Roles of Informal Workplace

Trainers in Different
Organizational Contexts:
Empirical Evidence from
Australian Companies

Rob F. Poell, Ferd J. Van der Krogt, A. A. Vermulst,

Roger Harris, Michele Simons

Informal workplace trainers help employees learn what they need to know
and do in order to get their job done. Little is known about the actions of
informal workplace trainers, who may be colleagues or supervisors. This
study provides an empirical basis for actions undertaken by informal
workplace trainers. A total of 350 Australian enterprises were interviewed
by telephone. Actions of informal workplace trainers were measured using
a list of thirty-two statements based on prior qualitative research. Three
factors were found to describe core role dimensions: support, structure, and
performance. Also, three types of informal workplace trainer appeared:
some had a passive indifferent role conception, a considerable number had
a restricted role conception, and many had a broad, active role conception.
Relationships of role dimensions and role conceptions with organizational
context variables and characteristics of informal workplace trainers were
tested as well. The study proposes several directions for further research.

Over the past decade, the workplace has been rediscovered as an important
learning environment (Jacobs & Jones, 1995; Eraut, 2000; Streumer, 2006).
As a result, studies examining employee training and learning have been
broadened in at least two respects. First, attention has moved from formal
training to informal training and learning in the workplace and to ways in

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, vol. 17, no. 2, Summer 2006 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.1168 175
176 Poell, Van der Krogt, Vermulst, Harris, Simons

which these can be enhanced (Wenger, 1998; Billett, 2000). Second, the focus
on roles and strategies of formal educators and trainers in organizing employee
learning has been broadened to include those of other organizational actors,
such as colleagues and supervisors (MacNeil, 2001; Ellinger & Bostrom,
2002).
The learning system of organizations has become more diffuse as a result
(Van der Krogt, 1998). Many organizational actors who are involved in orga-
nizing training and learning activities have unclear tasks and responsibilities
that often remain implicit. We refer to these actors as informal workplace train-
ers. They contribute significantly to informal employee learning in the work-
place and support them in formal training participation; however, their own
position in the learning system of the organization has not been formalized.
Employees ask them for support in their educational activities, and the infor-
mal workplace trainers are well aware that they help employees learn. In
human resource development (HRD) literature, their actions are often referred
to as those of a coach, mentor, counselor, or facilitator (Walton, 1999; D’Abate,
Eddy, & Tannenbaum, 2003; Joo, 2005). Experienced colleagues and direct
supervisors, who do occupy a formal position related to the employee’s work,
are often the ones who perform such roles.
The study examined here focuses on the actions of these informal work-
place trainers, especially the positions they assume in the learning systems of
organizations and how they view their own roles in supporting employee
learning. Knowledge about the positions and roles of informal workplace train-
ers is necessary, first, for the maintenance and improvement of learning sys-
tems in organizations. Research has shown that formal educators fail to take
on many of these important tasks (Nijhof, 2004), which should come as no
surprise since they have little authority to rearrange the workplace for
employee learning. Informal workplace trainers, however, have many oppor-
tunities to improve work-related learning. Whereas the usually weak position
of formal educators in the organization makes them prone to designing off-the-
job training programs, informal workplace trainers are in a position to also
influence everyday employee learning on the job. A second possible applica-
tion of knowledge about the positions and roles of informal workplace train-
ers is in developing targeted professionalization programs that focus on the
specific opportunities available to informal workplace trainers in comparison
to formal educators.
Theory also can benefit from added knowledge about the positions and
roles of informal workplace trainers in three ways:

Extending what is already known about the relationships between work and
organization, on the one hand, and learning systems and programs, on
the other hand (see Poell & Van der Krogt, 2002)
Complementing our existing knowledge about work characteristics rele-
vant to learning (for example, Ellström, 2001; Torraco, 1999; Holton,

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

Roles of Informal Workplace Trainers 177

Bates, & Ruona, 2000) with an insight into the perceptions and actions
of those who engage in informal workplace training
Increasing our understanding of the roles of various organizational actors
other than HRD practitioners and workers themselves in influencing
employee learning

Most research to date has focused attention on formal educators (Hytönen,

2002). Although it is often stated that training responsibility should be
devolved to line management and team-level actors (Tjepkema et al., 2002),
little is known to date about the ways in which these informal workplace train-
ers operate. The aim of the study reported here is to provide an empirical basis
for the actions undertaken by informal workplace trainers.
The article first explores theory relevant to the roles of informal workplace
trainers as well as research available in this area. This is followed by an empir-
ical study among informal workplace trainers conducted in Australia. The arti-
cle finishes with a discussion of the main conclusions and an overview of
topics for further research into informal workplace trainer roles.

Theoretical Background: The Roles of Informal

Workplace Trainers in Learning Systems
The learning system of an organization refers to the constellation of organiza-
tional actors who together shape the organization’s learning policy and the
learning activities of its employees (Van der Krogt, 1998; Poell, 2005). This
study focuses particularly on the ways in which learning activities are con-
ducted, leaving aside the issue of learning policy creation.
Employees are core actors in the learning system of an organization, as
they frequently prepare, carry out, control, and adjust everyday learning activ-
ities on the job (Doornbos, Bolhuis, & Simons, 2004; Berings, Poell, &
Simons, 2005). For example, they think about their learning needs, find out
their preferred learning styles, see learning opportunities available in their jobs,
participate in training and education, study literature by themselves, form
learning communities with colleagues from their own organization or exter-
nally, reflect on their work experiences, try to bring coherence to learning activ-
ities conducted in various settings (that is, transfer their learning), evaluate
what they have learned from certain activities, and so forth (Van der Krogt,
2006).
Other organizational actors are involved as well in the learning activities
that these employees conduct (Van der Krogt, 2006). First, there are dedicated
(formal) educators who design and deliver training programs. Guiding employ-
ees through these programs is also an important task of these educators (Billett,
2000). A second important category of actors is direct and indirect colleagues.
Employees participate in all kinds of collaborative learning activities with col-
leagues and also share their experiences with them (Marsick & O’Neil, 1999).

