International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management

Learning from change

Richard Teare Stephanie Monk
Article information:
To cite this document:
Richard Teare Stephanie Monk, (2002),"Learning from change", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 14 Iss 7 pp. 334 - 340
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09596110210440620
Downloaded on: 25 March 2016, At: 01:02 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 18 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2027 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 01:02 25 March 2016 (PT)

(2011),"Managing successful change", Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 43 Iss 6 pp. 349-353 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/00197851111160478
(2003),"Managing change and changing managers from ABC to XYZ", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 22 Iss 7
pp. 627-642 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02621710310484768
(2001),"Changes in employee perceptions during organizational change", Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, Vol. 22 Iss 6 pp. 291-300 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730110403222

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:172900 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Learning from change
Keywords
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 01:02 25 March 2016 (PT)
Change management,
Organizational learning,
Workplace learning
Abstract
Explores the changing nature of
managerial and organizational
work in relation to the
opportunities that this affords for
learning from change. Examines
some of the ``drivers'' and the
sources of ``resistance'' to
change, together with a series of
practical steps that might be used
to foster a more supportive
learning culture in the midst of
change. Argues that the logical
next step is to create an internal
template for learning that mirrors
the business challenges and
realities and that this first step
can be used as a basis for
affirming the company's own
agenda for learning via an internal
business school structure.
International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality
Management
14/7 [2002] 334±341
# MCB UP Limited
[ISSN 0959-6119]
[DOI 10.1108/09596110210440620]
[ 334 ]
Richard Teare
Principal and Professor, University of Action Learning at Boulder, Colorado, USA
Stephanie Monk
Former Group Human Resources Director, Granada Group plc, UK
Who drives change?
The nature of managerial work has
undergone radical change in recent years.
Among other developments, there has been
organizational de-layering, self-managed
teams, guru-driven change (such as business
process re-engineering) and IT-enabled
home-based working ± all driving the
creation of leaner, more flexible
organizations in a globalized environment.
The aim here is to identify ways in which
organizations can learn from change and in
so doing, assist the managers they employ to
learn at work.
In his 1998 book Futurewise: Six Faces of
Global Change Patrick Dixon predicts that
``either we take hold of the future or the
future will take hold of us''. Commenting on
the pace of change, and the turbulence it
creates for organizations, Dixon wonders
whether management gurus are partially to
blame:
Every week there are more books on
management. Each one often contradicts
what has gone before, struggling to find a
fresh view . . . Expert confident managers will
continue as before to dismiss management
fads in favour of their own intuition and
intelligence, working out their own solutions,
adapting and borrowing as they go from a
wide variety of sources. However the speed of
change will guarantee an almost permanent
supply of semi-neurotic managers who are
constantly on the lookout for some new,
comprehensive solution to their
day-to-day problems (Dixon, 1998, p. 4).
Worrall and Cooper (2001) believe that these
changes, among others have radically
affected the skill set that managers need in
order to be effective in the context in which
they now operate. Their research on training
and development received by managers in
firms of different sizes and in different
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-6119.htm
sectors, reveals several key issues for large
organizations. First, that the average
manager in the UK receives about five days
training per year and 22 per cent of managers
receive no training at all; second, that
training rates in plcs and other private sector
firms are well below those in the public
sector.
Yet the challenge of learning at work is
well within the grasp of any organization.
McKenna (1999) observes that the core
activity of managerial work is to ``make
sense'' of what is perceived, so that
appropriate action can be taken. Citing
Haskell (1998) McKenna argues that a major
problem with corporate training generally
and management training specifically is that
it fails to transfer learning. In turn, this helps
to perpetuate a non-learning culture.
So why do people and
organizations resist change?
Many writers say that constant innovation is
the best way to secure both individual and
the organizational success. But is this
actually possible? Roffe (1999) offers three
scenarios:
1 incremental change: here it is the little,
unnoticed changes that make the biggest
differences;
2 discontinuous change: it is different this
time because the response needed is not
related to a familiar pattern; and
3 radical change: where ``upside-down''
thinking is needed.
