10.

1177/1523422303251367
Advances in Developing Human Resources
Dymock / DEVELOPING A CULTURE OF LEARNING
ARTICLE May 2003

Developing a Culture of
Learning in a Changing
Industrial Climate: An
Australian Case Study
Darryl Dymock

The problem and the solution. An organization that does

not have a history of being a learning organization but has expe-
rienced generally confrontational industrial relations began to
change its learning culture. This study suggests that even with-
out a systematic approach, some of the features of a learning
organization can develop through efforts at the individual and
the systemic levels but that the issue of power relationships in
the organization is highly significant.

Keywords: learning organization; industrial relations; power relation-

ships; learning culture; workplace learning

In recent years, there has been increasing interest in Australia as in other

developed countries in the workplace as a site for learning (e.g., Billett,
2001; Boud & Garrick, 1999). There has also been increased interest in
training generally, resulting from two major external pressures: a govern-
ment-supported national training agenda and international influences such
as globalization and increasing use of technology (Hager, 1998). The
national training initiative is based on a competency-based approach, indi-
vidualized training packages, a competitive private provider market, and the
Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF), which emphasizes certifica-
tion, recognition of prior learning, and learning pathways, all approved and
coordinated through the government-funded Australian National Training
Authority (ANTA). Jenkins (1998) indicated that internationally, the world
of work for the “trade-exposed” sector of the Australian economy faced “a
world of excess capacity, constant price cuts and movement of high technol-

The author would like to acknowledge Grant Mitchell for his invaluable assistance and cooperation
and the anonymous employees of the organization who completed the questionnaire and
interviews.
Advances in Developing Human Resources Vol. 5, No. 2 May 2003 182-195
DOI: 10.1177/1523422303251367
Copyright 2003 Sage Publications
 Dymock / DEVELOPING A CULTURE OF LEARNING 183

ogy to low-cost countries” (p. 26). Some training has therefore been
intended to reskill the workforce to make it more competitive, or as one
recent prime minister put it, to make Australia “the clever country.” At the
local level, factors behind the growing focus on learning in the workplace
include employer preference for on-the-job training as a cost-saving mea-
sure (Hager, 1998) and the emerging significance of “context” for effective
adult and workplace learning (e.g., Billett, 2001; Merriam & Caffarella,
1999). There has also been an increasing focus on learning rather than on
training (Field, 1998; Hager, 1998).
The focus on the workplace as a site for learning has led to renewed interest in
Australia in the development of a learning culture in organizations. Owen and
Williamson (1994) described a learning culture as

one where the conditions for workplace learning are part of a work group’s experience and his-
tory; where learning opportunities are valued to the extent that they are actively discovered,
invented and developed; and, are structured into the organization’s functioning so that opportu-
nities for new learning could continue. (p. 76)

In recent years, a government-funded body, the National Centre for Vocational

Education Research, has funded research into the factors that promote a training
or learning culture.
It was against this background that a small study was undertaken of the
learning culture of an Australian private company that had recently before
been through a period of considerable industrial upheaval. The Dimensions
of the Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ) and interviews with
staff and management were used to examine their learning culture.

Background
The company selected for the study is a major service organization with
branches in every major Australian seaboard city. As a result of restructur-
ing and following a period of serious industrial disruption in 1999, includ-
ing occasional violent confrontation, around a third of the employees at that
time accepted redundancy in mid-1999. There are currently around 2,800
employees nationally, about one third of whom are employed on a casual
basis. The workforce is divided into employees, those who do the physical
and technical work, and staff employees, those who plan and supervise and
manage the company’s operations (referred to as managers and supervisors
in this article to avoid confusion).
One of the results of the downsizing was that many experienced employ-
ees left, taking their skills with them. All of those who left were permanent
employees and under the company’s restructuring program were replaced
by casual employees who were called for work as required. Consequently,
the focus of training for the ensuing 12 months was on developing key skills
184 Advances in Developing Human Resources May 2003