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

178 Poell, Van der Krogt, Vermulst, Harris, Simons

Third, employees’ supervisors are relevant organizational actors. They often act
as their mentors or coaches on the job and sometimes as educators in training
courses (Ellinger, Watkins, & Barnas, 1999).
The latter two categories, colleagues and supervisors, are important infor-
mal workplace trainers. But what are their actual roles when it comes to
organizing employee learning activities on the job? After an overview of the
roles of HRD practitioners in learning systems, several other theoretical
approaches of the relationship among learning, work, and organizations will
be explored to shed more light on the roles of informal workplace trainers.
Roles of HRD Practitioners. A first source of inspiration to better under-
stand what informal workplace trainers do is literature about the roles of HRD
practitioners. The seminal work of McLagan in the United States (McLagan &
Bedrick, 1983; McLagan, 1989; 1996) was replicated in European organi-
zations in the 1990s. Valkeavaara (1999) concluded that the roles of organiza-
tional change agent, instructor, HRD manager, and program designer appeared
to best define the actions of European HRD practitioners.
Empirical evidence about new roles of HRD practitioners in facilitating
self-directed individual and team learning remains inconclusive as yet
(Gubbins & Garavan, 2005). Nijhof (2004) replicated an earlier large-scale
quantitative study among Dutch HRD professionals and found their main tasks
had remained similar over ten years: training delivery, training coordination,
organization development, and training management. Competence manage-
ment, knowledge management, quality control, and training purchase were
deemed important but far from prevalent in organizational reality.
Smaller-scale qualitative studies among HRD professionals in Finland
(Hytönen, 2002) and the United Kingdom (Poell & Chivers, 2003) yielded
similar results. Tjepkema et al. (2002) concluded that across Europe, tradi-
tional HRD strategies still play an important role, although they also found
some good practice in so-called learning-oriented organizations. Case study
research in health care (Poell & Van der Krogt, 2004) suggests that HRD prac-
titioners use few explicit strategies to tailor their training programs to the learn-
ers and their work environment, even though many examples of well-intended
trainer actions were found.
All in all, formal educators seem to play only a limited role in supporting
employee learning on the job and in furthering the ideal of a learning orga-
nization. It is true that since the 1990s, structured on-the-job training has
gained increasing attention (Jacobs & Jones, 1995; Van Zolingen, Streumer,
De Jong, & Van der Klink, 2000; Versloot, De Jong, & Thijssen, 2001). How-
ever, this is still formal training, albeit in the context of the workplace rather
than a classroom. Learning from work (or even integrating learning with
work) is quite a different proposition and apparently not one that formal edu-
cators are very proficient at organizing yet. As far as the roles of informal
workplace trainers are concerned, it is possible that these are partly or entirely
different from the roles of HRD practitioners. Perhaps informal workplace

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

Roles of Informal Workplace Trainers 179

trainers actually take on some of these tasks deemed important (but not often
undertaken) by HRD practitioners, or perhaps their ways of helping employ-
ees learn answer to their own logic, unrelated to formal HRD tasks. It can,
however, safely be assumed that informal workplace trainers use even fewer
explicit strategies to organize workplace learning than formal educators such
as HRD practitioners do.
The Relationships Among Learning, Work, and Organizations. This
section explores to what extent literature on the learning potential of the
workplace, the learning organization, learning transfer systems, and coaching
and mentoring can shed more light on the roles of informal workplace trainers.
Learning Potential of the Workplace. Besides various sources of job-
relevant information available in the workplace (Onstenk, 1997), it is
mainly the work content and the relationships among colleagues and
supervisors that determine the workplace learning opportunities available
to employees. An important characteristic of the work content in this
respect is the degree of variation and complexity in employees’ tasks. A
comprehensive and varied set of tasks offers employees many learning
opportunities, due mainly to a multitude of experiences and room for
experiment. This is especially the case when employees have the necessary
autonomy to organize their own work (Onstenk, 1997; Ellström, 2001).
Relationships with colleagues and supervisors are important because they
determine the nature and amount of feedback received by the employee,
which constitutes a crucial condition for learning (Argyris & Schön, 1996;
Tjepkema, 2003). Other important aspects of the social work environment
include the extent to which colleagues and supervisors are supportive and
encouraging of the employee (Onstenk, 1997). The actions of informal
workplace trainers can be regarded as increasing (aspects of ) the learning
potential of the workplace. They may, for example, guide an employee
through a variety of formative work experiences, gradually increasing his or
her job autonomy, or solicit feedback to the employee from a range of
colleagues (Driver, 2002).
The Learning Organization. Ever since Senge’s seminal work (1990) in this
area, the concept of the learning organization has remained elusive amid the
multitude of definitions intended to clarify its meaning (Yang, Watkins, &
Marsick, 2004). Nevertheless, it is generally accepted that a learning
organization encourages learning at the individual, team, and organizational
level and that the relationships among organizational members are crucial for
such learning to occur. In his overview of the ways in which the learning
organization has been conceptualized, Örtenblad (2002) refers to the learn-
ing climate perspective as emphasizing the facilitation of employee learning
by the organization. If the organizational climate is supportive, learning in the
workplace will be enabled. Marsick and Watkins (2003) distinguished a
number of dimensions that clarify how cultural characteristics of the
organization contribute to employee learning. Especially the two dimensions

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

180 Poell, Van der Krogt, Vermulst, Harris, Simons

of creating continuous learning opportunities and encouraging inquiry and

dialogue are relevant to understanding the potential contribution of informal
workplace trainers. They may, for instance, purposely provide an employee
with a manageable work problem in order to increase his or her self-
confidence or encourage him or her to give colleagues honest feedback about
the implementation of a new work procedure (Tjepkema, 2003).
Learning Transfer Systems. The vast body of research on the transfer of
training and learning transfer systems pays increasing attention to the
workplace factors that affect transfer besides trainee and training
characteristics (Holton et al., 2000; Holton, Chen, & Naquin, 2003). Among
those workplace factors are the employee’s immediate supervisor support as
well as peer support. Managers and colleagues can support the employee by
helping with goal setting, modeling desired behaviors, providing practical
assistance, and giving feedback and reinforcement (Burke & Baldwin, 1999;
Russ-Eft, 2002). These forms of support can also be considered typical actions
on the part of informal workplace trainers. In these ways, the trainers can help
employees transfer what they learned in a training course to the workplace.
There is a link between learning transfer systems and the learning
organization, in that transfer systems can help organizations bridge the gap
between informal and formal training and thus encourage learning throughout
the organization. There is also a link between learning transfer systems and the
concepts of coaching and mentoring.
Coaching and Mentoring. Supervisor support, as an important learning
transfer factor, may take the form of coaching or mentoring. Both constructs
represent developmental interactions between a learner and a developer
with a certain degree of downward direction; however, coaching usually
has a short-term orientation, a specific focus, and an emphasis on practical
application, whereas mentoring is associated with a long-term orientation, a
general object of development, and a focus on providing support (D’Abate
et al., 2003). Joo (2005) summarized these differences in his statement that
mentoring is people focused and coaching is issue focused. Both coaching and
mentoring roles can be performed by informal workplace trainers, although
probably not to a highly structured and formalized degree. From their
empirical study in a Fortune 10 company, Ellinger et al. (1999) concluded
that even in a concerted effort to have managers take on educational roles,
many of them showed only modest support to actually serve as trainers.
The notion that managers should become coaches has been very popular
in the past decade (Greenwood, Wasson, & Giles, 1993; Marquardt &
Reynolds, 1994; Watkins & Marsick, 1996), but other empirical studies,
like that of Ellinger et al. (1999), have shown that organizational practices
lag behind literature in this respect (for example, Gibb, 2003; Renwick,
2003). It is still possible, however, that many supervisors take on informal
mentoring or coaching roles or help employees develop in other, less
structured ways.

