The supervisor as a facilitator of informal learning in

work teams
Christina Macneil

The Authors
Christina Macneil, Christina Macneil is in the Business School at Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK.
Acknowledgements
Forum: an occasional segment in the journal to present opinions by invited authors on current workplace
issues. Responses for publication are welcome, and should be sent direct to the Editor.
Abstract
This paper explores the importance of enhancing the facilitation skills of line managers at a supervisory
level, and suggests that they can then promote a positive learning environment for informal learning within
their work teams. Supervisors are important to their firms, because they are at the interface between the
organisation and its work teams. The paper proposes that supervisors who are effective facilitators will
utilise their own learning and interpersonal skills to encourage informal learning opportunities through
knowledge-sharing in their work teams, thus improving the teams performance. The ideas outlined in the
paper are intended to make a contribution to a discussion which advances a conceptual argument, and will
form the basis of future empirical research.
Article Type: Research Paper
Keyword(s): Supervisors; Facilitators; Learning; Work teams; Humanresourcedevelopment.
Journal of Workplace Learning
Volume 13 Number 6 2001 pp. 246-253
Copyright MCB UP Ltd ISSN 1366-5626

Introduction
An important factor that will enable organisations to achieve their strategic objectives is a clear, reciprocal
relationship, which integrates both human resource development (HRD) policies and the training and
development of people (Stewart and McGoldrick, 1996). The provision of relevant training and
development processes will create superior organisational and employee performance, which is necessary
to achieve the defined business objectives (Ashton and Felstead, 1995; Gratton et al., 1999; Harrison,
1997; Purcell, 1999). Those organisations that can learn faster than their competitors, and deploy their
knowledge assets their people more effectively, will achieve competitive advantage (Nonaka and
Takeuchi, 1995; Pemberton and Stonehouse, 2000).
When senior management plan their employee development approaches, they should consider and

implement not only formal but also informal learning processes to enable the employees to gain the skills
and competencies which the organisation has identified as being important to its success. In general,
organisations often emphasise formal, planned approaches in designing their learning and development
strategies, e.g. management development programmes. This might suggest that informal learning, which is
unplanned and often accidental, could be an under-utilised learning approach in many organisations. The
use of informal learning in the workplace through the facilitation of continuous learning in workplace teams
could provide a powerful means of achieving integration between strategy and HRD processes to meet the
demands for continuous learning in changing organisations (Pedlar, 1994; Senge, 1990; Walton, 1999).
It is suggested here that the supervisor as a facilitator of informal learning in work teams could make a
significant contribution to the development of core competencies and skills, by establishing a knowledgesharing environment where team members are encouraged to create and apply their explicit and tacit
knowledge in problem-solving situations.
The papers argument is presented in the following manner: the first section covers the structure of
workplace learning; the next section considers the role of the supervisor in promoting workplace learning;
and the final section suggests how the use of improved facilitative skills will enhance the process of
informal learning in work teams.

The structure of workplace learning

Formal and informal learning

The differences between formal and informal learning processes in organisations are not necessarily clear.
Thus, it is important to summarise some differences that distinguish formal and informal learning from the
perspective of both the organisation and the individual.
Differences are most obvious in the areas of control, physical location and predicting of learning outcomes.
The degree of control which workplace learners actually have over the learning process is determined by
the extent of autonomy which they have in expressing their choice of learning approach. The physical
location in the workplace or away from the workplace determines where workplace learners are actively
engaged in the learning process. The third most obvious difference is in the extent to which the learning
process can be designed to achieve predetermined outcomes, and thus for the learning outcomes to be
reliably predicted by the organisation.
It is suggested here that informal learning cannot be specifically designed, and therefore the learning
outcomes cannot be predicted with accuracy, because the range of variables influencing the learning
process prevents the outcome being fully determined in advance. There are those, however, who take the
opposite view, i.e. that informal learning can be planned (see for instance, Marsick and Watkins, 1990).
In formal learning situations, the goal of personal development will be paramount, and some individual
change may occur at a later stage. In informal, work-based situations, the work task will be of paramount
importance for the team member, whereas the process of learning in a team is secondary.
Yet, to be effective in an informal learning situation, workplace learners will need to gain highly developed
skills in critical reflectivity, including the ability to question their own tacit assumptions and beliefs, and will
need to possess the creativity to consider different solutions to problems. The development of these
important skills, which are relevant for maximising informal learning from team members, will require

considerable levels of support from the supervisor and the organisation.

