Even successful training programs cannot guarantee that newly learned knowledge and skills will be transferred to the workplace. This has led to researchers’ interests in understanding the transfer process. Notwithstanding that transfer issues have been studied for several decades, the recent emphasis on ‘workplace learning’, especially the so‐called ‘situated learning’ approach, suggests that conventional training transfer research may be inadequate to understand the dynamics of performance improvement through training. Against this, the authors point to the increased policy emphasis on the development of transferable generic skills, which underscores the ongoing importance of training transfer. This review paper suggests that the role of trainees themselves has not been dealt with sufficiently in research, which leads to a new direction for studying the transfer of training.

No abstract

Service skill definitions have been over-extended, by equating compliance with skill, and underdeveloped, by not recognising service jobs’ invisible social and organisational aspects. Existing approaches to determining service skill levels draw on occupational qualifications and capacity for labour market closure, on knowledge worker/ knowledgeable emotion worker dichotomies, and on the conceptual conflation of labour process deskilling, unskilled jobs and unskilled workers. The theoretical and empirical basis for a new framework identifying hitherto under-specified ‘work process skills’ is outlined. This framework allows recognition of the integrated use of awareness-shaping, relationship-shaping and coordination skills, at different levels of experience-based complexity, derived from reflexive learning and collective problem-solving in the workplace. Political struggles over the use of combinations and levels of these ‘skills of experience’ may result either in jobs designed to reduce autonomy, or in improved skill recognition and development, enhancing equity and career paths.

Advocates and critics alike have accepted 'lean' images of the Toyota production system. But certain production concepts that are integral to Toyota production system theory and practice actually impede 'leanness'. The most important of these are the concepts of heijunka, or levelled ('balanced') production, and muri, or waste from overstressing machines and personnel. Actual Toyota production systems exist as a compromise between these concepts and the pursuit of leanness via kaizen. The compromise between these contrasting tendencies is influenced by the ability of unions and other aspects of industrial relations regulation to counter practices such as shortnotice overtime and 'management by stress'.

No abstract