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

Roles of Informal Workplace Trainers 181

The Research Study

This review of the literature suggests many ways in which informal work-
place trainers could operate. However, there is a clear lack of empirical insight
into the actions of informal workplace trainers within the learning system of their
organizations, especially viewed from their own perspective. There is little
knowledge also about the ways in which informal workplace trainers interpret
their own roles. Therefore, we investigated four research questions in this study:

1. Which actions do informal workplace trainers undertake?

2. Which role dimensions can be detected in the actions of informal
workplace trainers?
3. If role dimensions can be detected, which different role conceptions do
informal workplace trainers have, based on those dimensions?

After determining the role dimensions and role conceptions of informal

workplace trainers, their relationship with a number of background charac-
teristics will be investigated (Versloot et al., 2001; Holton et al., 2003):

4. How are role dimensions and role conceptions related to organizational

context variables and to characteristics of informal workplace trainers?

Method. The research process consisted of a qualitative stage and a quan-

titative stage. The aim of the qualitative stage was to gain clear insight into how
informal workplace trainers organize employee learning on the job within a
selected group of enterprises. The result was a list of actions undertaken by
informal workplace trainers, which was used to develop an instrument for data
collection in the second part of the study. The aim of this quantitative stage
was to obtain information about informal workplace trainer actions in a large
sample of enterprises.
Sampling. The first stage of the research process involved observations
and interviews in eighteen enterprises selected according to a three-way strat-
ified sampling design. The first stratification criterion was a selection of three
states in Australia: South Australia, New South Wales, and Victoria. The sec-
ond criterion was the size of the enterprises: small, medium, and large. The
third criterion was a selection of three industries. Building and construction
was selected because it was regarded as an industry with a more traditional
(that is, classroom-based) approach to training than the other industries. Infor-
mation technology was selected because it is a relatively new and growing
industry experiencing rapid change. This industry, it was believed, was facing
unique challenges in employee training not encountered to the same extent in
other industries. Real estate was selected because there is no well-established
industry preservice training; most training is undertaken on the job and con-
ducted by peers or immediate managers.

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

182 Poell, Van der Krogt, Vermulst, Harris, Simons

The selection of the enterprises was spread across the three states so that
six companies were observed in each state: one large (one hundred or more
employees), two medium (twenty to ninety-nine employees), and three small
(fewer than twenty employees) enterprises. For each company, a researcher
observed an employee with his or her informal workplace trainer, used an
observation schedule to record the actions of this trainer and the trainer—
employee interaction, and recorded verbal interactions where possible. Fol-
lowing these observations, the informal workplace trainers were interviewed
using semistructured interview schedules. Twenty-nine observations combined
with interviews were held at the eighteen enterprises that had been selected.
There were three sources of data during the qualitative stage of the
research process: transcripts of the training episodes that had been observed,
transcripts of the interviews held with informal workplace trainers, and
researchers’ field notes. The transcripts were coded and analyzed using
NUD.ist software (Non-numerical Unstructured Data-Indexing, Searching and
Theorizing). This analysis was an iterative process starting with initial cate-
gories that emerged from the general themes in the transcripts. These provi-
sional categories were refined as new insights emerged during several rounds
of constantly comparing transcript scenes. Field notes were used to provide
the transcript scenes with necessary context details. Agreement was sought
from each of the three researchers throughout the qualitative analysis. In these
ways, validity and consistency of interpretation were checked. From this
process, thirty-two statements were identified as informal workplace trainer
actions undertaken in the eighteen enterprises under study. These formed the
nucleus of the interview schedule for the quantitative research part, which are
reported here.
Participants. Telephone interviews were planned to include a cross-
section of enterprises within the building and construction (BC), information
technology (IT), and real estate (RE) industries from the three states in
Australia. Enterprises were selected having at least one person who had expe-
rience training at least one employee on the job. This informal workplace
trainer was selected by the enterprise to match the following description given
by the interviewer: “We are conducting a survey about people who, for part of
their job, have some responsibilities for training the people they work with,
usually as on-the-job training. It’s usually more informal training and might
involve working with apprentices, trainees or employees who are new or less
experienced and now need some assistance in learning more about their job.”
Thus, selected informal workplace trainers were asked which of several state-
ments (listed in Table 1) best described their role as informal workplace train-
ers in the enterprises where they worked. One person in each enterprise was
interviewed.
Only 8 percent claimed that they were required to act as a formal workplace
trainer because it was written in their job description. The remainder (92 percent)
were involved in employee on-the-job training as informal workplace trainers.

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

Roles of Informal Workplace Trainers 183

Table 1. Statements That Best Describe the Interviewee’s Role as an

Informal Workplace Trainer
Number Percentage
1 I am required to act as a workplace trainer because it is written 29 8
into my job description.
2 I am expected to train other employees, but it is not something 65 19
written into my job description.
3 I train other employees because it is something that I think is part 178 51
of my job.
4 I train other employees because they ask me for help. 78 22
Totals 350 100

The respondents reported a wide range in years of work experience. One-

third had worked for five years or less, 18 percent for between six and ten
years, 27 percent for eleven to twenty years, 14 percent for twenty-one to thirty
years, and the remaining 7 percent for more than thirty years. They reported
that 45 percent (n ⫽ 156) of them were the owners of the enterprise. Of these,
67 percent were in microenterprises, 26 percent were in small companies, and
7 percent were in medium to large enterprises. In the building and construc-
tion industry, 54 percent were owners. For real estate and information tech-
nology, these figures were 44 percent and 37 percent, respectively. The
proportion of informal workplace trainers who had been prepared for their
task through formal courses was relatively small. Four types of preparatory
course emerged, with a positive response from 13 percent, 7 percent, 32 per-
cent, and 10 percent of the respondents. These small proportions are not unex-
pected given that the sample was directed to informal workplace trainers.
Informal workplace trainers in 350 enterprises were interviewed. There
were 162 (46 percent) microenterprises (fewer than six employees), 108 (31
percent) small companies (six to twenty employees), and 80 (23 percent)
medium to large enterprises (more than twenty employees). The companies are
equally represented from the three states. The building and construction indus-
try was represented by 116 respondents (33 percent), information technology
by 126 respondents (36 percent), and real estate by 108 respondents (31 per-
cent). Organization-level data were obtained from the individual respondents.
Measures. The interviewer asked some background information about
the organizational context and some characteristics of the informal workplace
trainer. The organizational context consisted of two variables: (1) type of orga-
nization (building and construction, information technology, or real estate) and
(2) company size (number of employees in the organization). The character-
istics of the informal workplace trainer collected were (3) their experience
(number of years of work experience in the enterprise), (4) their position
(Were they also the owner of the enterprise?), and (5) exposure to workplace
trainer courses (Had the trainer completed formal preparatory courses?).