A work team is defined here as a number of people with the relevant skills, who work together to achieve
their task objectives. To be considered as a work team, the group will need to have a defined range of
roles, rules for the members interaction, and an agreed system of decision making (Heron, 1999). Team
learning is defined as a process where the team creates knowledge for both its own members and for
others in the organisation.
The learning generated by work teams will be particularly valuable in those organisations where it is difficult
to create standardised processes to deal with unique problems or non-routine tasks in manufacturing or
service provision. This means that where standardised processes cannot be identified in advance to allow
the workforce to deal with the frequency or type of problems, continuous learning in work teams will be
particularly important. The main benefit for the organisation of structuring the workforce into teams is that
the delegation of decision making to teams allows those at a local level to problem-solve by utilising their
shared knowledge (Cohen et al., 1996; Balkema and Molleman, 1999).
In organisations, a fragmented learning process is characterised by individuals learning separately without
any inclination to share their knowledge. An effective informal learning process is one that enables the
team members to make a transition from this solitary state into that of team-based communication and
sharing of learning. The benefit will be that the teams learning becomes a shared and habitual process
that can then be transformed into a shared knowledge-base to assist organisational learning (Kasl et al.,
1996).

The importance of a positive learning environment

To encourage an environment of continuous learning in work teams, there will need to be regular interplay
between individual and organisational learning (Kim, 1993; Kolb, 1984; Pedlar et al., 1991). To maximise
the transference between individual and organisational learning, however, there needs to be some
mechanism for communicating mental models throughout the organisation, and overcoming the problem of
fragmented, ineffective learning in individuals.
However, the development of a learning environment which encourages critical enquiry amongst its
participants, and the willingness to subject individual thinking processes to public enquiry, will not occur in
atmospheres of defensiveness and control (Argyris and Schn, 1978). A positive learning environment will
incorporate double-loop learning, where employees question the reasons for the occurrence of existing
problems, and thus find solutions to prevent the recurrence of those problems in future (Argyris, 1985;
1986).
The manner in which an organisation rewards or punishes the behaviour of individuals has a powerful
influence on reinforcing or impeding individual learning, and thus on the incorporation of individual learning
into organisational learning (Ellinger and Bostrom, 1999).
Additionally, the political forces expressed in the norms and values of the learning environment can directly
influence an individuals receptivity or resistance to learning. Antonacopoulou (1999) uses the term
mathophobic to describe an individual who is aware of the need to learn, but is reluctant to admit to any
failure, or to accept individual responsibility for learning, and the term philomathic for the individual who is
willing to learn, by failing, and making his/her mistakes public.
An important difference between adaptive and generative learning environments is the organisations
approach to the making of mistakes by its staff. In generative learning environments, mistakes will be seen
as opportunities for learning and change, rather than as occasions for allocating blame or fault-finding

(McGill et al., 1992).

Those supervisors who have transferred from firms that operate in an adaptive learning environment to
firms that operate in a generative learning environment may demonstrate a defensive reaction to their
learning experiences. Mathophobic supervisors will be reluctant to be seen by their peer supervisors or
team members to make mistakes because of the negative consequences which they or others have
experienced in the past, related to incidents which negatively affected status or promotion prospects in
former organisations. In a generative learning environment, however, supervisors will have a willingness to
share mistakes, so that their team members can share in the informal learning process without the fear of
any negative consequences.
To successfully convince supervisors of the existence of the positive learning environment, there will need
to be firm evidence from senior management that supervisors can admit to making mistakes without
experiencing any negative consequences. It will not be sufficient for an organisation to espouse positive
learning values, when negative values are actually built into the organisations culture and systems, e.g.
the reward processes or the criteria for promotion.