in operational areas for the new employees. At the time of the research, July
2000, there was a gradual move from skills training to training in “soft”
areas, particularly those required by law such as occupational health and
safety and sexual harassment. The training was competency based within
the Australian Qualifications Framework, and most staff employees had
industry-specific AQF 1 to AQF 3 competencies. The occupation in Austra-
lia is well paid, and the industry was generally attracting casuals with a high
learning capacity.
The company was chosen because it was identified to the researcher by a
senior officer of the Australian National Training Authority as one that was
developing a learning culture although it had made no public claim to that
effect. It used on-site workplace trainers, drawing on designated experi-
enced employees to conduct accredited training as required and providing
those trainers with nationally accredited training at certificate level. Outside
contractors were engaged for more specialized training, such as first aid and
health and safety. Supervisors and managers (staff employees) had access to
a subsidized professional development program of courses offered by exter-
nal providers, including universities.

The Study
The research reported here was undertaken at the company’s head office
in a major Australian city and at three nearby operational sites, with all visits
and selections of respondents facilitated by the company’s training man-
ager. It comprised using the Dimensions of the Learning Organization Ques-
tionnaire with 20 employees and 6 management-level staff and interviewing
9 participants (3 employees and 6 managers). The sample was selected by
the company’s training manager, mostly based on the availability on the day
of the research visit as well as an attempt to obtain a variety of opinions. The
size of the sample was based on the researcher’s belief that the number of
respondents would be sufficient for the purpose of identifying any signifi-
cant differences within the two major groups of employees as well as what
might reasonably be asked of an organization that had been approached to
take part.
Among the participants was a group of 9 employees undertaking an occu-
pational health and safety course who willingly took time out with the ready
agreement of the external trainer. Other employees at the operational sites
were co-opted at the time of the researchers’ visit, although one or two
who were expected to be available were called away by other duties at the
time. The sample included several levels of seniority in both groups. The
training manager, who was a staff employee, had once been an operations
employee and appeared to have good relationships with all staff at opera-
tional sites.
 Dymock / DEVELOPING A CULTURE OF LEARNING 185

Responses to the Questionnaire

The DLOQ is divided into five sections of questions: individual level,
team or group level, organization level, measuring performance at the orga-
nization level, and additional information about you and your organization.
In the present study, questions from the last two sections were not included
because many of the questions appeared irrelevant in this particular context
or were considered to be unanswerable by many of these particular respon-
dents. For example, it seemed unlikely that given the sharp division of labor,
employees would be able to respond to Question 49: “In my organization,
the cost per business transaction is less than last year.” Also, some of the
additional information was obtained by direct inquiry (e.g., respondents
were asked to indicate on the answer sheet their employment category). The
respondents therefore ranked a total of 43 statements in the other three sec-
tions: 13 at the individual level, 6 at the team or group level, and 24 at the
organization and global levels. For the analysis, responses are grouped in
line with Watkins and Marsick’s (1993) seven dimensions of a learning
organization. The mean rankings for each of the imperatives show that the 6
managers/supervisors rated each of the organization’s dimensions higher,
on average, than did the employees. Only two of the seven features were
ranked at more than 3 (out of a maximum ranking of 6) in the employees’ list,
compared to six of the seven features in the managers’ list. The employees
ranked “Connecting the organization to its environment” as the feature they
perceived to be least evident, whereas the managers gave the lowest ranking
to “Empower people toward a collective vision.” In fact, empowerment (or
rather lack of it) was the feature that was almost equally rated by both
groups. Only one feature, “Create continuous learning opportunities,” was
ranked close to 4 and by only one group.
The relative differences between the two groups’ rankings are particu-
larly evident when they are compared in a line graph, as shown in Figure 1.
What might account for the differences in the rankings, as illustrated in Fig-
ure 1, as well as the relatively low rankings all around? Interviews were con-
ducted with a small number of those who completed the questionnaire to
answer this question.

