Learning about business processes is a crucial aspect that helps maintain the level of the training of employees involved in achieving organizational goals. Providing conditions for the productive growth of the professional potential of staff is a responsible task for managers. Nevertheless, given multi-vector business processes and the dynamism of the business market, this objective is not always achieved. Moreover, individual factors can inhibit development activities both at the organizational and individual levels. This work aims to identify the differences between professional development activities and organizational development activities, what learning mechanisms exist and how distinctive they are, how individual drivers affect the hindering of learning activities, and what external organizational factors can be obstacles to the normal study of business processes.
Professional Development Activities and Organizational Development Activities
For those managers who control business processes and strive to improve the performance of their subordinates, promoting development activities as tools to enhance work productivity is an essential aspect of leadership practice. According to Blau et al. (2008), in the business environment, two key types of these interventions are distinguished – professional development activities (PDAs) and organizational development activities (ODAs). As the authors state, PDAs are characterized by encouraging employee volunteering to participate in projects aimed to strengthen individual skills and abilities (Blau et al., 2008). As a rule, this objective is achieved through the organization of continuing education and educational courses, seminars, workshops, and other events that improve employees’ individual level of knowledge. ODAs are oriented differently and involve organizational rather than personal interventions. Blau et al. (2008) note that these activities also imply employee volunteering as a crucial aspect of professional training but with a focus on achieving organizational purposes through participating in courses or workshops to gain valuable attainments. In both cases, staff learn important information about working in a particular business, but distinctive competences (individual and organizational) are addressed.
Both categories of learning activities deserve attention as algorithms for increasing the necessary skills to work in a dynamic business environment. Due to ODAs, employees acquire attainments to interact in a team and implement those immediate tasks that are assigned to address competitiveness, customer loyalty, and other significant factors. PDAs, in turn, as Kemper et al. (2020) argue, “need to not only address knowledge, skill and attitude gaps, but also willingness to self-reflect” (p. 122568). Therefore, for the effective implementation of business processes, both types of development activities are essential mechanisms that contribute to enhancing different performance levels successfully. To assess the characteristics and roles of these practices, specific learning approaches need to be considered separately.
Organizational Learning Mechanisms
Organizational learning mechanisms that stimulate the acquisition of valuable skills associated with the increased knowledge of required attainments and work behavior include different algorithms and practices. ODAs mentioned by Blau et al. (2008) differ in their focus on tasks designed to address organizational skills for the implementation of specific business processes. In particular, the researchers highlight workshops, seminars, in-service programs, and some other activities aimed to help employees gain crucial skills to introduce them at the organizational level (Blau et al., 2008). However, this classification can be supplemented, and additional types of activities can be distinguished based on the principles of involvement and targeted interventions. Clifford and Thorpe (2007) suggest paying attention to facilitated and group learning modes. Both these algorithms fall into the category of organizational activities but differ in their approaches.
Facilitated learning is a form of training that implies organizing courses and programs to help employees gain crucial skills to apply further. According to Clifford and Thorpe (2007), these programs are usually short and involve communicating algorithms for staff to communicate with coaches and tutors. They do not aim to address individual skills and focus on opportunities to increase overall productivity by engaging mechanisms for improving workplace behavior and enhancing the quality of performed routine tasks. Group learning is the other form of organizational learning offered by Clifford and Thorpe (2007). As the authors note, this category includes learning mechanisms that do not imply engaging a facilitator and are based on discussions and network projects (Clifford & Thorpe, 2007). This form of learning also does not address the individual aspects of training since knowledge sharing and the stimulation of teamwork are the key objectives. Thus, from an organizational perspective, the aforementioned mechanisms are common learning practices. However, in addition to these educational methods, individual approaches need to be considered to gain an objective understanding of the factors that deter from learning about business processes.
Individual-Level Factors Deterring from Learning
Some individual-level factors are the constraints of productive employee learning in organizations. Ng et al. (2006) state that specific job attitudes and workplace behaviors are criteria that largely affect learning outcomes and can affect the poor assimilation of knowledge and skills. Personal motivation is a strong driver of how well an employee implements skills and applies them in a real work environment. In addition, Ng et al. (2006) mention the rejection of participation in training courses as a factor that deters from learning. Orpen (1997) has a similar position and argues that employees can take the initiative and participate in programs aimed to enhance their job potential. The author remarks that mentoring can be an effective process for establishing learning algorithms in an organization, but personal preferences of employees can be a constraint to achieving effective teaching results (Orpen, 1997). As a result, workplace behaviors and job attitudes affect learning perspectives significantly.