In a general sense, entrepreneurial-type
managers are thought to be best suited to
anticipating the need for, and then leading,
productive change. Innovative firms take an
``integrative'' approach to problem-solving by
showing a willingness to see problems as a
whole, and in their solutions to move beyond
received wisdom, to challenge established
practices and generally view change as an
opportunity rather than a threat. This
 Richard Teare and approach requires the skill to: persuade
Stephanie Monk people to invest time and resources in new
Learning from change and possibly risky initiatives; manage
International Journal of problems arising from team-working and
Contemporary Hospitality
Management employee participation; and understand how
14/7 [2002] 334±341 change is designed and constructed in an
organizational context. In contrast, firms
that use compartmentalized structures are
more likely to see problems in isolation and
out of context. Here, it is unlikely that
organizational effort will be devoted to the
problem as an integrated whole and the
outcomes will reflect this. Complacency at
the top is also a common reason for poor
performance. To break free, decentralization
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 01:02 25 March 2016 (PT)
is important so that entrepreneurial
managers in less senior roles feel that they
have the authority and resources to exploit
their ideas.
A further problem with organizational
change is that it tends to generate initiative
overload and this can trigger resistance from
the people most affected. Abrahamson (2000)
calls this ``permafrost'' and it occurs when
change-fatigued middle managers undermine
initiatives introduced by the 20-somethings
below them and the senior managers above
them who ``mastermind'' change. The voice of
resistance takes the form of aggressive
cynicism: ``As one middle manager put it, his
company's change initiatives proved the first
law of corporate physics: when the pendulum
swings, don't stick your neck out''.
What types of change can any given
organization realistically handle? Even
where capability is characterized by talented
managers, leading edge technology, strong
product portfolios and finances, managers
rarely consider their organization's
capabilities as carefully as they think about
individual capabilities. In fact, the effort
involved in transforming an enterprise can
undermine the very capabilities that sustain
it. Christensen and Overdorf (2000) say that
they have never seen a company succeed in
addressing a change that disrupts its
mainstream values without the personal,
attentive oversight of the CEO ± precisely
because of the power of values in shaping the
normal resource allocation process. In their
view, only the CEO can ensure that the new
organization gets the required resources and
is free to create processes and values that are
appropriate to the new challenge. They add
that: ``CEOs who view spinouts as a tool to get
disruptive threats off their personal agendas
are almost certain to meet with failure. We
have seen no exceptions to this rule''.
In summary then, the key skill that
managers develop is the ability to ``make
sense'' and take effective action. If it were as
simple as this, then change would merely
sharpen these skills. Faced with ever shifting
priorities, it falls to the CEO and his/her
executive team, to shape an organizational
culture and structure that values and
practices ways of learning from change.
But can we really learn while we
are in the middle of change?
The only way to cope with a changing world is
to keep learning . . . (Dixon, 1998, p. 31).
At any given time, an organization operates
in a state of dynamic equilibrium. This
means that the set of external and internal
forces acting on it are held in balance with
the aim of satisfying the dominant
stakeholders (Dervitsiotis, 1998). But does the
``theory'' truly mirror the realities of
organizational life? The answer is almost
certainly ``no'' for most medium to large
organizations, where the relentless pace and
pressure to perform tends to overshadow the
opportunities for learning and in particular,
structured learning from change.
What then is the solution? Perhaps the key
to successful change lies in what
Abrahamson (2000) calls ``dynamic stability''
Here, organizations deliberately intersperse
major change initiatives with carefully paced
periods of incremental, organic change by
deploying the following guiding principles:
. borrow and adapt ± do not reinvent the
wheel;
. capture learning ± what we know and
what we are learning dynamically;
. manage internally ± stability is easier to
manage from the inside;
. encourage a generalist, ``open minded''
approach.
Figure 1 depicts some of the conflicting
pressures that create ``dynamic instability'' ±
characterized by a chaotic and unstructured
learning environment ± and at the other end
of the continuum, ``dynamic stability'' where
learning from change becomes an embedded
way of working. In order to progress from
``hit and miss'' organizational learning,
typified by a culture of short-term problem-
solving or ``fire fighting'' it is necessary to
create a supportive environment for learning
at work. This is easily said, but difficult to
achieve because senior managers must
themselves value and ``champion'' the power
of learning from experience at work. The
transition then from random to embedded
learning at work is not an easy one and
several authors advocate a series of
progressive steps.