Interviews
The interviews were conducted over the same 2 days during which the
questionnaires were completed and therefore before any collation or analy-
sis of responses to the 43 DLOQ questions. Whereas in the questionnaire the
participants were responding to individual questions, in the interviews they
were responding to nine general questions about the extent to which they
perceived the company displayed the features of a learning organization as
originally identified by Watkins and Marsick (1993).
186 Advances in Developing Human Resources May 2003

4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5 Managers
2 Employees

1.5
1
0.5
0
s

ns
ng
iry

t
g

em

ip
en
in

tio

sh
qu

ni
rn

m
st
ar

ec

er
In

er
ea

sy
le

ad
nn
w
&
tL

ed
am

po

Le
co
g
on

dd
lo

Em
Te

em
ia
C

be
D

st
Em

Sy

FIGURE 1: Comparison of Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire Responses

for Employees and Managers

The purpose of using this list as the basis for the interviews was to encour-
age the interviewees to consider the concept of the learning organization
using a slightly different set of criteria to that used in the questionnaire they
had recently completed. The 6 managers responded directly to the list; as a
precaution against possible literacy difficulties, the 3 employees were asked
questions that were rewordings of the features (e.g., Do you work in a team?
If so, does the team share its knowledge within the team, and does it share it
with other teams, particularly if it can do something better or differently?).
Because the research was conducted during work time, those chosen for
interview from the DLOQ respondents were those who had time for it and/or
the authority to decide. Responses were written down by the researcher,
generally not verbatim, and those notes formed the basis of summaries of the
responses.
It might be argued that, given the balance of managers to employees who
were interviewed, the data obtained are not as representative as they are for
the DLOQ. Nevertheless, it is possible to discern in the interview responses
a range of views about the organizational culture. This helps explain the dis-
crepancy between the managers’ and employees’ DLOQ responses, as
shown in Figure 1, as well as shed light on issues that need to be addressed in
making a culture of learning a reality, particularly for an organization
restructuring after a period of severe industrial turmoil. Because the
researcher considers features on which the interviews were based as just dif-
 Dymock / DEVELOPING A CULTURE OF LEARNING 187

ferent language for the seven dimensions of the DLOQ, the interview
responses have been analyzed under the latter headings to better integrate
the quantitative and interview data for the purpose of subsequent analysis.

Continuous Learning

The need to develop the workplace skills of newly recruited employees

after mid-1999 as well as the need for specialized skills in gangs (teams)
meant that the skills of those working on the wharves (i.e., the employees)
became a focus for training in the ensuing 12 months. Each employee there-
fore had a skill profile with the company that was recorded in a database.
Training was undertaken to address individual deficiencies but as noted ear-
lier, only where there were specific workplace needs (i.e., just-in-time train-
ing rather than just in case).
The casual employees tended to see training as a step toward perma-
nency, so they submitted numerous training requests, most of which were
not processed because the employees work in gangs, each of which has a
specified number of specialist positions, such as foreman and crane driver.
Those specialists receive higher pay, and training for such positions is avail-
able only when the number falls below that needed to meet operational
requirements, which in turn depends on the amount of business activity gen-
erated in a highly competitive industry.
A plan was under way for all supervisors to undertake Frontline Manage-
ment Initiatives training, a nationally accredited introductory course at the
certificate level. For tasks such as machinery operation, where currency of
competencies was important, staff were rotated to keep them competent. For
managers, a performance management program helped to identify learning
needs, but it was up to individuals to undertake professional development.

