Several theorists have forwarded various hypotheses on effective human resource development practices. Most of the research that has been conducted on human resource management seeks to consolidate and improve human resource management.
In this scenario, three scholars present their views on various aspects of human resource management including the element of the self-sufficient personnel, social learning, and extensive learning in the workplace. These learning concepts have been forwarded by Etienne Wenger, Barry Zimmerman, and Yrjo Engestrom.
All the three authors forward different theories on effective learning in relation to human resource management. Companies can only succeed in managing their human resources if their employees are versatile (McGreal 2004).
On the other hand, employees should make learning part of their daily routine in order to streamline operations in the workplace. All three authors outline different methods of effecting learning perspectives in human resource management (HRM).
Zimmerman is of the view that self-efficacy is a useful tool of motivating employees to achieve their goals. Wenger argues that social learning should be a well organized scheme in any organization. On the other hand, Engestrom is of the view that the benefits of social learning in the workplace are reckonable.
The three authors forward compelling theories about learning perspectives and their role in HRM. This paper focuses on the learning perspectives as outlined by Wenger, Zimmerman, and Engestrom.
The paper also compares and contrasts the learning perspectives that have been outlined by the three authors whilst evaluating their suitability.
Self-efficacy is a concept that has found a lot of relevance in HRM. Self-efficacy is responsible for motivating learners and assisting them when they are dealing with new work-related challenges. According to Zimmerman, learners are able to make their own choices where self-efficacy is involved.
This article points out that employees who practice self-efficacy have the capacity to confront work-related challenges. On the other hand, lack of self-efficacy leads to low emotional intelligence among employees.
Self-efficacy is an independent motivator that prompts individuals to tackle difficult challenges in the workplace. Human resource managers should embrace self-efficacy because it increases performance in the workplace.
Wenger advocates for a different learning perspective that encompasses social learning among workers. Embracing social learning increases the chances of success for HRM stakeholders because social work is closely related to employee performance.
Wenger’s arguments about the learning process include the elements of communal practices and diverse worker identities. Unlike Zimmerman, Wenger is of the view that the competency of any individual and his/her level of experience can assist an organization to get the best from an employee (Wenger 2000).
On the other hand, Zimmerman outlines what he terms as ‘outcome expectations’ in the learning process. According to the researcher, HRM’s stakeholders rely on outcome expectations to motivate employees. Nevertheless, Zimmerman quips that self-efficacy is a form of motivation in itself.
Therefore, self-efficacy is a more valuable form of learning because it enables the learners to use their judgment. On the other hand, the learners are able to use this judgment to gauge whether they can be able to perform under a specific set of circumstances. Zimmerman’s learning theory works to the advantage of HR practitioners.
The HRD is tasked with motivating and increasing the efficiency of workers, but through ‘outcome expectations’, the employees can take charge of their motivation process.
Between Zimmerman’s two learning methods, self-efficacy has the biggest impact on HRM because it relies on an individual worker’s ability to perform whilst ignoring his/her personal weaknesses.
The main advantage of self-efficacy over outcome expectations is that the former is a multi-faceted learning perspective while the latter is single-focused.
According to the researcher, “self-efficacy can play a vital role in motivation as it helps learners to participate in their choice of activities and improves personal accomplishments” (Zimmerman 2000).
According to Engestrom, social learning is a process that goes beyond the confines of basic education because it touches on external factors such as community involvement and familial perspectives. In addition, Engestrom forwards the aspect of ‘expertise’ in his social learning theory.
It is the researcher’s argument that the act of learning does not only take part in the confines of a formal schooling environment. However, learning also takes part in community and family settings. Engestrom’s learning approach emphasizes on the aspect of expansive learning through community interaction.
The researcher disputes that learning is a goal that can be satisfied by an ‘attainment’. Instead, Engestrom argues that learning is a constant and a continuous process. Engestrom’s arguments are important to HR practitioners because the continuous learning process is the hallmark of employees and employers in every institution.
Both employees and employers are constantly learning new information although the new knowledge is not ‘constant’.
Engestrom’s research proves “that learning is the action-oriented course of reconstruction or construction and it is this course, along with the hypothetical approach to social activity system, which supports the approach of expansive learning” (Engestrom 2001).
Engestrom bases his research on Bateson’s learning theory that specifies that expansive learning occurs beyond the present confines of the learning system. Furthermore, Engestrom’s paper specifies that the learning process is communal and it is not a personal endeavour.
HRM depends on the communal involvement of individuals who come together to achieve a certain goal. HR managers would relate to Engestrom’s views on communal and personal endeavours.
For instance, the main role of a HR manager is to ensure that an individual employee’s efforts make a positive contribution towards achieving the goals of the organization.