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

184 Poell, Van der Krogt, Vermulst, Harris, Simons

The central part of the interview was about the actions undertaken by the
informal workplace trainer. It consisted of a list of thirty-two statements (items)
about actions that informal workplace trainer may undertake (derived in the
qualitative analysis stage). The respondent was asked to rate each statement
on a scale with the following response categories: 1 ⫽ hardly at all, 2 ⫽ not
very often, 3 ⫽ sometimes, 4 ⫽ often, 5 ⫽ very often.
Procedure. The telephone interviews were conducted using the MS CATI
(Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) system of the Marketing Science
Centre at the University of South Australia (UniSA). The interviews each lasted
an average of twelve minutes and were conducted during normal business
hours with a random sample of enterprises drawn from the Desktop Market-
ing Systems database. Trained interviewers conducted all interviews, and the
data collection process was monitored to ensure the quality of the data col-
lected. A standardized questionnaire was employed to minimize interviewer
bias. Respondents were informed that the study was conducted in compliance
with the UniSA criteria concerning anonymity and confidentiality.
For each industry in each state, it was planned to interview 18 microen-
terprises, 12 small companies, and 12 larger enterprises. In this way 126 enter-
prises in each of the three states would be surveyed (totaling 378 enterprises).
In reality, larger enterprises were difficult to find in building and construction
and, particularly, in the real estate industry. Therefore, to save time and money,
the decision was made to cease telephoning earlier than planned. Conse-
quently, 350 interviews were actually completed, one in each enterprise.

Results
This section presents the outcomes of our analyses. The actions of informal
workplace trainers are reduced to a number of role dimensions and role con-
ceptions, which are then related to organizational context variables and trainer
characteristics.
Actions Undertaken by Informal Workplace Trainers. The output of the
qualitative part of our research consisted of thirty-two actions that were rated
on a five-point Likert scale. In the appendix, these actions are arranged accord-
ing to the mean value on the Likert scale, starting with the most frequent
actions. To gain more insight into the core actions undertaken by informal
workplace trainers, factor analysis was applied. The resulting role dimensions
that were found among the thirty-two actions are presented in the next section.
Role Dimensions of Informal Workplace Trainers. The thirty-two actions
undertaken by informal workplace trainers were used as input for exploratory
principal factor analyses followed by oblique rotation. The latter implies that
factors are allowed to correlate. A three-factor solution was suggested
(eigenvalues greater than 1). Items loading low on the principal factor (less
than .30), loading on two factors, or loading low on all three factors were
removed one by one during successive factor analyses. The final factor solution

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

Roles of Informal Workplace Trainers 185

(pattern matrix) and the reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) of the three factors are
given in Table 2.
The first factor (Support, nine items) describes actions undertaken to sup-
port learners in learning, the second factor (Structure, six items) contains
actions to structure the work for learning, and the third factor (Performance,

Table 2. Exploratory Factor Analysis Results and Reliabilities

Item Support Structure Performance
21 Challenging the employee to explore new or .58 ⫺.05 .20
alternate ways of doing things
23 Learning about new ideas, products, processes from .55 ⫺.12 .08
the employee
24 Taking opportunities that arise during the day to talk .55 .06 ⫺.15
with the employee
26 Making connections between seemingly .54 .08 ⫺.01
unconnected events
07 Listening to the employee about any concerns or .45 ⫺.03 .19
difficulties
22 Encouraging the employee to evaluate his or her own .44 .15 .10
work performance
08 Helping the employee to work out problems that .38 .06 .14
occur in the workplace
02 Giving feedback and encouragement to the employee .34 .12 .18
05 Making time to talk to the employee about his or her .30 .08 .09
work
19 Coming to an agreement with the employee about ⫺.13 .62 .05
types of activity
28 Working out learning goals with the employee .11 .49 .03
13 Planning the structure of work ⫺.07 .48 .21
29 Reorganizing what might be done at work .23 .46 ⫺.10
17 Talking with an employee to work out what this ⫺.03 .45 .06
person does about aspects of his or her job
30 Talking to the employee about differences between .21 .43 ⫺.02
how things are done
03 Monitoring the work flow and the quality of the ⫺.09 .13 .65
employee’s work
18 Making judgments about how fast or slow the pace .05 .07 .60
of work needs to be
14 Organizing work so that the employee is able .20 ⫺.05 .58
to tackle a variety of work tasks
15 Making judgments about how to balance the needs .09 .08 .53
of the employee
09 Managing the flow of work while helping the .13 .03 .51
employee to learn what has to be done
Explained total variance: 32.6%
Cronbach’s alpha .79 .72 .78
Note: For the full text of the items, see the appendix; the numbers in this table match those in the
appendix.
Bold typeface indicates which items load on each factor.

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

186 Poell, Van der Krogt, Vermulst, Harris, Simons

Table 3. Mean Cluster Standard Scores on the Three Role Dimensions

and the Cluster Typology
Mean Standard Scores Typology of the Clusters
Cluster Number Support Structure Performance Support Structure Performance
Passive 44 ⫺1.46 ⫺.90 ⫺2.05 — ⫺ —
Restricted 133 ⫺.39 ⫺.64 .01 0 ⫺ 0
Broad active 173 .66 .70 .49 ⫹ ⫹ ⫹

five items) focuses on the work performance itself. The role dimensions of
informal workplace trainers can thus be summarized into three factors or
dimensions: Support, Structure, and Performance. The reliabilities (Cronbach’s
alpha) of the three factors are substantial (.79, .72, and .78, respectively).
The correlations between the three factors are .43 (Support ⫻ Structure),
.53 (Support ⫻ Performance), and .45 (Structure ⫻ Performance), which
indicates that more focus on support implies more focus on structure, as well
as more focus on performance.
Role Conceptions of Informal Workplace Trainers. To examine whether
different types of informal workplace trainer could be distinguished in terms
of the ways they conceived of their roles, cluster analyses were performed.
Scale scores for all respondents were calculated on each of the three role
dimensions by calculating the mean of the item scores belonging to a particu-
lar role dimension. The scores on a particular role dimension can vary between
1 (⫽ hardly) and 5 (⫽ very often). Using the k-means clustering technique in
SPSS, a three-cluster solution was deemed optimal, producing as it did a rea-
sonable number of respondents in each of the clusters and an interpretable
solution. The mean standard scores on each of the three role dimensions are
given in Table 3.
A mean standard score between ⫺.43 and .43 was interpreted as an aver-
age level (0), a score below ⫺.43 as a low level (⫺) and above .43 as a high
level (⫹), and a score below ⫺.93 as a very low level (⫺) and above .93 as a
very high level (⫹⫹, not encountered here). These intervals were chosen
because in normal distributions, approximately one-third of the standard
scores are between ⫺.43 and ⫹ .43 (mean level), one-sixth of the scores are
between .43 and .93 or between ⫺.43 and ⫺.93, and one-sixth of the scores
are above .93 or below ⫺.93.
Three types of informal workplace trainer emerged from the cluster analysis:

Cluster A with 44 trainers scoring very low to low on each of the three role
dimension can be labeled as having a passive indifferent role conception.
Cluster B with 133 trainers scoring at an average level on support and
performance and low on structure can be labeled as demonstrating a
restricted role conception.

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

Roles of Informal Workplace Trainers 187

Cluster C with 173 trainers scoring high on all three action domains can be
labeled as presenting a broad, active role conception.