The role of the supervisor in promoting workplace learning

The supervisor
For the purposes of this discussion, the supervisor is defined as a line manager who is responsible for a
section or a team of workers who themselves do not have any subordinates. The supervisor is traditionally
the most junior member in the management hierarchy, who is often seen as a link person between the
senior management and the workforce (Evans, 1996). The supervisors function includes balancing the
demands of senior management and the workforce, and he/she is in a position of responsibility without the
authority to influence senior management decision making. The low status of the supervisors position is
demonstrated by the existence of top-down communication from senior managers, lacking the rationale for
changes in policies and practices (McHugh etal., 1999).
Yet, a fundamental assumption in human resource management theory is that line managers can drive
both HRM and HRD policies and practices, which are designed to achieve the organisations strategic
objectives through identifying, developing and supporting the appropriate knowledge, skills, commitment,
and performance in people (Beaumont, 1993; Cornelius, 2000; Guest, 1995; 1998; Huselid, 1998; Keep,
1989).

The changing function of the supervisor

The external business environment is experiencing increasing and unpredictable levels of change. The
globalisation of business and the rate of technological development are encouraging a highly competitive
market situation, shorter product-life cycles, and demands for continual service improvement, in an overall
context of pressures for cost-reduction in the provision of goods and services (Arkensas et al., 1995;
Bartlett and Ghosal, 1989; Leat and Wolley, 1999; Legge, 1995).
The internal environment of organisations has simultaneously undergone changes due to these same
competitive forces, which has resulted in a different approach for the management of organisations.
Overall, supervisors are now required to operate in an increasingly uncertain environment, whilst

simultaneously achieving high levels of performance from an increasingly diverse workforce. The trends for
downsizing and delayering, which have taken place in many organisations, have produced new, flatter
structures in an effort by senior management to maximise the opportunities for communication and
innovation in a changing environment (Appelbaum et al., 1999).
These developments have encouraged some organisations to introduce team working amongst their
remaining workforce to maximise the available opportunities for increasing creativity, motivation, and work
output. Teams have become a means by which individuals can improve on their efforts to cope with the
increased volume of work in the context of the reduced numbers of workers remaining after downsizing
(Proehl, 1996). Thus, the involvement of all the team members will be important to encourage creativity
and innovation through sharing individual knowledge during teamwork (Manz and Sims, 1987; Parry et al.,
1998). This process of translating individual learning into team learning can provide a powerful focus point
for organisational learning (Wilson, 1996).
However, the introduction of team working itself creates changes in the demands on the overall functions of
supervisors, because there is an implied change in power relationships. The traditional command and
control style of management will be less effective where management accountability is devolved to a team
rather than to an individual supervisor. It will be difficult to empower team members to think autonomously,
whilst simultaneously expecting them to be instructed in what to do by a supervisor. Thus, to meet the
changing and challenging demands of leading teams, supervisors increasingly find themselves functioning
as facilitators, instead of imposing a firm direction on their team (Zucchi and Edwards, 2000).

The facilitator
The facilitator is defined as someone who creates a learning environment, and is responsible for providing
the resources which will enable people to learn. The facilitator will encourage individuals to break through,
and to discover their own potential (Rogers, 1977). However, although the facilitator has the responsibility
for creating the appropriate learning environment, he or she is not actually responsible for the individuals
willingness to engage in the learning process. Rather, the facilitator will encourage the individual or group
to take responsibility for how they will manage their own learning process.
The facilitator function has been closely associated with formal training and development, in particular,
team and group dynamics situations, where the facilitator may be an external consultant to the
organisation. If facilitation is defined as empowering people to take control and responsibility for their own
efforts and achievements (Bentley, 1994), then the facilitator has an important responsibility for creating an
environment for learning, through the provision of opportunities and resources, whilst not actually trying to
control the learners process. Facilitators may enable the learning process, but the ultimate act of learning
will be embedded in the person and team, as they do their work (Prokopenko, 1998, p. 272).
It is assumed that, in formal learning situations, the responsibility for learning is controlled by the trainer
rather than the learner, although it is recognised that learners have to be motivated and cannot be made to
learn. In informal learning situations, the responsibility for learning belongs to the self-directed learner, and
only secondarily with the facilitator, who will concentrate not on teaching someone, but actually developing
the learning process (Heron, 1999).
Although the facilitator approach should not generally be a directive process, there may be some occasions
in the work teams learning process where the facilitator decides to use some degree of directive input to
intervene. This could be acceptable, provided that any intervention is devised to meet the learning
objectives, which have been jointly determined between the facilitator and the team.
When this paper refers to a facilitator approach, it is not intended to imply that there is only one way for the

