Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore multiple perspectives on managerial coaching: why and how managers engage, employees and human resource development (HRD) professionals’ perspectives on the use and how HRD and managers can better support each other with it.

This study used secondary analysis of empirical data already collected through a transnational study from 20 different medium-size to large organisations in the Netherlands, the UK and the USA. For this study, 58 interviews referring to coaching were analysed from 18 of these organisations, from these 3 different countries and from 3 stakeholder groups: managers, employees and HRD professionals.

Findings show that managers perform a variety of “on the job” informal coaching roles and that HRD professionals lead the more formal aspects. Managers felt that HRD support was limited and hoped for more. A limited number of employees mentioned coaching, but those that did highlighted the different types of coaching they received in the workplace, referring to managers but with little recognition of HRD’s role. HRD professionals shared how they support managers through both informal and formal coaching approaches, but this was not fully acknowledged by neither managers nor employees.

The findings of this study contribute to the literature on devolved HRD practices, highlighting that managers are engaging more in managerial coaching with their teams, that potentially employees are not that aware of this and that managers and employees are not fully aware of HRD’s contribution to supporting coaching and feel they could do more. As a result, this study suggests that HRD professionals have a clear role to play in creating and leading the supportive organisational culture for coaching to thrive, not only in setting the “coaching scene” for managers to work within but also through offering support for long-term capacity building for all employees.

Through the diffusion of key HRD activities into managerial roles, and while internal coaching is gaining more momentum, managers now step up when coaching their teams. This study extends the limited prior research on managers’ and others’ (employees and HRD) beliefs about the coaching role in the workplace. This study highlights the changing role of the manager, the need for HRD to offer more support for the joint role that managers are taking (manager and coach) and the partnership potential for HRD professionals to include all stakeholders including employees.

Employees are increasingly expected to organize their own human resource development activities. To what extent and how exactly employees in various organizational contexts manage to shape their individual learning paths however remains largely unclear. The purpose of this present study is to explore, leaning on the empirical Learning-Network Theory (LNT) research and its findings, how employees in different occupations create learning paths that are attuned to their specific work context.

The paper reviews 23 MSc theses based on 14 distinct data sets collected between 2005 and 2015, containing approximately 1,484 employees from some 45 organizations and across various professions. The teachers, nurses, postal, software, telecom, railway and logistics company employees were mostly based in the Netherlands. The analysis focuses on learning-path types and learning-path strategies found in the 23 studies.

Motives, themes, activities, social contexts and facilities were found to be instrumental in explaining differences among individual learning paths. A total of 34 original learning-path types and strategies were found to cluster under 12 higher-order labels. Some of these were based on learning motive, some on learning theme, some on core learning activities, some on social learning context and a few on a combination of these elements. Overall, the socially oriented learning-path strategy was the most prevalent, as it was found among nurses, employees of software/postal/telecom, railway and logistics company employees, as well as teachers in two schools.

The paper presents the first overview of empirical studies on employee learning path(s) (strategies). In addition, it strengthens the empirical basis of the LNT.

While factors that influence test takers’ reactions to personality testing in selection contexts have been well researched, little empirical research evidence exists to determine whether these factors also apply to test takers’ reactions in the context of management development (MD). The purpose of this study is, therefore, to explore what explains different test takers’ reactions in the context of MD programs.

A qualitative longitudinal approach with three phases of data collection was used, resulting in participatory workshop observations and 11 semi-structured interviews with participants from two different contexts. Data were analyzed using Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA).

The findings show that test takers’ reactions vary; some are more accepting, others are more neutral or rejecting, where perceived usefulness, clarity of purpose and perceived respectfulness are identified as distinguishing factors. Individuals also differ in terms of their awareness of assumptions and their perceived emotional safety, two emerging factors that are relevant in the MD context.

Data were collected during the MD workshops and three months after, but no records of immediate test takers’ reactions were included, which could be an addition for future research.

The findings of this study suggest that human resource development (HRD) professionals have significant impact on test takers’ reactions when it comes to encouraging self-reflection and learning along personality tests.

