Developing Professional Practice in L&D

The first theme of the book is ‘Directions’. This theme concerns the present and potential future expectations that L&D professionals may face in their practice. Chapter 1 is about ‘Developing professional practice in L&D’. In the first section, I discuss what is ‘professionalism’ and what it means for L&D professionals in terms of their development. In this chapter, I argue that expectations of L&D from senior management are growing. L&D professionals need to be able demonstrate ability to influence decision making by developing new competencies that enable them to provide senior management with new insight, which in turn increases L&D’s strategic credibility. In examining the diverse activities and tasks that L&D professionals currently, and may be expected to undertake in the future, four roles emerge; capacity and capability builders, boundary spanners, consultants and change agents. Capacity building primarily concerns creating space, time, and cultivating the right environment for the workforce to develop, which can be a challenge given how fire-fighting appears to be prevalent in many organizations today. Capability building involves enhancing knowledge, developing skills and competencies of the workforces, whilst boundary spanning involves networking and growing partnerships within and outside the organization. ‘Being a consultant’ is briefly touched upon as it is further discussed in Chapter 5, whilst the role of a change agent involves instigating and managing change. This chapter concludes with a discussion of twelve important knowledge, skill and capability areas that L&D professionals must develop to advance their practice.

Doctoral Supervisor: Coach, Mentor or Master? Developing an Alternative Paradigm for Doctoral Supervision

This working paper is the second in a series of working papers presenting the on-going findings from a longitudinal research project grounded in exploring the experience of doctoral supervision and developing practice. In the first paper and phase one of this research study, Cook, Nichol and Loon (2014) explored the existing context for doctoral supervision and, drawing from literature on the problematic nature of doctoral supervision and coaching and mentoring, considered the value of drawing on coaching and mentoring models in formulating alternative paradigms for doctoral supervision. This paper reports the findings of phase one, a mixed methods study of experiences of doctoral supervision with supervisors and students in one UK university business school, from which the Collaborative Action Doctoral Supervision conceptual model emerged. The paper also introduces phase two, a collaborative action research study with doctoral supervisors and students who are applying, reflecting on and developing further this doctoral supervision model. We are aiming to answer the question of whether the use of coaching and mentoring in doctoral supervision enables the transfer and sustainability of learning from the doctoral supervision session to outside the experience and improves the quality. Is the doctoral supervisor coach, mentor or master? Key words Doctoral supervision, coaching, mentoring, collaborative action research.

The Effect of Wasta on Business Conduct and HRM in Jordan

Despite rapid globalisation, boom in multinational business and increasing interest in international human resource management (IHRM) generally, research on developing countries in the Middle-East is limited. A three year PhD research project seeks to begin to fill this gap by studying the effect of Jordanian culture on the transfer of western recruitment and selection (R&S) frameworks into Jordan. This paper opens up an investigation into a cultural concept at the heart of management and human resource management (HRM) in Jordan: ‘wasta’. Wasta is a concept that springs from tribalism; favouritism based on family and tribal relations. For multinational organisations this presents a challenge in balancing the western idea of fairness, equal opportunities and diversity and the local system based on favouritism. We argue that the perceived benefits of wasta cannot match the moral case for a merit based model.