Dialogue and Inquiry

Generally, it was felt that initiative and creativity were not rewarded, par-
tially as a legacy of the former system. At the operations level, trade union
committees had been responsible for advancing changes, and rewards had to
be equally distributed, so individual ideas for changing practices were not
encouraged. There was a suggestion that older employees still disliked
being held accountable. It seemed there had been a suggestion box for
employees, but this tended to be used for attacks on management, often in
crude language, so the practice was discontinued. At the office level, one
person said that a “control-centered” executive did not foster creativity, that
the organization was not a dynamic one, and that “the minute you think out-
side the square—whack! ‘Get back there!’”
188 Advances in Developing Human Resources May 2003

Another manager suggested that rewarding employees had not been one
of the organization’s traits but also believed there was now better reinforce-
ment of training from the newer and younger supervisors. Similarly, a man-
ager indicated that in the past, feedback had always been up to management
and was one-way, with appraisals not shown to staff. With the introduction
of performance criteria, this was changing at the management level. A per-
son in the clerical area said, however, that staff still received very little feed-
back from management, and at the operations level, one employee said that
we “hear off the other workers that we do a good job.”

Team Learning

As noted earlier, at the operations level, work teams were standard prac-
tice. However, in those operations and in the company generally, the extent
to which those teams could be described as cross-functional was problem-
atic because of the nature of the business and of the historical set-up of the
teams. Work teams characteristically comprised a foreman, two specialized
handlers, a team leader, truck drivers, and several less skilled workers.
Whereas the foreman, specialist handlers, and team leaders worked regu-
larly together, the other positions were filled mainly by casuals, and one
respondent said that changes in the teams were due to rostering rather than
any intentional cross-functional approach. Another said that the use of
teams was one of the company’s “saving graces” but that the stratification in
the teams and the demarcations involved limited the opportunities for
multiskilling. One of the managers said at that level most people were spe-
cialized, with some movement in the basic and intermediate positions but
not at the higher levels.
Nevertheless, the gang system in the operational area lent itself to sharing
learning, particularly through placing new members with experienced ones.
One respondent suggested that there were many different working inter-
faces and newer employees were bringing a mixture of training in the class-
room and on the job but that it was difficult in the operational area for staff
without particular industrial experience. However, there was no provision
for systematic training at the team operations level. It tended to be intro-
duced as a response to a problem that emerged.

Embedded Systems

At the systems level, significant nonconformance to quality standards

was reported as a Quality Assurance (QA) issue and responded to because
the company had international QA accreditation, and there were also daily
operational meetings and weekly management meetings. There was some
 Dymock / DEVELOPING A CULTURE OF LEARNING 189

sharing of information between sites about such matters as hazards arising

from use of particular machinery, but it was also suggested that some man-
agers were reluctant to share such knowledge because the existence of the
hazard might reflect badly on them. As one respondent said, they did learn
from negative experiences, but sharing those widely was “letting the cat out
of the bag.” Nevertheless, there seemed to be a general perception that shar-
ing at both the handling level and the systems level was improving (e.g.,
prebriefings to discuss potential problems instead of debriefings after the
event). One respondent suggested there was a “more cordial atmosphere”
emerging as more movement of people between sections occurred.

Empowerment

The responses to the question about decentralized decision making and

employee empowerment drew attention to the division that had existed
before the major industrial dispute and the consequential redundancies and
casualization of a large part of the workforce and to the transitions underway
at the time of the research. There was a feeling among some managers that
the company’s executives took the key decisions and were “centralists,”
whereas others suggested that in the past there had been too much emphasis
on the power of the employees, implying that such “empowerment” was
unbalanced and not necessarily in the best interests of the company. Another
manager suggested that previously, local sites would just “bumble along,”
whereas under the new scheme, each site was developing its own strategic
plan. One manager said that middle management had been “hammered from
both sides,” but there was now a lot more clarity of role, and on-site supervi-
sors were beginning to accept more responsibility for making decisions. In
this regard, courses such as conflict management skills and customer rela-
tions had been well received. On the other hand, one supervisor suggested
that the majority of employees would not know who to go to if they wanted to
change something because there were “too many different levels of
management.”

