success. Signed up companies and trainees in classrooms appeared more important than encouraging scenario three type work. This is exacerbated by what might be termed a ‘training grants’ culture. Companies in this pilot appeared happy to chase a grant to assist with training needs already identified, but reluctant to engage in a more fundamental review of how training may play a role in the medium – long-term development of the business. The two tendencies reinforce each other. Under pressure for results measured by courses and trainees, it was not in the broker’s interests to mount any serious challenge to the training grants culture. We make this claim despite the broker’s involvement in identifying training needs in two of our three case study organisations. These examples were exceptions to the rule and, in any case, the extent of any real success in this realm of activity is questionable. A superficial reading of the case studies suggests that the learning broker played a key role in assisting with identification of training needs in the Tool Company and Metal Tubes. The usefulness of this assistance is open to dispute. In both examples an opportunity was missed to consider the expediency of the organisation of work. The Tool Company’s focus on teamwork, rather than technical skills resulted in a mismatch between work systems and the skill mix within the factory. The likelihood of the new production system achieving success is low without more training in the technical requirements of ‘customer based cells.’ At Metal Tubes the retention of manual procedures was the reason for the lack of available training. In the short term the solution developed by the broker was a ‘better’ one than searching for seemingly nonexistent off the job provision. In the longer term, questions remain as to whether this represented a missed opportunity for serious consideration as to systems of production and whether to move away from the ‘old trades’ in favour of modern technology. A second way in which the broker failed to grasp the complexities of a particular set of circumstances concerns the employment relationship at the Tool Company. The introduction of a new system of work that is often associated with an intensification of work (for example, Garrahan & Stewart, 1992; Pollert 1996; Thursfield, 2000) alongside a recent largescale redundancy programme does not inspire confidence on the part of workers. The reason for the broker’s failure to engage with this issue is a possible consequence of his lack of ‘internal’ autonomy from

301

Denise Thursfield & Rick Holden

management of the firm. Had the broker taken a more objective stance he might have understood the apprehensions of the workforce. Ownership and Commitment The orthodox position of workplace learning is that learning is a good thing that serves the mutual interests of employer and employee. It benefits the employer by providing a better skilled, more competent workforce and the individual by ensuring employability [for example, Department for Education and Employment (DfEE), 1998; Edwards et al, 1998; Fryer, 1997, 1999). Thus, from this orthodox perspective, a lack of commitment to training on the part of the employee is viewed as irrational and blamed on the individual’s pathology. Take, for example, the view of the Tool Company manager that failure to accept changes to the organisation of work is the result of an individual’s unwillingness to change. The assumption of mutuality and shared interests has, however, been criticised. (Thursfield & Hamblett, 2001; Hamblett et al, 2002). The orthodox approach to work and learning takes a one-dimensional view of learning and ignores informal workplace learning. By this, we refer to the type of learning that results from an employee’s position in the capitalist employment structure and the impact of less benign organisational change. Where firms are adopting policies that are damaging to the interests of employees their commitment to training initiatives is likely to be weak. Thus, when the Tool Company makes 50 of its workers redundant, those remaining can be forgiven for having little trust in the motives of managers. Such circumstances are unlikely to engender a commitment to new initiatives. A further impediment to the engendering of commitment and ownership concerns the general lack of consultation with employees over their development needs. In none of the three case study firms were staff consulted on training issues. Nor was there any input from trade unions, even though the benefits of trade union involvement in employee learning are well established in the literature (for example, Green et al, 1995; Dundon & Eva, 1997; Forrester & Payne, 2000; Payne, 2001). It can be argued that without employee participation in training matters, it is unlikely that a sense of ownership and commitment can be fostered. Demand-led Training The shift towards a demand-led system of training provision is not without benefits. It is, for example, more responsive to the needs of business and funding follows learners, rather than training providers. There remain, however, a number of issues that require attention if the PIU aim of ‘raising the UK game’ on skills is to be achieved. On the basis 302

INCREASING THE DEMAND FOR WORKPLACE TRAINING

of the evidence put forward here, three such issues are identified. First, as Keep & Mayhew (1999) and Gibb (2002) have argued, firms act out of self-interest when they make decisions on training. Wider skill shortages that characterise the economy do not enter into the decision-making process. Thus, whilst firm-specific training can add to the general improvement of skill levels in the labour force, a systematic attempt to address wider skill shortages requires a much more coordinated approach. Workforce development does nothing to facilitate such an outcome. Secondly, workforce development, although aimed at firms with minimal training provision, reinforced the inequalities identified by Matlay (1999) and others. The majority of companies accessing the pilot funding display some level of commitment to training. They are, furthermore, integrated into local employer networks through which information on funding initiatives are disseminated. Thirdly, and relatedly, in the struggle between employers and government over who pays for training, certain employers appear to be winning. All three firms discussed in this article would have undertaken the training at some stage. All could, therefore, be accused of substituting government funding for their own training budgets. Conclusion Superficially, this Workforce Development Pilot provides a glimpse of the inroads an appropriate broker might make in raising organisational demand for skills. In all three of the examples given above demand was increased, if only to the extent that planned training was brought forward. The firms involved benefited from the individual attention of the broker in achieving this outcome. As with the encouraging signs of broker activity on a more individual basis (for example, Union Learning Representatives) it would appear that the relationship between firms and some form of ‘expert’ training intermediary is one that can be usefully developed in the future. However, such potential should not blind us to fundamental problems and weaknesses, which, we argue, were evident in the pilot, remain stubbornly in place and may serve to undermine the role of the broker, however well intentioned. One such problem is that of substitution, exacerbated by the inability of publicly funded training initiatives to free themselves from unproductive and debilitating systems of measurement and control. A second, related, issue, is the ‘training grant culture’ and the apparent failure of the broker to mount any substantial challenge to this; partly, of course, because of the inflexible and unhelpful LSC targets and timescales. A third issue relates to who the broker is. Without genuine autonomy and independence, from companies and providers, there is the danger of the broker’s role being compromised. Finally, the definition of demand-led training found under 303

