There are learning and social benefits for all participants in coaching or mentorship relationships whether the relationships have been engineered at the corporate level or have evolved informally. The coach and mentor acquire intrinsic rewards from being able to provide advice and support to more inexperienced and often younger workers. They develop skills in communication and leadership. The individual being coached or mentored develops required job skills and knowledge and extends personal networks and support systems. This in turn helps to increase confidence, self-esteem and personal growth.
Despite these benefits there are also some concerns in coaching and mentoring arrangements that do not have in-built special arrangements to support the relationships. They can fail if the type of guidance and strategies used do not meet the workplace requirements, both parties have not been adequately prepared for their roles, and enough time is not devoted to the relationship (Freedman & Baker 1995; Billett, McCann & Scott 1998) They can also fail if there is no identified individual (a coordinator) charged with preparing coaches and mentors and ensuring and monitoring program progress. Such up-front preparation and ongoing support for coaches and mentors can take the form of self-help groups where mentors share experiences and discuss successful solutions to shared problems. Coaching or mentorship programs between organisations and schools may need such a coordinator to broker mentorship relationships and to ensure that partners show up to meetings.
Keys to success
The success of any coaching intervention is also dependent on the personal attributes and professional expertise of the coach. These have been identified by Chapman, Best and Casteron (2003, cited in Abbott et al. 2006). These include skills in self-management, communication and interpersonal relations, technical expertise and breadth of experience.
The characteristics of effective workplace mentors are also similar. In their in-depth study of six organisations Billett, McCann & Scott (1998) note that effective mentors require:
-
expertise and credibility in the specific work area (that is, they must possess valued knowledge to pass on)
-
understanding of what is required for successful performance
-
valuing the activity of mentoring and what it can deliver for mentees
-
willingness to share knowledge with the learner
-
acting as a guide rather than a teacher (that is, they should let the learner do the thinking and the acting).
Regularly altering the structure of jobs and rotating individuals through different jobs has been found to be a major way for organisations to develop innovation and to extend the learning of their employees (Denhardt & Denhardt 2002, cited in Callan 2004). This is because people who move around the organisation are more likely to bring a different perspective to the way that things are traditionally done. However, organisations also deploy a variety of non-learning solutions for ensuring they have adequate skills to perform required work processes. These include hiring temporary workers to fill a skills gap or vacancy, hiring contractors (particularly used for information technology functions) or workers from labour hire companies.
Job redesign
Redesigning the structure of jobs by expanding the number, variety and complexity of tasks is another way of promoting learning in the workplace (Van der Klirnk & Streumer 2006). However, redesigning the structure of jobs to decrease variety and complexity (often associated with the introduction of automated equipment and machinery) may actually reduce learning and employee motivation (Bernhardt 1999).
Efficiency, enrichment, human relations and continuous improvement
A history of the evolution of what has been and is currently considered to be good job redesign practice is provided by Bratton (1999). It is useful here for showing us that many tried methods for organising work continue to be important for some work processes today.
-
Beginning with the concept of the appropriate division of labour which materialised in the factories of the industrial revolution in Britain in the 18th century, Bratton also traces for us the emergence of Frederick Taylor’s scientific management approach to job design (based on the efficiency of job fragmentation) through to Ford’s adaptation of these principles in the assembly line, common in car manufacturing companies of the 20th century.
-
Concern for improving the human aspect of work was to gather momentum in the 1960s and 1970s and focused on ensuring that jobs provided workers with challenge, responsibility, task variety, self-regulation (especially with regard to speed), and cooperation and social interaction among workers.
-
The 1980s saw a focus on total quality control and team approaches characterised by Japanese approaches to work organisation. Here the work team assumed responsibility for all processes related to a certain job and each worker or operator in the team was individually and jointly responsible for the quality of the product. During this period there was a focus on developing ‘just-in-time’ technology to minimise stock levels.
-
In the 1990s the focus was to ensure that companies were able to respond to constantly changing technological and economic environments. They did this by giving core employees responsibility for creating value for customers which translates into profits for employers.
Each of these movements brought a different emphasis to the role of workplace learning. Where the design of the job did not require any extra thinking or responsibility on the part of the worker, then the importance of further learning to perform the job was of less importance. Where the worker was required to have added responsibility for monitoring the quality of his products and services then the role of workplace learning for developing suitable skills and attributes becomes more important.
The problem with this neat depiction of how the approach to job redesign has evolved over the centuries and recent years is that approaches which are commonly thought to have died out long ago continue to thrive in today’s workplaces. Bratton is of the view that ‘with some modifications, Taylorism and Fordism still seem to be the predominant approaches to job design in most establishments, particularly in large-batch production industries’ (p.489).
-
Welders in a Japanese firm have collaborated to develop Taylorist-type procedures to avoid re work and meet deadlines. Although this may be considered to lead to a de-skilling of individual workers because it has structured the job so that no errors are made, it can also be considered an example of workplace learning where welders looked for a solution to a work process which was interfering with the successful implementation of just-in-time practices (Conti & Warner 1997).
Dostları ilə paylaş: |