External System Connection

What was described as the first benchmarking study of the company had
just been completed at the time of the interviews. There were suggestions
that up to this time there had been little thought at the top about the likely
long-term effect of decisions, and one manager said that the company’s 5-
year strategic plan was really a set of financial projections rather than strate-
gies. Another manager said that the company had a “classic operations
focus” and that the directors were thinking only about maximizing the busi-
190 Advances in Developing Human Resources May 2003

ness. Middle-management decisions were described as mostly short to mid-

dle term, with no link to the company’s strategic plan. Another respondent
claimed that the current middle-level managers kept employees “in the
loop” but that those managers’ career paths were more in the hands of senior
management than the staff’s. This same person suggested there was a need
to link promotion to the newly introduced key performance indicators.

Leaders Who Model Calculated

Risk Taking and Experimentation

The managers who were interviewed provided two views about the lead-
ership of the company: (a) that company managerial practice had not
changed and (b) that “top floor management” had shown themselves willing
to do things differently, especially in the 6 months up to the time of the inter-
views. Generally, the company was seen to encourage training, although it
did not always respond to individual operational employees’ requests for
training because that was related to promotion and the number of static
senior positions, a policy that disgruntled some staff. One manager com-
mented that there was entrepreneurial risk taking in the company but that
ethos at the managerial level was not encouraged at the operational level,
mainly because of the nature of the business, where safety was an important
consideration. However, the same respondent suggested that there was
“need for a good change manager” because the operations workforce (i.e.,
the employees) for the first time were capable of responding to developmen-
tal initiatives.

Discussion
Despite the relatively small sample, particularly in relation to the size of
the total workforce, the interview responses shed considerable light on the
reasons for the generally low scores and for the discrepancy between the
rankings of the staff employees and those of the managers. The responses
indicated that the company was in a period of transition from traditional
workplace practices and strong trade union influence to a more casualized
workforce and more flexible approaches to training. A different sort of
accountability was emerging: from compliance with implicit workplace
norms and union solidarity to meeting external standards via competence-
based training for employees and key performance indicators for managers
and supervisors.
This was not an easy or overnight transition. The low rankings on all
items by the staff employees and the gap between the two groups’ responses
indicate that there was a continuing distrust of management’s motives and
capabilities by the operational staff. This was highlighted by the very low
 Dymock / DEVELOPING A CULTURE OF LEARNING 191

ranking given to system connections. The employees perceived that the

company did not connect well with its external environment despite the fact
that the company was dependent on international demand for its services.
There appeared to still be hesitancy about offering new ideas and no particu-
lar mechanism or encouragement for doing so.
With respect to training, newer employees were bringing certified com-
petencies to the workplace, but experience remained a significant factor at
the operations level, and this seemed likely to persist given the nature of the
tasks. The effectiveness of such a mix was enhanced by the traditional use of
gangs with some specialist members, but these teams also showed signs of
becoming proactive rather than reactive learners in the restructured com-
pany. The use of casuals for the nonspecialist positions potentially brought
greater variety for the interaction among the team members but also meant
lack of continuity of membership of the teams and hence the likelihood of a
higher level of ongoing training and supervision.
One might anticipate that the managers would generally rank the impera-
tives at a higher level than would the staff employees because the former are
likely to be partly responsible for implementing such strategies. The low
ranking by both groups of the extent of their perceived empowerment indi-
cates, however, that they felt removed from such decisions. Nevertheless,
among the supervisors and managers there was some difference of opinion
about the commitment of the company’s senior management to the impera-
tives of a learning organization. There was skepticism about forward plan-
ning, but some managers had detected some openness developing at higher
levels. Support for training and training initiatives generally seemed to be
well received by managers and staff employees alike.
The generally low rankings from both groups indicate that they did not
perceive the company to be very strong as a learning organization, and yet
there were glimmers of optimism from some of the respondents inter-
viewed. After many years of an entrenched workplace culture that brought
strong divisions between blue-collar and white-collar workers and serious
confrontations between both groups only a year before, it was probably
inevitable that even with a partly new and casualized workforce old enmities
would die hard and change would be slowly embraced. Training was being
used not only to help develop the skills necessary to make the company’s
workforce more competitive but also, it seemed, as a modernizing force
because it was being offered in a more systematic way and usually for
accreditation. The appointment of a staff employee to the management posi-
tion of training manager appeared to be a deliberate attempt to help bridge
the two elements of the company’s workforce, a strategy that seemed to be
working.
Even in an organization that seems strongly on its way to being an effec-
tive learning organization, subsequent advances may be incremental
192 Advances in Developing Human Resources May 2003