Relating Role Dimensions and Role Conceptions to Context and Trainer

Characteristics. Two organizational context variables (type of organization
and organization size) and three characteristics of informal workplace trainers
(work experience of the informal workplace trainer, position of the informal
workplace trainer, and their exposure to formal preparatory courses) were
related to the role dimensions and role conceptions.
Type of Organization. Differences among the three types of organization
with respect to the role dimensions were tested using MANOVA. Differences
with respect to role conceptions were tested using cross tabulation. The test
results are given in Table 4.
For role dimensions, it was first tested whether overall significant differences
existed among the groups in relation to the three dependent variables (Support,
Structure, and Performance). Wilks’s lambda was significant (F(6,662) ⫽ 3.47,
p ⫽ .002). Successive ANOVAs tested which of the three dependent variables
showed significant differences among the three types of organization. The variable
Support did not show significant differences among the three types (F(2,333) ⫽
.63, NS). The other two variables did show significant differences: Structure
(F(2,333) ⫽ 5.15, p ⫽ .006) and Performance (F(2,333) ⫽ 5.09, p ⫽ .007). For
each of these two variables, Bonferroni post hoc tests were carried out to detect
which organizational types differed significantly from each other. The results are
given in the left-hand part of Table 4. On the Structure dimension, the informa-
tion technology enterprises scored significantly lower than building and con-
struction, as well as real estate. On the Performance dimension, it appeared that
the building and construction companies scored significantly higher than
information technology, as well as real estate.
The relation of the three role conceptions with the three types of organization
was examined using a 3 ⫻ 3 cross table, as evident in the right-hand part of Table 4.
The chi-square test did not show a significant relationship: ␹2(4) ⫽ 3.71, p ⫽ .347.
Role conceptions were therefore not related to the type of organization.
Organization Size. Company size was divided into three groups: (1) five
or fewer or less employees, (2) six to twenty employees, and (3) more than
twenty employees. Using MANOVA, it was tested whether differences
existed among the three groups with respect to the three role dimensions.
Wilks’s lambda was not significant (F(6,666) ⫽ 1.58, NS), indicating that no
overall significant differences existed. The levels of Support, Structure, and
Performance were not related to company size. The 3 ⫻ 3 cross table of
company size with role conceptions did not show a significant relationship
either: ␹2(4) ⫽ 3.20, p ⫽ .525, indicating that role conceptions were not
related to company size.
Work Experience of the Informal Workplace Trainer. The work experience
of the respondents was expressed in the number of years that the respondent

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

 Table 4. Organizational Type in Relation to Role Dimensions and Role Conceptions: Statistics and Test Results

Role Dimensions Role Conceptions

Support Structure Performance Broad,

Type of Passive Restricted Active Total
Organization Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD % % % % N
Building and 4.04 (.81) 3.69 (.86) 4.40 (.82) 27 34 34 33 116
construction
Information 3.92 (.86) 3.31 (1.04) 4.05 (1.03) 41 40 32 36 126
technology
Real estate 4.02 (.73) 3.64 (1.03) 4.03 (1.02) 32 26 34 31 108
Bonferroni No significant IT < BC IT < BC % 100 100 100 100
post hoc tests differences IT < RE RE < BC N 44 133 173 350
Roles of Informal Workplace Trainers 189

had worked in the enterprise. This varied from 1 to 50 (mean ⫽ 13.3, SD ⫽

10.5). The correlation of experience with the role dimension support was
.03 (NS), with structure .13 (p ⫽ .021), and with performance .09 (NS).
Therefore, a very weak relationship exists between experience and
structuring the work for learners: longer work experience in the enterprise
increases the informal workplace trainer’s focus on structuring employees’
work for learning.
The relationship of role conception with the experience of the workplace
trainers was examined using a one-way ANOVA. Role conception was the inde-
pendent variable and number of years of work experience in the enterprise the
dependent variable. No significant differences were found among the three role
conceptions: F(2,232) ⫽ .46, p ⫽ .629.
Position of the Informal Workplace Trainer. Of the respondents, 45 per-
cent were also the owner of the enterprise. Using t tests for independent
groups, we tested whether the position of the workplace trainer (owners or
nonowners) showed differences with respect to the three role dimensions.
For role conceptions we used cross tabulation. The results are in Table 5.
From the left-hand side of Table 5, we can conclude that owners as infor-
mal workplace trainers have significantly higher mean scores than nonowners
on each of the three role dimensions. Owners report a higher level of Support
(t(345) ⫽ 2.19, p ⫽ .029), Structure (t(344) ⫽ 3.92, p ⫽ .000), and Perfor-
mance (t(338) ⫽ 1.97, p ⫽ .050).
Role conceptions are related to the position of the workplace trainer
(owners or nonowners) as well. The 3 (role conceptions) ⫻ 2 (owners or
nonowners) cross table showed a significant relationship: ␹2(2) ⫽ 6.86,
p ⫽ .032. From the left-hand part of Table 5 can be derived that owners were
overrepresented in the cluster denoted as having a broad, active role
conception.
Exposure to Formal Preparatory Courses. The proportion of informal work-
place trainers who had been exposed to formal workplace trainer courses was
relatively small. For this reason, we decided to conceptualize “exposure to formal
preparatory courses” as having completed at least one such training course. It
appeared that 39 percent of the informal workplace trainers had completed at
least one training course. Using t tests for independent groups, differences in role
dimensions were tested. The relationship with role conceptions was tested using
cross tabulation. The results are shown in Table 6.
Workplace trainers who completed at least one formal preparatory course
reported significantly higher levels of providing Support (t(346) ⫽ 2.91,
p ⫽ .004) and Structure (t(345) ⫽ 3.26, p ⫽ .001), but no stronger focus on
Performance (t(339) ⫽ .65, NS), as the left-hand part of Table 6 shows.
The relationship of role conception with exposure to formal preparatory
courses was tested using a 3 ⫻ 2 cross table. A significant relationship was
found: ␹2(2) ⫽ 8.72, p ⫽ .013. The right-hand part of Table 6 shows that

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

 Table 5. Position of Informal Workplace Trainer Related to Role Dimensions and Role Conceptions:
Statistics and Test Results
Role Dimensions Role Conceptions

Support Structure Performance Broad,

Is Workplace Passive Restricted Active Total
Trainer Owner? Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD % % % % N
Yes 4.13 (.69) 3.86 (.84) 4.27 (.87) 36 38 52 45 157
No 3.95 (.82) 3.48 (.95) 4.07 (1.04) 64 62 48 55 193
t value 2.19 3.92 1.97 % 100 100 100 100
p value .029 .000 .050 N 44 133 173 350

Table 6. Exposure to Formal Preparatory Courses Related to Role Dimensions and Role Conceptions:
Statistics and Test Results
Role Dimensions Role Conceptions

Support Structure Performance Restricted Broad,

Completed at Passive Active Active Total
Least One Course Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD % % % % N
Yes 4.18 (.74) 3.86 (.87) 4.21 (.99) 34 30 46 39 135
No 3.94 (.77) 3.53 (.94) 4.14 (.96) 66 70 54 61 215
t value 2.91 3.26 .65 % 100 100 100 100
p value .004 .001 NS N 44 133 173 350
Roles of Informal Workplace Trainers 191

formally trained workplace trainers were overrepresented in the broad, active

role conception category.