facilitator to operate in all learning contexts. In practice, the accomplished facilitator will have a wide range
of highly developed learning and interpersonal skills, and will function as an instructor, coach, or conflict
handler according to the requirements of the learning situation.
To function appropriately in different and demanding learning contexts, the facilitator needs to develop a
wide repertoire of skills to match the continuum of situations that contribute to an individuals or a teams
development. In addition, the facilitator must vary the approaches used according to his/her assessment of
the learning needs of individual or team at a particular time (Sheenan and Kearns, 1996). Therefore, the
range of approaches and skills which a facilitator uses at any given time, will incorporate different levels of
direction, knowledge input, process input, process intervention and coaching to achieve the desired
learning objectives of the team (Van Maurick, 1994).

The need for enhancing supervisors facilitating skills

The importance of the supervisors function in creating and communicating learning is stressed in this
section. Coping with change is crucial for the success of an organisation. This fact highlights the
importance of the organisations knowledge of its own environment, which is based on two-way
communication between all levels of its management. A lack of interactive communication between senior
and lower levels of management will inhibit the organisations ability to focus on its environment, respond to
changes, and to manage change (Smith, 1995).
Where an organisational environment encourages the retention of power with management, instead of
sharing decision making with the workforce, it becomes difficult for a supervisor to change his/her
behaviour from a traditional command stance to that of facilitator (McHugh et al., 1999). To achieve this
important change in the behaviour of supervisors, and subsequently team members, the organisation will
need to change the values of the learning environment.
Equally, the work team needs to be given full accountability in order to function effectively, and where an
organisation is reluctant to relinquish control, the team will fail (Dumaine, 1994). Evidence of the existing
imbalance in power relations can be found in the different perceptions of supervisors and employees
concerning whether the empowerment of team members is actually a reality or a myth (Darling, 1996;
Messmer, 1990).

Possible problems
The increased use of facilitating skills by supervisors is inhibited by a number of problems.

Lack of support
Potential weaknesses in the effectiveness of the supervisor as a facilitator, and thus the potential for
developing his/her team members, will exist in those organisations where the inadequacy of past training
and development of managers is repeated, due to a historical lack of overall strategic integration between
individual and organisational needs in management development, or where organisations adopt a policy of
cost-cutting in their provision of training and development policies and processes (Harrison, 1997; Kolb et
al., 1994; Mabey and Salaman, 1999; Mumford, 1997).

Creating effective change in an organisation using a positive learning environment, which will promote
informal learning in work teams, will require an increase in the use of line managers as facilitators. The
relevant development for both supervisors and team members to operate in a positive learning
environment will emphasise the growth of reflective skills, through communication networks for the
exchange of information (Kessels, 1999). A combination of developing the soft process skills, e.g.
communication, as well as the hard, task-based skills, will enable both supervisors and team members to
function effectively (Beech and Crane, 1999).
A major change in a supervisors behaviour within the team is demonstrated by the requirement that he/she
should adopt a different type of leadership role which includes the facilitator approach (Horner, 1997). This
different approach to leadership will involve the supervisor facilitating the team towards shared goals,
which occur through joint agreement with the team (Gardner, 1990; Stewart and Manz, 1995).
The main obstructions in organisations preventing supervisors from concentrating on facilitating their teams
are a heavy workload, short-term problem-solving issues, underdeveloped coaching skills, conflict between
coaching and directional styles of management, and lack of clarity in communication from senior
management concerning their expectations of supervisors (Mink et al., 1993). In practice, self-development
for supervisors could create some difficulty where there is a lack of overall support from senior
management, who must be committed to the long-term investment in people through HRD practices (de
Jong and Versloot, 1999; de Jong et al., 1999).