[ 335 ]
 Richard Teare and Step 1. Stop ``fire fighting''
Stephanie Monk Constant, reactive change or ``fire fighting''
Learning from change
undermines any serious efforts to learn from
International Journal of change. According to Bohn (2000), it occurs if
Contemporary Hospitality
Management three or more from six interlinked elements
14/7 [2002] 334±341 are routinely occurring:
. Insufficient time to solve all the problems.
In fact, many more problems than
managers can deal with properly.
. Solutions are incomplete. Many problems
are patched, not solved. That is, the
superficial effects are dealt with, but the
underlying causes are not fixed.
. Problems recur and cascade.
Incomplete solutions cause old problems
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 01:02 25 March 2016 (PT)
to re-emerge or actually create new
problems, sometimes elsewhere in the
organization.
. Urgency supersedes importance. Ongoing
problem-solving efforts and long-range
activities, such as developing new
processes, are repeatedly interrupted or
deferred because fires must be
extinguished.
. Many problems become crises. Problems
smoulder until they flare up, often just
before a deadline. Then they require
major efforts to solve.
. Performance drops. So many problems are
solved inadequately and opportunities
forgone that overall performance declines
steeply.
Figure 1
Learning from change
[ 336 ]
Step 2. Consider what benefits might be
derived from embedded, organizational
learning?
Although interest in organizational learning
has grown in recent years, a general theory of
organizational learning remains elusive.
Crossan (1999) thinks that renewal of the
overall enterprise is the main driver and that
organizational learning is principally a means
to this end. So in practical terms, what might
this mean? Crossan suggests a framework for
organizational learning, based on four
processes ± intuiting, interpreting,
integrating, and institutionalizing. The idea
here is to link individual, group, and
organizational opportunities for learning.
Four propositions (Ps) underpin this
approach:
P1. Organizational learning involves a
tension between assimilating new
learning (exploration) and using what
has been learned (exploitation).
P2. Organizational learning is multilevel:
individual, group, and organizational.
P3. The three levels of organizational
learning are linked by social and
psychological processes: intuiting,
interpreting, integrating, and
institutionalizing (4Is).
P4. Cognition affects action (and vice
versa).
 Richard Teare and All this means that learning must be valued,
Stephanie Monk ``championed'' and practiced by senior
Learning from change
managers and if it is to ``stick'' it must be
International Journal of active (rather than passive) starting with
Contemporary Hospitality
Management questions (e.g. Why is this a problem?)
14/7 [2002] 334±341 directing the quest for ``deeper level''
enduring solutions rather than the easier,
though ultimately less helpful ``quick fix''.
Step 3. Consider how do we learn from
change?
If the reflective work at step 2 is to take root
and influence the ways in which managers
think and act, then senior managers must
grapple with and begin to model themselves a
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 01:02 25 March 2016 (PT)
``new'' work culture that encourages and
respects openness, collaboration and
interdependence. Easy to say but difficult to
do unless the executive team really shapes
the work and learning culture and by so
doing, actively promotes a desire to learn
from change. Fulmer and Keys (1998) think
that five requirements need to be met before
this can happen:
1 continuous and open access between
individuals and groups;
2 free, reliable communication, where
3 interdependence is the foundation of
cohesiveness;
4 trust, risk-taking, and helping each other
is prevalent, so that
5 conflict is identified and managed.
The key point here (as underlined) is the
(latent) potential of individual learners to
share their experiences among their own
work groups, so that organizational benefits
can begin to flow from shared (though still
informal) insights.
Step 4. Lay the foundations for learning
from change
Fulmer and Keys believe that contemporary
organizations should strive to:
. work, plan and think more creatively;
. build from their knowledge about their
products and processes (rather than
re-inventing the wheel);
. engage with their workforces at a deeper
level, via concerted and cooperative
action with internalized long-range
commitment; and
. embed learning as a way of responding to
and understanding the challenges of
complexity (markets, products, and the
organization itself).