Discussion
This study set out to investigate the role dimensions and role conceptions of
informal workplace trainers as well as the extent to which these are affected by
their organizational position and context. The concept of an informal work-
place trainer comprises all organizational actors involved in supporting
employee learning at the workplace in one way or another. Informal workplace
trainers do not occupy an organizational position that is formally or explicitly
linked to employee training. They may be colleagues or supervisors, who do
occupy a formal position related to the employee’s work. The study investi-
gated the actions of informal workplace trainers in supporting employees as
they learn. Four conclusions can be drawn from the study.
First, informal workplace trainers perform a large number of actions rel-
evant to employee learning. Thirty-two different actions were reported in this
study. Most of these actions are different from those undertaken by formal
educators (Hytönen, 2002; Nijhof, 2004), but they seem to fit rather well
with actions subsumed under supervisor and peer support, as referred to in
the literature on the learning potential of the workplace (Ellström, 2001),
learning organizations (Marsick & Watkins, 2003), learning transfer systems
(Burke & Baldwin, 1999), and coaching and mentoring (D’Abate et al.,
2003).
Second, informal workplace trainers perceive three core role dimensions in
this wide range of actions. Three factors emerged underlying the thirty-two dif-
ferent actions: actions undertaken to support learners as they learn (Support),
actions aimed at structuring the work of employees for learning (Structure), and
actions focusing on employee work performance itself (Performance). The sup-
port dimension can be linked to the learning climate notions inherent in Marsick
and Watkins’s (2003) approach of the learning organization. It can also be con-
nected to the concept of mentoring (D’Abate et al., 2003). The learners and their
development are central to this dimension. The Structure dimension capitalizes
on the approach of increasing the learning potential of work (Ellström, 2001).
The work content and environment as contexts for learning are crucial in this
dimension. The Performance dimension does not focus on learning per se and as
such can be linked to the concept of coaching (Joo, 2005), where resolving an
issue over a short time frame is emphasized.
Third, three types of informal workplace trainer with different role concep-
tions can be distinguished; that is, they interpret their roles very differently. Espe-
cially the breadth of their roles varies strongly from one informal workplace trainer
to another. Three types of informal workplace trainer with different role concep-
tions emerged from the data: (1) a relatively small group (13 percent) with a pas-
sive role conception who provide little support, offer little structure, and pay little

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

192 Poell, Van der Krogt, Vermulst, Harris, Simons

attention to employee work performance; (2) a considerable number of informal

workplace trainers (38 percent) with a restricted role conception, offering little
structure and average support and attention to performance; and (3) a large group
(49 percent) of respondents with a broad, active role conception, who provided
a lot of support and structure and emphasized performance as well. In terms of
their role conceptions, the third type had most in common with formal educators
(Hytönen, 2002; Nijhof, 2004). Unlike the other two types, many informal work-
place trainers with a broad, active role conception had been exposed to at least
one formal preparatory course.
Fourth, role dimensions and role conceptions are related to a number of
informal workplace trainer and organizational context characteristics. With
respect to the three role dimensions, these were found to be related in part to
organizational type, number of years of experience, position in the enterprise
(owner or nonowner), and exposure to at least one formal preparatory course.
Informal workplace trainers in information technology companies engaged
less in structuring employees’ work for learning, perhaps because IT work
already offers many learning opportunities. Within building and construction
enterprises, informal workplace trainers focused more on the actual work per-
formance of employees, which may have to do with the traditional culture in
many of those companies in which learning as such is not valued. The more
years of experience as an informal workplace trainer, the more they were
inclined to structure employees’ work for learning. This could be because their
overview enables them to organize highly effective work-based learning oppor-
tunities for employees.
Informal workplace trainers who were enterprise owners showed higher
levels of support, structure, and focus on performance than nonowners. The
same was true of informal workplace trainers who had been exposed to at least
one formal preparatory course. They also showed higher levels of support,
structure, and focus on performance compared to those without any prepara-
tion. In both instances, it could be argued that these informal workplace train-
ers had probably been triggered to pay explicit attention to the way in which
they developed their (new) employees or colleagues. No relationship was
found between role dimensions and enterprise size, indicating that the levels
of support, structure, and focus on performance of informal workplace train-
ers are independent of company size. Apparently their developmental rela-
tionship to an employee is mostly a one-on-one interaction not helped or
hindered by the scale of the organization.
Informal workplace trainers who were enterprise owners or had been
exposed to formal preparatory courses were overrepresented in the cluster with
a broad, active role conception. However, the three role conceptions were not
related to organizational type, size of the enterprise, or experience as an infor-
mal workplace trainer. Perhaps role conceptions are relatively stable and tied
to the individual person. It is possible that informal workplace trainers with a
broad, active role conception are more likely to become enterprise owners and

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

Roles of Informal Workplace Trainers 193

participate in training courses. Further research needs to be conducted to clar-

ify these relationships.
The findings of this study may be limited because of the sample, which is
restricted to three industries in three states in one country (Australia). Caution
needs to be observed in generalizing the results to other countries. It should
also be noted that the method chosen to collect the quantitative data (tele-
phone interviews) might affect the results to some extent. Although this
method turned out to be useful for large-scale data collection with a very high
response rate, holding face-to-face interviews or sending out written ques-
tionnaires might have resulted in different responses.
Implications for Human Resource Development. Informal workplace
trainers seem to perceive a variety of roles for themselves based on their actions
in supporting employee learning. Many of the informal workplace trainers in
our sample perform actions associated with increasing the learning potential
of employees’ work (Ellström, 2001), encouraging a learning organization
(Marsick & Watkins, 2003), furthering learning transfer (Holton et al., 2000),
and coaching and mentoring (D’Abate et al., 2003). Research among formal
HRD practitioners (Valkeavaara, 1999; Poell & Chivers, 2003; Nijhof, 2004)
shows that they experience difficulties in organizing informal work-based
learning activities for employees, although these are deemed very important.
Our study shows that informal workplace trainers are actively involved in orga-
nizing such activities. Formal HRD practitioners could benefit from collabo-
rating with informal workplace trainers to combine formal and informal
learning contexts more effectively.
Our study shows that informal workplace trainers who have received for-
mal training in preparation of their (new) role have a broader, more multifac-
eted repertoire than those who have not. This may seem logical in view of the
fact that they are likely to be more familiar with training and learning princi-
ples and therefore more confident in providing more support and structure to
facilitate these processes. Also, the impact of self-reflection as a result of par-
ticipation in a preparatory course may lead to more awareness of what it is they
are doing supporting employee learning. However, it is possible that the causal
direction goes the other way around, in that people with a broad role con-
ception are more likely to engage in preparatory training. Also, it should be
noted that our study has investigated the images of informal workplace trainers
about their own roles. We do not know as yet what employees expect from
informal workplace trainers or which roles employees actually perceive in
everyday practice. Further research should clarify these issues.
If it is true that training for informal workplace trainers helps, this is an
important finding for further professionalization of informal workplace trainers.
It also raises serious questions, however, about deprofessionalization of HRD
practitioners. Should the tendency, found in literature although not often cor-
roborated in empirical studies, for HRD practitioners to change the workplace
for employee learning be supported? Or is there more to be gained by having