because they are at the individual and team levels where individual attitudes
and personal and professional interactions are highly significant as well as
at the global level where the organization is often dealing with influences
over which it has little or no control. Schein (as cited in Coutu, 2002) sug-
gested that such transformations as creating an environment of genuine trust
and openness, building flat organizations where employees are genuinely
empowered, and creating self-managed teams requires people to give up
long-held assumptions: “This kind of process of unlearning and relearning
is unbelievably painful and slow” (p. 106). Where the divisions are deeper,
the pain and slowness are exacerbated. And of course, the “unlearning and
relearning” has to take place in management as well as in the rest of the
organization.
The industrial relations context of the changes in the company, with older
fixed ways being replaced by newer more flexible ways, also clearly influ-
ences the rate of progress toward becoming a learning organization. In this
instance, the company did not set out specifically to become a learning orga-
nization but to restructure, reskill, and redevelop to be more market compet-
itive. It was because of the renewed emphasis on training that it was per-
ceived externally to be developing a learning culture. Although it is clear
from some of the responses of both employees and managers that more flexi-
bility was emerging in the company and a more systematic approach to train-
ing and professional development was being pursued, it is conceivable that
in the trade-union-dominated teams of the past, some members at least may
have felt more empowered. In other words, there is a tension between
employer motives and employee outcomes in the concept of the learning
organization, particularly in a private company, where the bottom line is
paramount.
This issue has been explored by researchers such as Spencer (2001) and
Bratton (2001), with the latter suggesting that the “learning organization
paradigms can be construed as a more subtle way of shaping workers’
beliefs and values and behavior” (p. 341). What happens between employers
and workers, he argued, “has much to do with power relations and with con-
flicts and struggles” (p. 341). In the company that is the case study for this
article, severe “conflicts and struggles” had been the order of the day. What
seemed to be emerging was a less confrontational approach that potentially
had benefits for both the company and the employees. However, with the
legacy of past struggles and the experiences of other companies such as
those documented by Bratton, the employees may do well to remain opti-
mistically skeptical as the new learning culture unfolds. The value of using
an audit instrument such as the DLOQ is, as Marsick and Watkins (1996)
asserted, helpful in charting the journey, but of even greater value is the dia-
logue. For the company, recent history seems likely to influence the dia-
logue and needs to be acknowledged. In those circumstances, the transfor-
 Dymock / DEVELOPING A CULTURE OF LEARNING 193

mation into Schein’s (as cited in Coutu, 2002) “environment of genuine trust
and openness” might be even more “unbelievably painful and slow” (p. 106).
Owen and Williamson’s (1994) definition of a learning culture suggested
that the conditions for workplace learning are part of a work group’s experi-
ence and history, an aspect that is clearly relevant to the company studied. In
this case study, the experience is an asset because it provides continuity but
is tempered in this instance by the employment of inexperienced casual
workers. The recent history of employer-employee conflict is still close
enough to cast a shadow over the development of a learning culture. The
result is that the extent to which learning opportunities are valued is influ-
enced by the employees’ perceptions of the employers’ motives and the
casual employees’ view of training as a means to job permanency. The
“structuring of learning opportunities into the organization’s functioning,”
Owen and Williamson’s final point, appears to be gradually developing
through more systematic training of employees and the introduction of pro-
fessional development for managers and supervisors. These strategies are
also in line with Johnston and Hawke’s (2002) finding that organizations
seeking to develop a learning organization approach need to consider work-
place systems and structures that determine how the work is carried out and
how people are managed in addition to considering appropriate training and
development methodologies.