Denise Thursfield & Rick Holden

workforce development is concerned only with the demands of employers. Employees are not consulted over their own developmental needs and wishes giving rise to questions of ownership and commitment. These pressures and difficulties become all the more acute within a highly deregulated labour market where there is no statutory imposition of any duty on employers to support workplace learning, nor any statutory form of co-determination or partnership. The Pilot suggests a training broker, suitably resourced and appointed, does offer the potential to increased organisational demand for skills. However, whether, given these structural constraints, they can do anything more than scratch the surface remains questionable. The LSC and Government must reflect on the fundamental problem of counterbalancing the tendency to short termism in dealing with investment in skills if training brokers are not to follow the pathway of the ill-fated ILA programme. Correspondence Dr Denise Thursfield, The Business School, University of Hull, Cottingham Road, Hull HU6 7RX, United Kingdom ([email protected]). References Bryman, A. (1989) Research Methods and Organisation Studies. London: Routledge. Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) (1998) The Learning Age: a renaissance for a new Britain, Green Paper. London: DfEE. Dundon, T. & Eva, D. (1997) Trade Unions and Bargaining for Skills, Employee Relations, 20(1), pp. 57-72. Edwards, R., Raggatt, P., Harrison, R., McCollum, A. & Calder, J. (1998) Recent Thinking in Lifelong Learning: a review of the literature. Sheffield: Department for Education and Employment. Forrester, K. & Payne, J. (2000) Trade Union Modernisation and Lifelong Learning, Research in Post-compulsory Education, 5, pp. 153-171. Fryer, R.H. (1997) Learning for the Twenty-first Century: first report of the National Advisory Group for Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning. Sheffield: Department for Education and Employment. Fryer, R.H. (1999) Creating Learning Cultures: next steps in achieving the learning age. Sheffield: Department for Education and Employment. Garrahan, P. & Stewart, P. (1992) The Nissan Enigma: flexibility at work in a local economy. London: Mansell. Gibb, S. (2002) Learning and Development: processes, practices and perspectives at work. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Green, F., Machin, S. & Wilson, D. (1995) Unions and Training: an analysis of training practices in unionised and non-unionised workplaces, Employment Department Report E95/08. London.

304

INCREASING THE DEMAND FOR WORKPLACE TRAINING

Hamblett, J., Holden, R. & Thursfield, D. (2002) The Tools of Freedom and the Sources of Indignity, in J. McGoldrick, J. Stewart & S. Watson (Eds) Understanding Human Resource Development: a research-based approach. London: Routledge. Hodgson, A. & Spours, K. (1999) New Labour’s Educational Agenda: issues and policies for education and training from 14. London: Kogan Page. Keep, E. (1999) Employers Attitudes Towards Training, Skills Task Force Research Paper 15. Sheffield: Department for Education and Employment. Keep, E. (2000) Learning Organisations, Lifelong Learning and the Mystery of the Vanishing Employers. Coventry: SKOPE Research Paper No. 8, University of Warwick. Keep, E. (2002) Joined Up Thinking, People Management, 12 September, p. 53. Keep, E. & Mayhew, K. (1999) Evaluating the Assumptions that Underlie Training Policy, in J. Ahier & G. Esland (Eds) Education, Training and the Future of Work 1: social, political and economic contexts of policy development. London: Routledge & Open University. Learning Skills Council (2002) Skills and Workforce Development. National Policy Framework to 2005: summary (LSC workforce development strategy). Available at: www.lsc.gov.uk Matlay, H. (1999) Vocational Education and Training in Britain: a small business perspective, Education and Training, 41(1), pp. 6-13 National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE) (1997) Lifelong Learning in England and Wales. Leicester: National Organisation for Adult Learning. National Skills Task Force First Report (1998). Sheffield: Department for Education and Employment. Payne, J. (2001) Lifelong Learning: a national trade union strategy in a global economy, International Journal of Lifelong Education, 20, pp. 378-392. Performance Innovation Unit (2001) In Demand: adult skills for the 21st century. Available at: www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/innovation/2001/workforce/report/ 1.html Pollert, A. (1996) ‘Team Work’ on the Assembly Line: contradiction and the dynamics of Union resilience, in P. Ackers, C. Smith & P. Smith (Eds) The New Workplace and Trade Unionism: critical perspectives on work and organization. London: Routledge. Stewart, J. (1999) Employee Development Practice. London: Pitman. Thursfield, D. (2000) Post-Fordism and Skill: theories and perceptions. Aldershot: Ashgate. Thursfield, D. & Hamblett, J. (2001) Mutuality, Learning and Change at Work: the case of employee led development, Employee Relations, 23, pp. 337-352. Thursfield, D., Hamblett, J. & Holden, R. (2003) Learning Brokers in the Workplace: some preliminary reflections. London: The Learning and Skills Research Centre.

305

Denise Thursfield & Rick Holden

306