This study adds to existing research by offering insights into factors in MD settings where participants are concerned about aspects of fairness, learning and behavioral change.

This study aimed at rethinking ways in which educators from different fields can collaborate to respond to the rapidly evolving demands of health professions education (HPE). The goal was to investigate how a research-to-resources approach can be applied to engage in knowledge translation (KT) of research findings for the benefit of introducing medical students to uncertainty in the clinical learning environment.

An interdisciplinary team of medical educators, human resource development (HRD) scholars and emergency medicine fellows engaged in iterative cycles of action research (AR) to develop, pilot and refine case-based learning resources on clinical uncertainty. The team leveraged prior research on physicians’ decision-making during COVID-19, experimented with generative AI tools, and collected feedback from medical students to guide resource development.

The findings of this study are twofold. On the one hand, the authors reflect on the lessons learned of developing case-based learning with the help of generative AI. While student feedback indicated that the case helped normalize and process experiences with uncertainty, key challenges included adapting research data to create relevant, sustainable learning resources and designing effective discussion prompts. On the other hand, the authors provide insights into the opportunities and challenges of our interdisciplinary collaboration. The authors show that knowledge utilization is not simple, but complex, and that more work needs to be done to effectively disseminate resources as part of the desired uncertainty curriculum.

This study attempts to apply a KT framework for bridging the research-practice gap in HPE through interdisciplinary collaboration and AR. It provides lessons learned for developing case-based curricula on complex topics like uncertainty. The findings highlight the need for adaptive KT processes when dealing with rapidly evolving healthcare contexts.

This paper offers a novel example of research-to-resource KT in medical education, integrating perspectives from HRD and leveraging emerging technologies. It contributes to understanding how interdisciplinary teams can collaborate to create timely, evidence-based educational resources for navigating uncertainty in professional practice. The study also provides insights into the challenges and opportunities of translating complex research findings into practical learning tools to tackle real-world challenges in HPE.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how and why personality tests are used in workplace training. This research paper is guided by three research questions that inquire about the role of external and internal stakeholders, the value of psychometric and practical considerations in test selection, and the purpose of personality test use in workplace training.

This research paper uses multiple-case study analysis. Interviews, test reports, product flyers and email correspondence were collected and analyzed from publishers, associations, psychologists and human resource development (HRD) practitioners in Germany, the UK and The Netherlands between 2012 and 2016.

Themes emerge around industry tensions among practitioners and professional associations, psychologists and non-psychologists. Ease of use is a more important factor than psychometrics in the decision-making process. Also, practitioners welcome publishers that offer free coaching support. In the process of using tests for development rather than assessment, re-labeling takes place when practitioners and publishers use positive terms for personality tests as tools for personal stocktaking and development.

Despite extensive data collection and analysis efforts, this study is limited by its focus on a relatively small number of country cases and stakeholders per case.

By combining scientific evidence with practical application, stakeholders can take first steps toward more evidence-based HRD practice around personality testing in workplace training.

Little academic literature exists on the use of personality testing in workplace training. Without a clear understanding of the use of personality testing outside personnel selection, the current practice of personality tests for developmental purposes could raise ethical concerns about the rights and responsibilities of test takers.

While literature offers substantial evidence regarding both strengths and shortcomings of experiential learning for learners, far less is known about how educators reflect on, make sense of, and learn from experiential teaching, let alone address emotions that invariably affect the process (Pekrun & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2012; Wright, Lund Dean, & Forray, 2021). The purpose of this chapter is to explore the dynamic nature of emotions in the context of experiential teaching, that is, the facilitation of experiential learning activities, by examining critical incidents from the educators’ perspective. The chapter begins by introducing literature on experiential teaching and emotion. The authors then present the empirical findings from a critical incidents study, noting how participants succeeded or failed to catch the waves of emotion that emerged while facilitating experiential learning activities. The authors connect the findings with the existing literature, taking into consideration both sensemaking and reflective practices during and after experiential teaching. The authors close by identifying ways educators can learn to surf the inevitable waves of emotion that can emerge within themselves and in learners, offering specific tools to maintain balance and develop further competence in the midst of experiential learning.