Conclusion
There are several practical implications arising from the findings of this
study. First, the apparent emergence of some features of a learning culture
has largely been attributable to small-scale strategies and individual rela-
tionships and negotiations rather than a systematic approach by the whole
organization through its senior management (i.e., an individual training
manager or human resource developer can be a change agent). However, in
the case study discussed earlier, the manager who suggested the time was
ripe for a good change manager may have been right—staff seemed open to
new possibilities. An appropriately timed and senior-management-supported
initiative might well be rewarding in a number of ways that would contribute
to the development of a learning organization. In addition, small gains and
incentives improve staff morale and encourage empowerment. There was
evidence that staff at both middle-management and operations levels gener-
ally welcomed a more balanced and open approach in such key areas as stra-
tegic planning at each site, performance management, and targeted training.
What is clearly necessary in the development of a learning culture,
regardless of the outcomes of the DLOQ or any other instrument, is a will-
ingness for all parties to acknowledge the power relations in the organiza-
tion, particularly where the company is in a competitive market and when its
194 Advances in Developing Human Resources May 2003

first and final commitment is to its owners or shareholders. Establishing suf-

ficient trust between management and other staff for the development of a
learning organization following a long period of distrust and fluctuating
power plays is a long-term endeavor that requires persistence at all levels.
For whatever the rhetoric about openness and sharing, no widespread orga-
nizational change is possible unless management is committed to involving
employees in the process in a meaningful way.

References
Billett, S. (2001). Learning in the workplace. Sydney, Australia: Allen and Unwin.
Boud, D., & Garrick, J. (1999). Understanding workplace learning. In D. Boud &
J. Garrick (Eds.), Understanding learning at work (pp. 1-12). London: Routledge.
Bratton, J. (2001). Why workers are reluctant learners: The case of the Canadian pulp and
paper industry. Journal of Workplace Learning, 13, 333-343.
Coutu, D. L. (2002, March). The anxiety of learning: An interview with Edgar H. Schein.
Harvard Business Review, 100-106.
Field, L. (1998). Shifting the focus from “training” to “learning”: The case of Australian
small business. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Vocational Education
Research, 6(1), 49-68.
Hager, P. (1998). Learning in the workplace. In C. Robinson & P. Thompson (Eds.),
Readings in Australian vocational education and training research (pp. 30-56).
Adelaide, Australia: NCVER.
Jenkins, R. (1998). Training challenges in Australia’s manufacturing industries. In
P. Curtin (Ed.), Future training issues in Australia’s industries (pp. 25-29). Adelaide,
Australia: NCVER.
Johnston, R., & Hawke, G. (2002). Case studies of organizations with established learn-
ing cultures. Adelaide, Australia: NCVER.
Marsick, V., & Watkins, K. (1996). A framework for the learning organization. In
V. Marsick & K. Watkins (Eds.), Creating the learning organization (pp. 3-12). Alex-
andria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.
Merriam, S., & Caffarella, R. (1999). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Owen, C., & Williamson, J. (1994). The development of “learning cultures” in the work-
place: Some phantoms, paradoxes, and possibilities. Proceedings of Post Compulsory
Education and Training Conference, 2, 74-86.
Spencer, B. (2001). Research and the pedagogics of work and learning. In Proceedings of
2nd International Conference on Researching Work and Learning (pp. 251-257).
Edmonton, Canada: University of Calgary.
Watkins, K., & Marsick, V. (1993). Sculpting the learning organization. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
 Dymock / DEVELOPING A CULTURE OF LEARNING 195

Darryl Dymock is deputy director of the Centre for Lifelong Learning and Develop-
ment and an associate professor in the School of Education at Flinders University,
Adelaide, South Australia. He is the editor of the international refereed publication
Journal of Workplace Learning.