Step 5. Focus on desired outcomes
So then, what might happen if executives
couple change with structured learning?
First, individual managers will be more
engaged and second, they are more likely to
take seriously their own personal learning
and career development. It is our contention
here that organizational learning is a myth ±
learning from change can only benefit the
enterprise as a whole if individuals take
learning seriously and are recognized for
their efforts. In cultural terms, this is
unlikely to happen unless individual
mangers feel:
. that they can state their view openly;
. their separate creative contributions can
be integrated into a ``holistic'' corporate
effort;
. that ``active'' learning is valued and
practiced by senior management; and
. that the new knowledge and insight that is
generated by learning from change will be
embedded and used to deliver benefits for
all.
OK I'm convinced, so what next?
Many writers, including the authors of well
known books on organizations, like
Organizational Culture and Leadership
(Schein, 1985), In Search of Excellence (Peters
and Waterman, 1982) and The Leadership
Challenge (Kouzes and Posner, 1987) describe
in detail the role and influence of leaders on
the formation of organizational values.
Popper and Lipshitz (2000) believe that the
three main channels of influence are:
1 Time devoted by the manager ± to daily
tasks in meeting short-term schedules,
often takes precedence over dealing with
important long-term issues. Allocated
``manager time'' is thus a clear signal to
the staff as to where the priorities lie.
2 Managers' attention ± which has a similar
effect to ``management time'' allocation.
Managers who consistently pay attention
to certain aspects of their work, send clear
messages about its relative importance.
3 Reward and recognition ± via bonuses,
letters of appreciation, promotion,
attractive assignments, allocation of
resources, etc. Positive reinforcement
increases the probability that the same
behaviour will be repeated, and negative
reinforcement acts in the opposite direction.
Commenting on the role of learning in
reward and recognition, Popper and Lipshitz
believe that managers who value and reward
learning activities, reward people who
contribute to organizational learning, use
aspects of learning as part of the process of
evaluating employees, and make learning
activity a criterion for promotion, reinforce
the behaviours required for maintaining
organizational learning. In combining
leadership and learning, the executive must
[ 337 ]
 Richard Teare and then model and practice at least three things.
Stephanie Monk He/she must:
Learning from change 1 Ensure that learning is a key agenda item
International Journal of as reflected by the manager's time,
Contemporary Hospitality
Management manager's attention, and the
14/7 [2002] 334±341 organization's reward and recognition
channels of influence.
2 Build the structural foundations needed to
turn individual learning into
organizational learning, namely to create
learning mechanisms such as debriefing,
learning teams, improvement teams, and
so forth.
3 Create cultural and psychological
conditions that will ensure that learning
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 01:02 25 March 2016 (PT)
is effective. This means establishing
``trust'' so that learning is both honestly
felt and spoken, meaningful and relevant.
Why not create your own corporate
business school?
Fundamentally, a learning culture needs
ways of supporting groups of people working
together, with the goal of individually and
collectively enhancing their capacities so as
to create results that they truly care about.
As a starting point, it is helpful to view the
organization as a community of people. Next,
overlay the individual agendas of the people
who work in this community and in the
context of change, the ``mindset'' of the
manager largely determines the extent to
which collaborative learning flourishes or
not. In fact, many writers argue that the
mindset issue is best addressed by
continually building on the knowledge base
of the organization so as to prevent
homeostasis ± a steady state ± from setting in.
This is done by fostering a climate of
learning for employees, and particularly for
managers. A company espousing this
philosophy has come to be called a learning
organization. This sounds fine in practice,
but Smith (1999) contends that the learning
organization concept has failed to ignite due
to impractical implementation methods
based on wishful thinking, and an
overemphasis on ``learning techniques''. He
observes that anyone who has had practical
experience of embarking on this pathway
knows how difficult the planning task
quickly becomes, and how rapidly
organizational resistance forms. These
practical difficulties arise because of the
sheer complexity of the concept, ``closed''
mindsets, and because there are
comparatively few self-motivated natural
learners.