As additional factors, one can mention some of the individual aspects of employee engagement in learning. As Kushwaha and Rao (2017) note, self-assurance and work achievement are the criteria that determine the satisfaction of workers with the current outcomes of professional development and, therefore, the desire for learning. If these indicators are low, the likelihood of the successful assimilation of knowledge and adaptation to new job conditions in updated business processes is low. Therefore, the right motivation and incentives for employee job aspirations are valuable aspects to keep the interest in learning. At the same time, to assess the prospects for the development of workforce potential in detail, organizational environmental factors need to be considered, which deter from learning about business processes.
Organizational Environmental Issues Deterring from Learning
In addition to individual factors, some organizational environmental criteria can deter from productive learning. Alderfer and Smith (1982) note specific aspects of team relationships and cite several issues, in particular, the peculiarities of leadership behavior, group boundaries, and power differences. These factors affect the organizational level of employee learning, and in the case of underdevelopment, inhibit learning performance. The research by Ashforth and Mael (1989) is similar in its goal of describing specific environmental drivers. However, the authors propose distinctive aspects that can be seen as factors that deter from learning (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Group values, team prestige, group awareness, competition, and group identity are on this broad list and are mentioned as essential criteria. If managers cannot create the necessary conditions for interaction in a team and provide employees with a favorable background for joint activities, this affects learning outcomes negatively.
Some organizational factors may be of a distinctive nature from those of the aforementioned ones. For instance, Fink et al. (2017) assess the underlying causes of inhibitions in learning and argue that the process of sharing knowledge itself can be “routine based, history dependent, and target oriented” (p. 43). This means that, despite the organizational background, the promotion of learning in companies of different profiles depends on individual activity characteristics and cannot be evaluated only from the standpoint of general constraints. Thus, a detailed analysis of such factors that deter learning about business processes allows asserting various brakes that are crucial to fight.
Conclusion
The analysis of the proposed aspects that stimulate or hinder the learning of business processes in organizations helps highlight the main trends and drivers that managers need to take into account to create a productive educational environment. Opportunities for enhancing professional competencies at the individual and group levels are valuable prospects and a guarantee of high productivity. Individual learning mechanisms involve distinctive methods and approaches to employee engagement, but among the most common ones, one can mention workshops, seminars, training courses, and other person-oriented programs. Deterrents, in turn, include both individual reasons, for instance, the unwillingness to participate in training programs or weak motivation, and organizational aspects – competition, routine, and other aspects. The value of the findings lies in an opportunity to identify the key reasons for promoting learning and the underlying mechanisms of actions to increase these indicators and, therefore, strengthen the professional potential of the workforce.
References
Alderfer, C. P., & Smith, K. (1982). Studying intergroup relations embedded in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(1), 35-65.
Ashforth, B., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20-39.
Blau, G., Andersson, L., Davis, K., Daymont, T, Hochner, A., Koziara, K., Portwood, J., & Holladay, B. (2008). The relation between employee organizational and professional development activities. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(1), 123-142.
Clifford, J., & Thorpe, S. (2007). More ways than one… Exploring the use of different learning methods in organizations. Industrial and Commercial Training, 39(5), 267-271.
Fink, L., Yogev, N., & Even, A. (2017). Business intelligence and organizational learning: An empirical investigation of value creation processes. Information & Management, 54(1), 38-56.
Kemper, J. A., Ballantine, P. W., & Hall, C. M. (2020). Sustainability worldviews of marketing academics: A segmentation analysis and implications for professional development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 271, 122568.
Kushwaha, P., & Rao, M. K. (2017). Integrating the linkages between learning systems and knowledge process: An exploration of learning outcomes. Business Perspectives and Research, 5(1), 11-23.
Ng, T. W. H., Butts, M. M., Vandenberg, R. J., DeJoy, D. M., & Wilson, M. G. (2006). Effects of management communication, opportunity for learning, and work schedule flexibility. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 474-489.
Orpen, C. (1997). The effects of formal mentoring on employee work motivation, organizational commitment and job performance. The Learning Organization, 4(2), 53-60.