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

194 Poell, Van der Krogt, Vermulst, Harris, Simons

well-prepared informal workplace trainers help employees learn along the lines
found in our empirical study? Probably formal HRD practitioners and informal
workplace trainers each have their own realm—the former that of formal edu-
cation, the latter that of workplace learning—in which they should do what
they are really good at: devising quality training programs in the former case,
supporting employee learning in various ways in the latter. Research could also
study (possible) collaborations among formal HRD practitioners and informal
workplace trainers. How are these organized, and to what effects? To what
extent can (or should) workplace trainers learn from HRD practitioners to work
more according to standardized training procedures, and to what extent can (or
should) HRD practitioners learn from workplace trainers to tailor their learn-
ing programs to the learners and their work situation?
Directions for Further Research. Further research into supporting
employee learning in organizations should focus on three themes: different
actor roles, the positions of informal workplace trainers, and employee learn-
ing programs.
First, research should investigate the roles of different actors in the learn-
ing network of the organization. What are the roles in organizing learning
activities of the employees themselves, formal HRD practitioners, internal and
external colleagues, supervisors and managers, and professional associations
and sectoral bodies? And how do the various actor roles interact in shaping and
maintaining the learning network of the organization?
Second, the positions and roles of informal workplace trainers should be
the object of closer investigation, especially in relationship to different organi-
zational types. Our study did not focus specifically on the positions of infor-
mal workplace trainers. However, the roles of colleagues as informal workplace
trainers may differ from those of supervisors. It would also be interesting to
compare the roles of formal educators from dedicated HR staff departments
to those of informal workplace trainers from the shop floor.
Also deserving more attention is the question of whether the role of informal
workplace trainers in supporting employee learning is related to the structure of
work in the primary process of the organization. A comparison among self-
managing work teams, individual work, and departments organized along Tay-
loristic principles would be worthwhile in this respect. Do informal workplace
trainers get to occupy different roles if they can exert more impact on the content
of employees’ work (Van der Krogt, 1998; Ellström, 2001; Poell, 2005)?
Third, the learning programs conducted by employees should be further
investigated. Learning programs combine formal education or training
activities with forms of workplace learning. Formal educators are important
actors in the former activities, whereas the latter type of learning is supported
mainly by informal workplace trainers. There are various ways in which such
employee learning programs can be organized. An important question refers
to the possible roles to be played by informal workplace trainers in different
learning program types (Poell & Van der Krogt, 2002).

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

Roles of Informal Workplace Trainers 195

Appendix: Actions Undertaken by Informal Workplace

Trainers Arranged according to Mean Value
Item Mean SD
01 Talking to the employee as you work 4.70 .86
with him or her about what he or she is doing
02 Giving feedback and encouragement to the 4.50 1.03
employee about his or her work performance
03 Monitoring the work flow and the quality 4.46 1.16
of the employee’s work
04 Organizing work so that the employee can be given 4.41 1.16
tasks he or she can tackle on his or her own
05 Making time to talk to the employee about his or her work 4.39 1.11
06 Encouraging employees to share their knowledge 4.32 1.24
and expertise with others (for example, in meetings)
07 Listening to the employee about any concerns or 4.31 1.24
difficulties he or she might be having in the workplace
08 Helping the employee to work out problems that 4.31 1.15
occur in the workplace
09 Managing the flow of work so that it helps the 4.26 1.32
employee to learn what has to be done
10 Doing a job with an employee so that you can help 4.24 1.22
him or her with the tasks
11 Telling the employee stories—for example, what has 4.22 1.33
happened in the past and interesting things about the job
12 Encouraging the employee to take on more difficult 4.17 1.24
and complex tasks over time
13 Planning the structure of work so that the employee 4.15 1.34
is able to join in and work at a level that is best for
him or her
14 Organizing work so that the employee is able to 4.14 1.33
tackle a variety of work tasks
15 Making judgments about how to balance the needs 4.08 1.38
of the employee to learn the job and the need to get
the job done
16 Asking other workers to help the employee to learn 3.94 1.44
different aspects of the job
17 Talking with an employee to work out what he or she 3.89 1.55
does and does not know about aspects of his or her job
18 Making judgments about how fast or slow the pace 3.88 1.51
of work needs to be so that the employee can keep up
19 Coming to an agreement with the employee 3.86 1.54
about the types of activities he or she will do
in order to help learn the job

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

196 Poell, Van der Krogt, Vermulst, Harris, Simons

20 Correcting the employee’s mistakes 3.85 1.51

21 Challenging the employee to explore new or 3.82 1.48
alternate ways of doing things
22 Encouraging the employee to evaluate his or her 3.79 1.52
own work performance
23 Learning about new ideas, products, and processes 3.61 1.48
from the employee
24 Taking opportunities that arise during the day 3.60 1.62
(such as at lunch time) to talk with the employee
about his or her job
25 Organizing resources for the employee (for example, 3.47 1.61
books, materials, people)
26 Making connections between seemingly unconnected 3.44 1.49
events so that the employee can use his or her
learning in new or different situations
27 Organizing work so that the employee can spend time 3.16 1.70
watching other workers, asking questions, and so forth
28 Working out learning goals with the employee 3.16 1.70
29 Reorganizing what might be done at work so that it fits 2.94 1.65
more closely with the employee’s off-job training
30 Talking to the employee about the difference 2.93 1.62
between how things are done in your workplace and what
he or she might be learning in any off-site training
31 Going to events with the employee such as 2.68 1.71
training sessions, conferences
32 Talking to training providers who are organizing 2.39 1.62
off-job training for the employee (for example,
employee progress, negotiating alternative assessment
tasks, giving feedback)

References
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice. Read-
ing, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Berings, M.G.M.C., Poell, R. F., & Simons, P.R.J. (2005). Conceptualizing on-the-job learning
styles. Human Resource Development Review, 4 (4), 373–400.
Billett, S. (2000). Guided learning at work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 12 (7), 272–295.
Burke, L. A., & Baldwin, T. T. (1999). Workforce training transfer: A study on the effect of relapse
prevention training and transfer climate. Human Resource Management, 38 (3), 227–242.
D’Abate, C. P., Eddy, E. R., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (2003). What’s in a name? A literature-based
approach to understanding mentoring, coaching, and other constructs that describe develop-
mental interactions. Human Resource Development Review, 2 (4), 360–384.
Doornbos, A. J., Bolhuis, S. M., & Simons, P.R.J. (2004). Modeling work-related learning on the
basis of intentionality and developmental relatedness: A non-educational perspective. Human
Resource Development Review, 3 (3), 250–274.
Driver, M. (2002). Learning and leadership in organizations: Toward complimentary communi-
ties of practice. Management Learning, 33 (1), 99–126.