So in practical terms, what can the
organization do to learn from change. In our
[ 338 ]
view, the best starting point is to ``flipchart''
the opportunities for learning that exist
inside the organization and use these to
establish your own corporate business
school. If these ``real'' challenges can be used
as ``trigger points'' for learning and then
captured as outcomes from collaborative
working, then the effort involved will have
been wholly justified. In fact, the
organization will have created the most
relevant, applied and productive way of
developing its employees at work (see also
Prestoungrange et al. (2000); Teare et al. (1998)
and Wills (1998)).
The Appendix reveals something of the
richness that emerges from a structured
review of business priorities and the
opportunities for learning. Early in 1999, we
met with human resource and training
representatives from across Granada Group
plc, which at the time, operated a diverse
portfolio of businesses. What emerged from the
discussions during the course of a one-day
session, typifies the breadth and depth of
learning opportunity that exists inside complex
organizations. It is our contention here that the
best way to align learning with the current and
future priorities of the business is to engage
managers in an active learning process that
recognizes their individual and collective
work. In this instance, the outcome of the day
was a template for the creation of a ``dynamic
curriculum'' for executive development, later
implemented over 18 months, accredited and
certified on completion. All the participants
held down busy ``day jobs'' at executive level
and via the dynamic curriculum process,
managed to combine learning and work. In so
doing, each and every participant was able to
provide tangible evidence of ``added value''
contributions to the business and meaningful
managerial and career development for
themselves.
Will this really make a difference?
It is clear that the pace and complexity of
organizational change is problematic, though
what we have sought to show here is that it
also yields a significant opportunity to learn
from change. It is our contention too that this
cannot be readily achieved from ``outside''
the business and that in fact, the
organization itself provides the best ``live
action case'' for business learning. By
exploring and capturing the issues that really
matter for the business, it is possible to
customize and cascade an agenda for
business learning that connects individual
managers to each other (for shared learning)
and individuals and small groups to the
 Richard Teare and challenges that confront them at work. If the
Stephanie Monk outputs from individual and collective work
Learning from change can be accredited and certified, then we have
International Journal of found that managers will readily respond to
Contemporary Hospitality
Management the opportunities to learn from change.
14/7 [2002] 334±341 The second article in the series of four,
``fast-forward to accredited corporate
learning?'' explores options for driving
forward learning at work and some of the
ways in which accredited learning can be
used to help secure an active and supportive
culture for personal and organizational
development.
References
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 01:02 25 March 2016 (PT)
Abrahamson, E. (2000), ``Change without pain'',
Harvard Business Review, July/August,
Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 75-9.
Bohn, R. (2000), ``Stop fighting the fires'', Harvard
Business Review, July/August, Vol. 78 No. 4,
pp. 83-92.
Christensen, C.M. and Overdorf, M. (2000),
``Meeting the challenge of disruptive change'',
Harvard Business Review, March/April,
Vol. 78 No. 2, pp. 66-75.
Crossan, M.M. (1999), ``An organizational learning
framework: from intuition to institution'',
Academy of Management Review, July, Vol. 24
No. 3, pp. 522-37.
Dervitsiotis, K.N. (1998), ``The challenge of
managing organizational change: exploring
the relationship of re-engineering'', Total
Quality Management, February, Vol. 9 No. 1,
pp. 109-22.
Dixon, P. (1998), Futurewise: Six Faces of Global
Change, Harper Collins, London.
Fulmer, R.M. and Keys, J.B. (1998), ``A
conversation with Peter Senge: new
developments in organizational learning'',
Organizational Dynamics, Autumn, Vol. 27
No. 2, pp. 33-42.
Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (1987), The
Leadership Challenge, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, CA.
McKenna, S.D. (1999), ``Maps of complexity and
organizational learning'', The Journal of
Management Development, Vol. 18 No. 9,
pp. 772-93.
Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.M. (1982), In Search
of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best-run
Companies, Harper Row, New York, NY.
Popper, M. and Lipshitz, R. (2000), ``Installing
mechanisms and instilling values: the
role of leaders in organizational learning'',
The Learning Organisation, Vol. 7 No. 3,
pp. 135-45.