There is a similarity between Engestrom and Wenger’s views on learning perspectives. According to Wenger, communities are an important aspect of the learning process.
The researcher points out that social education is important to the growth of any organization because it is responsible for instilling an organization’s general practices, history, and social outlook.
The main similarity between Wenger and Engestrom’s argument is their rejection of the conventional learning systems. According to Wenger, education should be attained through community and social involvement.
Consequently, workers should learn by getting involved in various groups within their internal and external working environments. This view is similar to Engestrom’s claims about expansive learning through an activity system.
The similarity between the two researchers’ views underlines the importance of the ‘communal’ aspects of the modern workplace. Consequently, all HRM practitioners are seeking to entrench the practice of social learning into their workers’ learning modules.
The communal aspect of HRM has only existed in respect to the performances of the employees. However, researchers are trying to make sure that this communal aspect becomes part of the employees’ learning process.
There is a slight difference between Engestrom and Wenger’s claims about the communal aspects of the learning process. Wenger insists on the employees’ social participation for them to learn while Engestrom argues that the learner’s communal life contributes to his/her learning albeit by default (Young 2001).
The difference between the views of the two researchers is that Wenger urges employees to venture into communal activities while Engestrom is of the view that social activity is a part of a ‘hidden curriculum’.
Therefore, Engestrom’s theory taps into an employee’s pre-existing social life while Wenger pushes workers to engage in social life with the view of improving their skills. The HRM field has always been associated with individuals’ ability to integrate social skills with performance levels.
For instance, HR managers are expected to accommodate their employees’ various social backgrounds and harness these origins to work to the organization’s advantage.
Out of the three researchers, Zimmerman’s ideas stand out as the most liberal contributions to HRM. The ideas of self-efficacy and outcome expectations introduce a new dimension of learning in relation to HRM. Unlike the other two researchers, Zimmerman’s ideas are not simplistic in nature.
Furthermore, Zimmerman urges employees to maximize their productivity through a process of self-searching. Self-searching as a learning approach is likely to achieve better results than communal activity because it has the ability to pool resources together.
Consequently, Zimmerman’s approach is more relevant to Wenger and Engestrom’s arguments about learning through communal involvement. HRM practitioners can reap better results by encouraging individual assessments of their employees (Fuller, Hodkinson & Unwin 2005).
Nevertheless, using Wenger and Engestrom’s methods can bring uniformity to an organization. For example, prompting self-efficacy through individual learning might translate into some employees being ahead of their colleagues.
On the other hand, when communal learning is achieved effectively, it might have tangible benefits for the organization.
The central argument in Engestrom’s research is that learners should embrace and prioritize an organization’s learning requirements “so as to offer the means by which the human resource department can adjust to the changing surroundings properly” (Engestrom 2001).
This idea is very central to HRM’s organization because it incorporates management practitioners into the learning process. In addition, this approach makes it possible for HRM practitioners to solve the learning problems of their employees.
HRM practitioners can combine Engestrom’s ideas with Wenger’s argument of using social learning to harness social dynamism and convert it into learning outcomes. Consequently, “Wenger’s theory decreases the degree of impact of social surroundings on the educational challenges for human resource development” (Wenger 2000).
Therefore, it is possible for HR managers to master the unpredictable social nature of the modern work-environment by combining the ideas of both Wenger and Engestrom.
All the researchers who are featured in this paper work towards the simplification of HRM. However, the arguments of the researchers bear both significant similarities and differences. Zimmerman’s ideas are the most significant ones in the modern HR environment.
On the other hand, both Engestrom and Wenger forward similar arguments about the necessity of social learning in HRM. Self-efficacy is the most prominent idea in the paper and it is also the most practical addition to HRM.
On the other hand, combining both Wenger and Engestrom’s ideas could reduce the impact of social uncertainty in the learning perspectives of employees. All the three authors present valid concepts on the importance of an effective learning strategy in the course of HRM.
References
Engestrom, Y 2001, “Expansive Learning at work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization”, Journal of education and work, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 135-155.
Fuller, A, Hodkinson, H & Unwin, L 2005, “Learning as Peripheral Participation in Communities of Practice: A reassessment of key concepts in workplace learning”, British Educational Research Journal, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 49-68.
McGreal, R 2004, Online Education Using Learning Objects, Psychology Press, Abingdon, UK.
Wenger, E 2000, “Communities of practice and social learning systems”, Organization Articles, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 225-246.
Young, M 2001, “Contextualising a new approach to learning: some comments on Yrjo Engeström’s theory of expansive learning”, Journal of Education and Work, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 157-161.
Zimmerman, B 2000, “Self Efficacy: An Essential to learn”, Contemporary Educational Psychology, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 82-91.