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

Roles of Informal Workplace Trainers 197

Ellinger, A. D., & Bostrom, R. P. (2002). An examination of managers’ beliefs about their roles as
facilitators of learning. Management Learning, 33 (2), 147–179.
Ellinger, A. D., Watkins, K. E., & Barnas, C. M. (1999). Responding to new roles: A qualitative
study of managers as instructors. Management Learning, 30 (4), 387–412.
Ellström, P. E. (2001). Integrating learning and work: Problems and prospects. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 12 (4), 421–435.
Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. British Journal
of Educational Psychology, 70 (1), 113–136.
Gibb, S. (2003). Line manager involvement in learning and development; Small beer or big deal?
Employee Relations, 3, 281–293.
Greenwood, T., Wasson, A., & Giles, R. (1993). The learning organization: Concepts, processes,
and questions. Performance and Instruction, 32 (4), 7–11.
Gubbins, M. C., & Garavan, T. N. (2005). Studying HRD practitioners: A social capital model.
Human Resource Development Review, 4 (2), 189–218.
Holton III, E. F., Bates, R. A., & Ruona, W.E.A. (2000). Development of a generalized learning
transfer system inventory. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11 (4), 333–360.
Holton III, E. F., Chen, H., & Naquin, S. S. (2003). An examination of learning transfer system char-
acteristics across organizational settings. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14 (4), 459–482.
Hytönen, T. (2002). Exploring the practice of human resource development as a field of professional
expertise. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Jyväskylä, Finland.
Jacobs, R. L., & Jones, M. J. (1995). Structured on-the-job training: Unleashing employee expertise
in the workplace. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Joo, B. (2005). Executive coaching: A conceptual framework from an integrative review of prac-
tice and research. Human Resource Development Review, 4 (4), 462–488.
MacNeil, C. (2001). The supervisor as a facilitator of informal learning in work teams. Journal of
Workplace Learning, 13 (5/6), 246–253.
Marquardt, M. J., & Reynolds, A. (1994). The global learning organization. New York: Irwin.
Marsick, V. J., & O’Neil, J. (1999). The many faces of action learning. Management Learning,
30 (2), 159–176.
Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2003). Demonstrating the value of an organization’s learning
culture: The Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire. Advances in Developing
Human Resources, 5 (2), 132–151.
McLagan, P. (1989). Models for HRD practice. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and
Development.
McLagan, P. (1996). Great ideas revisited. Training and Development Journal, 20 (1), 60–65.
McLagan, P., & Bedrick, D. (1983). Models for excellence: The results of the ASTD training and
development competency study. Training and Development Journal, 7 (6), 10–20.
Nijhof, W. J. (2004). Is the HRD profession in the Netherlands changing? Human Resource Devel-
opment International, 7 (1), 57–72.
Onstenk, J.H.A.M. (1997). Lerend leren werken: Brede vakbekwaamheid en de integratie van leren,
werken en innoveren [Learning to work by learning: Broad professional skills and the integra-
tion of learning, work, and innovation]. Delft, Netherlands: Eburon.
Örtenblad, A. (2002). A typology of the idea of learning organization. Management Learning,
33 (2), 213–230.
Poell, R. F. (2005). HRD beyond what HRD practitioners do: A framework for furthering multi-
ple learning processes in work organizations. In C. Elliott & S. Turnbull (Eds.), Critical think-
ing in human resource development (pp. 85–95). London: Routledge.
Poell, R. F., & Chivers, G. E. (2003). Experiences of HRD consultants in supporting organisa-
tional learning. In B. Nyhan, P. Cressey, M. Kelleher, & R. F. Poell (Eds.), Facing up to the learn-
ing organisation challenge: Selected European writings (pp. 247–264). Luxembourg: Office for
Official Publications of the European Communities.
Poell, R. F., & Van der Krogt, F. J. (2002). Using social networks in organisations to facilitate indi-
vidual development. In M. Pearn (Ed.), Handbook of individual development. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

198 Poell, Van der Krogt, Vermulst, Harris, Simons

Poell, R. F., & Van der Krogt, F. J. (2004). Customizing learning programs to the organization and its
employees: How HRD practitioners create tailored learning programs. In Proceedings of the Acad-
emy of Human Resource Development. Bowling Green, OH: Academy of Human Resource Devel-
opment.
Renwick, D. (2003). Line manager involvement in HRM: An inside view. Employee Relations, 3,
262–280.
Russ-Eft, D. (2002). A typology of training design and work environment factors affecting work-
place learning and transfer. Human Resource Development Review, 1 (1), 45–65.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York:
Currency/Doubleday.
Streumer, J. (Ed.). (2006). Work-related learning. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Tjepkema, S. (2003). The learning infrastructure of self-managing work teams. Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation, Twente University, Netherlands.
Tjepkema, S., Stewart, J., Sambrook, S., Mulder, M., Ter Horst, H., & Scheerens, J. (2002). HRD
and learning organisations in Europe. London: Routledge.
Torraco, R. J. (1999). Integrating learning with working: A reconception of the role of workplace
learning. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10 (3), 249–270.
Valkeavaara, T. (1999). “Sailing in calm waters doesn’t teach”: Constructing expertise through
problems in work—The case of Finnish human resource developers. Studies in Continuing Edu-
cation, 21 (2), 177–196.
Van der Krogt, F. J. (1998). Learning network theory: The tension between learning systems and
work systems in organizations. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 9 (2), 157–178.
Van der Krogt, F. J. (2006). Organiseren van leerwegen in dienstverlenende organisaties: Strategieën
van werknemers, managers en leeradviseurs [Organizing learning paths in service organizations:
Strategies of workers, managers, and learning advisers]. Utrecht, Netherlands: Lemma.
Van Zolingen, S. J., Streumer, J. N., De Jong, R., & Van der Klink, M. R. (2000). Implementing
on-the-job training: Critical success factors. International Journal of Training and Development,
4 (3), 208–216.
Versloot, B. M., De Jong, J. A., & Thijssen, J.G.L. (2001). Organisational context of structured
on-the-job training. International Journal of Training and Development, 5 (1), 2–22.
Walton, J. S. (1999). Strategic human resource development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1996). In action: Creating the learning organization. Alexandria,
VA: American Society for Training and Development.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Yang, B., Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (2004). The construct of the learning organization: Dimen-
sions, measurement, and validation. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15 (1), 31–55.

Rob F. Poell is professor in the Department of Human Resource Studies at Tilburg

University, Netherlands.

Ferd J. Van der Krogt is associate professor in the Department of Education at the
University of Nijmegen, Netherlands.

A. A. Vermulst is assistant professor in the Department of Education at the University

of Nijmegen, Netherlands.

Roger Harris is professor in the Centre for Research in Education, Equity and Work
at the University of South Australia in Underdale.

Michele Simons is assistant professor in the Centre for Research in Education,

Equity and Work at the University of South Australia in Underdale.

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq