Search results

Company training is usually initiated in response to the emergence of two kinds of training need; one may be termed reactive and the other proactive. The former arises out of an immediate and urgent on‐job production or productivity shortfall for which a behavioural cause has been identified and separated from other causal factors. In contrast, proactive training may be closely associated with an organisation's corporate strategy and manpower plan. It is very much future oriented and comes about because of anticipated technical developments and/or predicted changes in the general economic and business climate, or through results of management development and personal replacement actions and policies.

Presents a three‐level model to enable the design and conduct of an audit of training and development developed from the authors’ consultancy experience working with training and development managers and specialists from diverse medium and large organizations. Describes three levels ‐ event/programme, function and organization levels. Considerably extends the framework first described by one of the authors in an earlier article. This extended model permits the benchmarking of training and development against established best practice. Use of the model enables the identification of where an organization’s training and development can be considered successful and where challenges and opportunities for improvement exist.

Contains a critique of Honey and Mumford′s learning style theory, while recognizing its pioneering achievements. Questions what Honey and Mumford mean by learning and experience and explores the validity of viewing experience as the primary “motor” of learning. Raises doubts about the sequence of the learning cycle as depicted by Honey and Mumford. Asks: Does the learning styles questionnaire meaningfully measure learning preferences or is it more accurately a personality questionnaire? What do certain questionnaire scores mean, e.g. low scores across the spectrum? Do not certain subjects and situations prescribe the learning approach regardless of one′s preference?

A response to the critique.

The librarian and researcher have to be able to uncover specific articles in their areas of interest. This Bibliography is designed to help. Volume IV, like Volume III, contains features to help the reader to retrieve relevant literature from MCB University Press' considerable output. Each entry within has been indexed according to author(s) and the Fifth Edition of the SCIMP/SCAMP Thesaurus. The latter thus provides a full subject index to facilitate rapid retrieval. Each article or book is assigned its own unique number and this is used in both the subject and author index. This Volume indexes 29 journals indicating the depth, coverage and expansion of MCB's portfolio.

Argues that functional analysis has been misrepresented and misinterpreted. Refutes the idea that functional analysis claims to be objective, empirical or reductionist. Suggests rather, that it is based on a process of “interpretative understanding” of best practice and future requirements. Disputes the criticism that functional analysis ignores the importance of process in favour of simply describing the tangible results of system activity, and that it is solely concerned with the technical component of work performance, ignoring its social context.

Responds to Bob Mansfield′s critique of the author′s earlier work. Examines the criticisms put forward by Mansfield of the analysis of competence and competence‐based NVQs published in earlier issues of the Journal of European Industrial Training by Stewart and Hamlin. Provides an academic and practice‐oriented response and argues against the points expressed by Mansfield. Concludes that the original critical analysis of competence and NVQs remains valid and that Mansfield′s critique is not sustainable.

This article introduces the “Investors in People (IIP) Small Business Handicap Hurdle Model”. The model represents a significant outcome of a survey carried out within small organizations in the north west of England during 1996. The survey was a preliminary phase of a major study conducted over a period of four years. The model offers both a conceptual integration of survey conclusions and also an empirical tool for application in a broader context. Findings about the appropriateness and acceptability of the IIP standard and framework in small organizations are reported. An overview of the IIP standard itself is presented.