Reluctance
The process of the changing power relationship in the work team, which is implied by the facilitator
function, may mean that some supervisors will want to resist the increased use of facilitation skills. These
supervisors may perceive that functioning as a facilitator will remove the vertical boundary between
themselves and other workers at an operational level. Thus, some supervisors will actually perceive the
change from a directive to facilitative role as undermining the future of their job and/or as a threat to their
claim (albeit at a low status level) to be managers (Arkensas et al.. 1995; Balkema and Molleman, 1999;
Stewart and Manz, 1995).
The redesign, and thus removal of any hierarchical control structure within teams will reduce the need for
direct supervision of other workers. When the supervisors power was traditionally based on their one-sided
instruction and communication of tasks to other workers, then their expertise was derived from their
experience and knowledge of the existing work process. However, this technical knowledge becomes less
important, or even becomes stagnant in a rapidly changing environment, where the generation of new and
shared knowledge is vital to enable the work team to respond to changing situations.
There will be some supervisors who will find it uncomfortable to switch between the functions of supervisor
and facilitator (Ellinger et al., 1999). To achieve this change will require practice and training for supervisors
as facilitators to enable them to apply the relevant range of skills in the continuum of different situations.
Increasingly, however, management development programmes are targeted at supervisory staff in order
that they learn the relevant interpersonal and learning skills for the facilitator role (Ellinger and Bostrom,
1999).

Balancing power and facilitation

Kirk and Broussine (2000) and Morgan (1986) suggest that the supervisor as a facilitator will find it difficult
to be completely neutral in his/her dealings with the work team, because as a manager he or she is part of

the power structure in the organisation. It is possible that the supervisor as a facilitator might over-direct the
work teams learning process, influenced by his or her own personal goals, as opposed to the teams
learning goals.

How supervisors facilitative skills enhance the process of informal learning

The argument of the paper is that supervisors can enhance the process of informal learning in their work
teams but only if they are encouraged and enabled to contribute their facilitation skills to the team
situation. How is this done? Supervisors working as facilitators of their work teams encourage knowledgesharing, support learning through mistakes and create a form of team learning that is continuous and which
is not individual and fragmented. The organisation cannot capture that learning nor benefit from its
existence if it remains fragmented and embedded in the individual. It is the supervisor as facilitator who
provides the link between individual and organisational learning.
Although informal learning cannot be explicitly designed, nevertheless there will be an outcome of
improved services and processes because the facilitation skills of the supervisor enable the organisation to
use the shared knowledge of the team members, which the facilitation has made possible.
References

Antonacopoulou, E. (1999), "Developing learning managers within learning organisations", in

Easterly-Smith, M., Burgoyne, J., Araujo, L. (Eds),Organisational Learning and the Learning
Organisation: Developments in Theory and in Practice, Sage, London, .
Appelbaum, S.H., Lavigne-Schmidt, S., Peytchev, M., Shapiro, B. (1999), "Downsizing:
measuring the costs of failure", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 18 No.5, pp.436-63.
Arkensas, R., Ulrich, D., Jick, T., Kerr, S. (1995), The Boundaryless Organisation, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA, .
Argyris, C. (1985), Strategy, Change and Defensive Routines, Putman, Boston, MA, .
Argyris, C. (1986), "Reinforcing organisational defensive routines: an unintended human resource
activity", Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 25 No.4, pp.541-55.
Argyris, C., Schn, D.A. (1978), Organisational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective,
Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA, .
Ashton, D., Felsted, A. (1995), "Training and development", in Storey, J. (Eds),Human Resource
Management: A Critical Text, Routledge, London, .
Balkema, A., Molleman, E. (1999), "Barriers to the development of self-organising teams",
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 14 No.2, pp.134-49.
Barlett, C.A., Ghosal, S. (1989), Managing across Borders: A Transnational Solution, Harvard
Business School Press, Cambridge, MA, .

Beaumont, P.B. (1993), Human Resource Management, Sage, London, .

Beech, N., Crane, O. (1999), "High performance teams and a climate of community", Team
Performance Management, Vol. 5 No.3, pp.87-102.
Bentley, T. (1994), "Facilitation providing opportunities for learning", Journal of European
Industrial Training, Vol. 1 No.5, pp.8-22.
Cohen, S.G., Ledford, G.E., Spreitzer, G.M. (1996), "Apredictive model of self-managing work
team effectiveness", Human Relations, Vol. 49 pp.643-76.
Cornelius, N. (2000), Human Resource Management: A Managerial Perspective, International
Thomson Business Press, London, .
Darling, M. (1996), "Empowerment: myth or reality", Executive Speeches, Vol. 10 No.6, pp.23-8.
de Jong, J.A., Leenders, F.J., Thijssen, J.G.L. (1999), "HRD tasks of first level managers",
Journal of Workplace Learning: Employee Counselling Today, Vol. 11 No.5, pp.176-83.
de Jong, J.A., Versloot, B. (1999), "Job instruction: its premises and its alternatives", Human
Resource Development International, Vol. 2 No.4, pp.391-404.
Dumaine, B. (1994), "The trouble with teams", Fortune, Vol. 130 No.5, pp.86-92.
Ellinger, A.D., Bostrom, R.P. (1999), "Managerial coaching behaviours in learning organisations",
The Journal of Management Development, Vol. 18 No.9, pp.752-71.
Ellinger, A.D., Watkins, K.E., Barnas, C.M. (1999), "Responding to new roles: a qualitative study
of managers as instructors", Management Learning, Vol. 30 No.4, pp.387-412.
Evans, D. (1996), Supervisory Management: Principles and Practice, Cassell, London., .
Gardner, J.W. (1990), On Leadership, Free Press, New York, NY, .
Gratton, L., Hope-Hailey, V., Stiles, P., Truss, C. (1999), Strategic Human Resource Management,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, .
Guest, D. (1995), "Human resource management: its implications for industrial relations and trade
unions", in Storey, J. (Eds),Human Resource Management: A Critical Text, Thomson Business
Press, London, .
Guest, D. (1998), "Combine harvest", People Management, pp.64-7.
Harrison, R. (1997), Employee Development, The Chartered Institute of Personnel and
Development, London, .

Heron, J. (1999), The Facilitators Handbook, Kogan Page, London, .

Horner, M. (1997), "Leadership theory past, present and future", Team Performance Management,
Vol. 3 No.4, pp.1-12.
Huselid, M. (1998), "The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,
productivity and corporate financial performance", in Mabey, C., Salaman, G., Storey, J.
(Eds),Strategic Human Resource Management: A Reader, Sage, London, .
Kasl, E., Marsick, V.J., Dechant, K. (1996), "Teams as learners a research based model of team
learning", Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, Vol. 33 No.2, pp.227-46.
Keep, E. (1989), "Corporate training strategies: the vital component", in Storey, J. (Eds),New
Perspectives on Human Resource Management, Routledge, London, .
Kessels, J. (1999), "Successful programme implementation in corporate education", paper
presented at the CIPD Professional Standards Conference at Warwick University, 13 July, .
Kim, D.H. (1993), "The link between individual and group learning", Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 35 No.1, pp.37-57.
Kirk, P., Broussine, M. (2000), "The politics of facilitation", Journal of Workplace Learning:
Employee Counselling today, Vol. 12 No.1, pp.13-22.
Kolb, D.A. (1984), Experiential Learning, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, .
Kolb, D., Lublin, S., Sproth, J., Baker, R. (1994), "Strategic management development using
experiential learning theory to assess and develop managerial competences", in Mabey, C., Isles,
P. (Eds),Managing Learning, Open University Press, London, .
Leat, M., Wolley, J. (1999), "Multi-nationals and employee relations", in Hollinshead, G.,
Nicholls, P., Tailby, S. (Eds),Employee Relations, Financial Times Management, London, .
Legge, K. (1995), Human Resource Management: Rhetoric and Realities, Macmillan Press,
London, .
Mabey, C., Salaman, G. (1999), Strategic Human Resource Management, Blackwell, London, .
Manz, C.C., Sims, H.P. (1987), "Leading workers to lead themselves: the external leadership of
self-managed work teams", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 32 pp.106-28.
Informal and Incidental Learning in the Workplace, .
McGill, M.E., Slocum, J.W. Jr, Lei, D. (1992), "Management practices in learning organisations:
adaptive and generative styles of organisational learning", Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 35