Prestoungrange, G., Sandelands, E. and Teare, R.
(Eds) (2000), The Virtual Learning
Organization: Learning at the Workplace
Campus, Continuum, London and
New York, NY.
Roffe, I. (1999), ``Innovation and creativity in
organizations: a review of the implications
for training and development'', Journal of
European Industrial Training, Vol. 23
Nos 4/5, pp. 224-41.
Schein, E.M. (1985), Organizational Culture and
Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Smith, P.A.C. (1999), ``The learning organization
ten years on: a case study'', The Learning
Organisation, Vol. 5, pp. 217-24.
Teare, R., Davies, D. and Sandelands, E. (1998),
The Virtual University: An Action Paradigm
and Process for Workplace Learning, Cassell,
London and New York, NY.
Wills, G. (1998), The Knowledge Game: The
Revolution in Learning and Communication in
the Workplace, Cassell, London and New
York, NY.
Worrall, L. and Cooper, C. (2001), ``Management
skills development: a perspective on current
issues and setting the future agenda'',
Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 34-9.
Appendix. Granada learning experience:
learning at work planning session
The purpose was to:
. explain the process and outline the
benefits of workplace or action learning;
. explore the resourcing available and the
``value added'' of using the Internet to
deliver an infrastructure for accredited
learning directly to the workplace;
. identify and discuss the key design issues
and ``frame'' the business case for a cross-
functional, cross-Group corporate
business school structure for accredited
training and learning: the Granada
Learning Experience (or GLE).
Summary points (mentioned a number of
times as key points)
The GLE must be able to respond effectively
to the group focus on:
. fast pace, revenue growth;
. service, leadership, retention;
. bottom line outcomes + delivery of
immediate benefits for the business;
. keeping it simple (design and
implementation plan for making it work);
. self-development ± taking own initiative
with resources and support to enable this;
and
. quality and leadership style: development
and coaching of management behaviour is
vital for continuity.
What is needed?
. a business case (emergent from senior HR
team participants on the day);
. a supportive learning environment and an
``internalized'' process to ensure ``best fit''
and effective knowledge management; and
. PC access.
[ 339 ]
 Richard Teare and The business case
Stephanie Monk The GLE design must support and facilitate:
Learning from change . revenue growth;
International Journal of . focus on building market share;
Contemporary Hospitality
Management . improved service during fast-paced
14/7 [2002] 334±341 change;
. fast-pace and recognition of the need to
innovate;
. rapid growth context with pressures to
keep growing;
. focus on controlling costs;
. the retention of good people and their
experience;
. bottom-line, outcomes directed, focused
learning ± need to see early/immediate
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 01:02 25 March 2016 (PT)
benefits;
. simplicity of process and approach to
workplace learning;
. the leadership and management of cross-
group initiatives from within group; and
. synergistic benefits ± not just nice to do
but the essentials for the business and its
employees.
The GLE challenges that will ``add value'' are:
. HR development solutions: e.g. many
young people ± how best should we
develop and retain them?;
. sourcing and securing school and college
leavers with good development potential;
. a learning process that does not ``spoon
feed'' (no time for this) a big learning need
and potential exists;
. profit centre possibilities to sell GLE
``inside'' and ``outside'' the business
(customers, suppliers?);
. an internalized framework that is run
from inside the group with external
support;
. an ``active'' and ``dynamic'' learning
process that will stabilize labour turnover
and enhance commitment;
. a learning process that enhances skills,
self-esteem and harnesses the full
potential of learners (associates);
. all learning resources from one Internet
``hub'' site for ease of PC access at work or
home;
. preferred employer status ``contractual''
learning benefits as part of the
employment package;
. a means of balancing the ``drive'' to
improve with careful reflection on best
practice ``hows'' (service quality and
service excellence initiatives);
. A structure that ``captures'' and enables
associates to learn from best practice
inside and outside the group;
. A process for accelerated learning so as to
maximize performance and maintain
momentum in succession planning;
[ 340 ]
. An internalized structure for developing
leaders and for exploring the best ways of
achieving this so as to ``see'' and ``realize''
future potential.
