Search results

Work‐place learning takes place in many settings and in different ways, resulting in knowledge and skills of different kinds. The recognition process in the work place is however often implicit and seldom discussed in terms of recognition of prior learning (RPL). The aim of this paper is to give examples of how the knowledge/skills of employees get recognition in the workplace and to discuss what the consequences of such recognition processes might be.

This paper is based on a study in two companies and two municipalities, where 21 interviews were conducted with human resource managers, team leaders and union representatives. The research questions concerned the ways skills were recognised among employees and how the logics of these actions could be understood.

The findings show that both companies and municipalities have their own ways of assessing knowledge/skills, mostly out of a production logic of what is needed at the workplace. However, certain skills are also made “unvisualised” for the employee. This employer‐controlled recognition logic is important to understand when RPL models are brought to the work place in order to obtain win‐win situations for both employers and employees.

It seems important to identify an already existing system for assessment of knowledge/skills at the workplace when bringing RPL processes to the workplace.

The approach to understand assessment processes in these companies and municipalities from an RPL perspective has not been widely covered before.

The purpose with the paper is to bring forward the opportunities we face by realizing that future economics lie in knowledge and intangibles. We want to communicate this as a giant business potential, as capital in waiting by introducing some tools and cases. Two concrete leadership tools are presented and discussed (IC Rating and Balanced Scorecard‐like approaches) and cases from different places around the globe are introduced. These methods and conclusions will support any organization wishing to take part in the intellectual capital evolution. The countries, societies, businesses and individuals grasping the opportunity of exploit their intellectual capital in waiting will be the winners of tomorrow. Their skills will be shown in new cultivated leadership, new company navigation tools for strategic mapping and measurement, transparent reporting of intangibles as well as new approaches to risk assessment. The longitude perspective of Leif Edvinsson is for the first time combined with the extensive research made within the EU project, PRISM, as well as with two of the most popular practical applications of intangible measurements, IC Rating and the BSC. In addition, the IC Rating and BSC are intertwined, introducing a completely new approach for organizational development, Sei‐Cho.

The purpose of this paper is to offer a new perspective on entrepreneurial identity as a narrative construction, emerging in stories about entering the family business.

The qualitative methodological approach involves an interpretative analysis of transcribed interviews conducted in narrative style with 12 women from Swedish family businesses.

By presenting entrepreneurial identity as a combination of two distinct narratives, the “passive” entrance into the family business is highlighted. The “Pippi Longstocking” narrative illustrates conscious choices, drive and motivation based on an entrepreneurial identification: the proactive plot. The “Alice in Wonderland” narrative on the other hand, illustrates women who happen to become entrepreneurs or business persons because the family business was there: the reactive plot. The contrasting and complementing narratives illustrate ambiguities in the identity process.

The authors identified the following opportunities for women in family business: the family business can offer easy access to a career and on‐the‐job learning opportunities; education in other areas can be useful when learning how to manage and develop the family business; and the family business offers a generous arena for pursuing a career at different life stages. Implications for education as well as for policy makers are also presented.

The narratives presented are given metaphorical names with the intention to evoke the reader's reflection and reasoning by analogy, which can lead to new insights. The use of metaphors illustrates multiple layers and ambiguities in identity construction. Metaphors can also create awareness of the researcher as a co‐creator of knowledge.