No.1, pp.37-57.
McHugh, M., OBrien, G., Ramondt, J. (1999), "Organisational metamorphosis led by front line
staff", Employee Relations, Vol. 21 No.6, pp.556-76.
Messmer, M. (1990), "How to put empowerment into practice", The Woman, CPA, pp.25.
Miller, D. (1996), "A preliminary typology of organisational learning: synthesising the literature",
Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No.3, pp.1-86.
Mink, O., Owen, K.Q., Mink, B. (1993), Developing High Performance People: The Art of
Coaching, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, .
Morgan, G. (1986), Images of Organisations, Sage, London, .
Mumford, A. (1997), Management Development Strategies for Action, CIPD, London, .
Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company, Oxford University Press,
New York, NY, .
Parry, I.J., Transheld, D., Smith, S., Foster, M., Wilson, S. (1998), "Reconfirming your
organisation: a team work approach", Team Performance Management, Vol. 4 No.4, pp.1-8.
Pedlar, M. (1994), "Applying self-development in organisations", in Mabey, C., Isles, P.
(Eds),Managing Learning, Open University Press, London, .
Pedlar, M., Burgoyne, J.D., Boydell, T. (1991), The Learning Company, McGraw Hill, London, .
Pemberton, J.D., Stonehouse, G.H. (2000), "Organisational learning and knowledge assets: an
essential partnership", The Learning Organisation, Vol. 17 No.4, pp.184-93.
Proehl, R.A. (1996), "Cross-functional teams a panacea or just another headache?", Supervision,
Vol. 57 No.7, pp.6-23.
Prokopenko, J. (1998), "The next century: a focus on human resource development", Human
Resource Development International, Vol. 1 No.3, pp.268-72.
Purcell, J. (1999), "Best practice and best fit: chimera or cul de sac?", Human Resource
Management Journal, Vol. 9 No.3, pp.26-41.
Rogers, C. (1977), Freedom to Learn, Kogan Page, London, .
Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization,
Century Books, London, .
Sheenan, M., Kearns, D. (1996), "Using Kolb, implementation, and evaluation of facilitation

skills", Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 27 No.6, pp.8-14.

Smith, D. (1995), "The learning organisation: change proofing and strategy", Journal of
Management Development, Vol. 14 No.9, pp.17-20.
Stewart, G.L., Manz, C.C. (1995), "Leadership for self- managing work teams: a typology and
integrative model", Human Relations, Vol. 48 pp.747-70.
Stewart, J., McGoldrick, J. (1996), "The HRM-HRD Nexus", in Stewart, J., McGoldrick, J.
(Eds),Human Resource Development: Perspectives, Strategies, and Practice, Financial Time
Management, London, pp.9-27.
Van Maurick, J. (1994), "Facilitating excellence: styles and processes of facilitation", Leadership
& Organizational Development Journal, Vol. 15 No.8, pp.30-4.
Walton, J. (1999), Strategic Human Resource Development, Prentice-Hall, London, .
Wilson, D.A. (1996), Managing Knowledge, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford, .
Zucchi, F., Edwards, J.S. (2000), "How similar are human resource management practices in reengineered organisations?", Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 6 No.3, pp.214-23.