Case experiences of participants
Prior experience of action learning indicates:
. a need for a supportive environment and a
group focus;
. group ownership of emergent GLE plan is
important;
. coaching and cascading the infrastructure
is essential;
. importance of keeping it simple and
focused;
. need to balance theory and workplace
learning realities; and
. quality and leadership style, development
and coaching of management behaviour is
key.
Action planning and implementation: next
steps
. Aim to start quickly ± within two to three
months and ensure participation from
operations at the design phase. If the initial
focus can be related to customer leadership,
it will reinforce current initiatives.
. Consider also the technological
requirements and the behavioural
components of positioning and
implementing the GLE.
Action planning sub-group reports
1 Accreditation of prior experiential learning
(APEL) and credit mapping.
Discussion brief: access for those with
experience but not prior qualifications,
linking training and learning so as to ensure
career-long, ``just in time'' development.
Perceived benefits:
. Can be used to recognize the skills and
knowledge of people in operations
management (not always recognized by
qualifications or professional
memberships).
. It has widescale appeal and is an
important component of launching the
GLE.
. No time wasting ± it enables people to
join in ± irrespective of their prior
qualifications.
. It is wholly consistent with the group's
``outcomes'' focus.
. It helps provide the incentive for
building on past qualifications.
. It could be used to help incentivize
people to prepare themselves for a
more challenging role.
Possible concerns:
. Would the standards of applying APEL
be common across the group?
 Richard Teare and . How practical is this form of personal
Stephanie Monk portfolio development?
Learning from change
. What does using APEL imply for the
International Journal of establishment of internal assessor roles?
Contemporary Hospitality
Management . Will APEL ``value'' non-industry
14/7 [2002] 334±341 specific qualifications and if so is this
likely to be problematic?
2 Strategic partnership issues and alliances.
Discussion brief: how might external
agencies ``add value'' to an internal
learning initiative?
Possible inputs:
. Assist the GLE to become an employer
of choice in this area.
. Help ensure consistency for people
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 01:02 25 March 2016 (PT)
development across the group.
. Enhanced clarity of communications and
new learner networks (via cross
functional and cross-divisional groupings
(mixed learning sets of associates).
. May help to clarify business priorities
(via a ``dynamic curriculum'' to drive
the action learning process).
. Facilitation in achieving potential for
learning via cross-functional groups of
associates.
. Accreditation is important ± especially
to the learner ± it verifies outcomes and
achievements.
. GLE can provide equal opportunity,
flexibility and fit ± all are eligible if
they are achieving for the business ±
4 GLE and the organizational interface.
regardless of the prior learning
pathway ± qualifications and
experience or experience only.
. Action learning return on investment
can be measured against a target spend
as a percentage of payroll.
. Targets can be set and monitored for
management development, knowledge
capture and shared learning as well as
open access to relevant/current
awareness and archive material
(``programmed knowledge'' (P)).
. GLE infrastructure can enable group
records and profiles on training,
learning and development to be
maintained and easily up-dated (an
online registry can be used for this
purpose) and a directory of all training
resources and materials can be readily
built into the GLE.
3 Customizing and prototyping the first GLE
program. Discussion brief: designing,
running and evaluating a postgraduate
Certificate, Diploma or Master's course;
``internalizing'' the skills and knowledge
needed to meet external accrediting agencies
and ISO 9002 quality assurance protocols.
. Re-define the proposition: business
need (B) + learning (L) + APEL =
relevant qualification.
. Depict the potential GLE population of
learners by level of seniority (pyramid)
fewer at Master's level (with a
``contracted'' learning agreement; more
doing Diploma routes and many more
doing Certificate routes (at supervisory
level) ± access and progression should
be depicted as ``steps to learning'' for
maximum impact.
. Initial focus on customer service: key
business priority with current
emphasis.
. Pilot with line management
involvement and cross functional/
divisional participation.
. Early pilot very important to ``see'' the
evidence of learning and make
Internet-resourced, workplace learning
as a business development process
``come to life'' and ensure it is ``readily
understandable''.
. GLE must be an enabler to help
achieve other things ± this is the added
value proposition.
. Important medium term gain of
knowledge management and retention
must be derived from GLE.
. Build excitement around the business
case ± innovative, developmental,
business related, fun, social, cross-
functional and cross-divisional at all
times.
Discussion brief: establishing the
coaching and support functions for
e-enabled learning, ensuring
``organizational fit'' so as to maximize
shared, cross-functional and divisional
learning, the commercial ``harvesting'' of
learning outcomes and tracking return on
investment.
Need to:
. Construct the business case (it is all
around the room as flipchart output!).
. Gain group commitment to the GLE
but it must be made tangible and
resourced well.
. Make sure GLE is cross-functional
from the start and the more customized
to Granada the better.
. Involve line managers as learning
coaches ± should be part of the job if the
GLE is business-focused.
. Establish best approaches and build the
case that ``knowledge management pays''.
. Focus on the key drivers: revenue,
retention, costs, succession,
profitability.
. Aim to use GLE as a strategic tool to
become an ``employer of choice''.
. Ensure that GLE is open, accessible to
all and rewarding for high performers.
[ 341 ]
 This article has been cited by:

1. Rodrigo Valio Dominguez Gonzalez, Manoel Fernando Martins. 2016. Capability for continuous improvement. The TQM
Journal 28:2, 250-274. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Alfonso J. Gil, Jorge L. Garcia-Alcaraz, Mara Mataveli. 2015. The training demand in organizational changes processes in
the Spanish wine sector. European Journal of Training and Development 39:4, 315-331. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Steven H. Appelbaum, Medea Cesar Degbe, Owen MacDonald, Thai-Son NGUYEN-QUANG. 2015. Organizational
outcomes of leadership style and resistance to change (Part Two). Industrial and Commercial Training 47:3, 135-144.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Li Li, David E. Gray, Andrew John Lockwood, Dimitrios Buhalis. 2013. Learning About Managing the Business in the
Hospitality Industry. Human Resource Development Quarterly 24:10.1002/hrdq.v24.4, 525-559. [CrossRef]
5. Jen-te Yang. 2012. Effects of ownership change on organizational settings and strategies in a Taiwanese hotel chain.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 31, 428-441. [CrossRef]
6. Andrew J. Sense. 2011. The project workplace for organizational learning development. International Journal of Project
Management 29, 986-993. [CrossRef]
7. Richard Teare. 2011. Learning at work: practical steps to maximize the individual and organizational benefits. Worldwide
Hospitality and Tourism Themes 3:1, 14-29. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 01:02 25 March 2016 (PT)

8. Meeta Dasgupta, A. Sahay, R. K. Gupta. 2009. The Role of Knowledge Management in Innovation. Journal of Information
& Knowledge Management 08, 317-330. [CrossRef]
9. Sandra Penger, Vlado Dimovski, Judita Peterlin, Matej Černe. 2009. Metode razvoja avtentičnih vodij v učeči se organizaciji.
Organizacija znanja 14, 4-11. [CrossRef]
10. Stefan Sävenstedt, P.O. Sandman, Karin Zingmark. 2006. The duality in using information and communication technology
in elder care. Journal of Advanced Nursing 56:10.1111/jan.2006.56.issue-1, 17-25. [CrossRef]
11. Andrew J. Sense. 2005. Facilitating conversational learning in a project team practice. Journal of Workplace Learning 17:3,
178-193. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Andrew J. Sense. 2004. An architecture for learning in projects?. Journal of Workplace Learning 16:3, 123-145. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
13. 2003. Granada grasps the challenge of learning at work. Human Resource Management International Digest 11:2, 39-41.
[Abstract] [Full Text]
14. Richard Teare, David F. Pantin. 2002. Cascading organizational learning. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management 14:7, 349-353. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. Richard Teare, Jane Neil. 2002. Fast‐forward to accredited corporate learning?. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management 14:7, 342-348. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
16. Richard Teare, Chris Rayner. 2002. Capturing organizational learning. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management 14:7, 354-360. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
17. Elham MetwallyFacing Organizational Change and Stress Management 115-133. [CrossRef]