to access original slides from this presentation

The role of social capital
in the learning process:
A study of low wage workers
Anil Verma
Sara Mann
Rotman School of Management
University of Toronto
Jorge Garcia-Orgales
USWA Canada
1
The role of social capital in the
learning process
1. Setting the Context: Low Wage Workers
2. The Theory: Social Capital & Learning
„
„
„
Types of Learning
Importance of Learning
Learning Theory
Self-Efficacy
Outcome Expectancies
„
„
„
„
Resources available
Impact of organizational, job and individual characteristics
Social Capital
Connection to Low Wage workers
3. Research Design
2
Low Wage Workers:
Setting the Context
Massive shift from manufacturing to service to tech
(Carnevale & Rose, 2001)
Decline in low wage jobs since 1979
(Carnevale & Rose, 2001)
Almost no growth in real wages at the low end of the
wage scale
Earnings gap between the top and bottom quartiles
growing in the last 20 years
Low-wage workers face serious challenges in
obtaining economic and social security
(Kazis,
Kazis, 2001)
Skills define earnings and mobility in the new
economy but little is known about learning among
lower-wage workers
(Lambert, 1999)
3
Low Wage Workers:
Setting the Context
Between 1/4 and 1/3 of all jobs are low wage or low skill jobs
(Osterman,
Osterman, 1999)
While the wages are far lower, the work effort is not
(Kazis,
Kazis, 2001)
Spend as much time working but
•
•
•
Less wages
Fewer benefits
Less predictable hours
Economic Pressures
•
•
•
Outsourcing
Globalization
Advances in technology
(Kazis,
Kazis, 2001)
(e.g. Holzer,
Holzer, 1996; Lambert, 1999)
4
Low Wage Workers:
What we know
Move in and out of the workforce
(Bane & Ellwood, 1983; SpalterSpalter-Roth & Hartmann, 1994; Lambert, 1999)
Poor design of jobs
(Lambert, 1999)
When jobs require little from workers, that is exactly what an
employer gets
(Jacobs, 1994)
Unspoken policies that low wage ees should have only limited
opportunities to increase earning, improve skills, get promoted
or received medical benefits
(Kossek et al., 1997)
Traditional career ladders now less common
(Kazis,
Kazis, 2001)
5
Low Wage Workers:
Who are they?
More likely to have young children
Less likely to be married
Have significantly less education
Hold jobs that:
Pay far less for equivalent effort
Are less stable
Offer fewer benefits
Are in occupations with lower status
(Kazis,
Kazis, 2001; Acs,
Acs, Phillips & Mackenzie, 2001)
6
Low Wage Workers:
an organizational perspective
High customer contact
Viewing ees negatively can result in dysfunctional employee behaviours and
attitudes
Vicious cycle can evolve
Company vision that links the employment and development of ees with
strategic objectives
Train managers
Orgs need to think of low wage jobs as stepping stones to better positions
Er programs that invest in ee skills, education, knowledge are not merely
socially responsible actions, but also benefit the bottom line of the business
(Kossek et al., 1997)
Employable resource instead of disposable labour
7
Who are the low-wage workers?
Carnevale & Rose, 2001
„
¼ moved down or left workforce
„
¼ stayed in same category
„
49% had increase in earnings
„
Women less likely to move out of low wage jobs
„
„
Education attainment important indicator of ability to escape low
earnings
Education and training are key factors in who advances over time
8
Low Wage Workers: Will they
participate in learning?
Participation low when left up to low wage workers to
purse it on their own
Work-site services achieve the best participation
(Strawn & Martinson, 2001)
Workplace education is critical to worker’s capacity to
prosper in a rapidly changing economy
(Ahlstrand et al., 2001)
However, probability workers receive workplace
education is directly proportionate to their wage and
education levels
9
(Ahlstrand et al., 2001)
Why is learning important
to organization and individual
national economic performance
(Worswick, 1985)
labour mobility
(Elias, 1994)
employee motivation
(Heyes & Stuart, 1996)
efficiency of organizations
(Addison & Siebert, 1994)
business performance
(Lynch, 1994)
upward mobility
(Vardi, 1980)
job security
(Levine, 1993)
skilled workers
(Osterman, 1984; Westhead, 1998)
10
Learning
Formal vs. Informal
(Livingstone, 2003)
Act of taking personal responsibility for own
development and continuous learning is key
(Hall & Mirvis,
Mirvis, 1995)
Bandura’s (1977) Social Learning Theory
„
Triadic reciprocal relationship
Learning behaviour
Individual
Environment
Self Efficacy
Outcome Expectancies
11
Self Efficacy
strength of belief in successfully
executing behaviours
(Wood & Bandura,
Bandura, 1989)
task specific and dynamic
(Gist & Mitchell, 1992)
people with high vs. low self-efficacy
12
Self-Efficacy
determinants of self-efficacy
„
„
„
„
enactive mastery
vicarious experience
verbal persuasion
physiological arousal
(Bandura)
compounded by availability of
resources and constraints
(Gist & Mitchell)
internal & external cues
13
Self-Efficacy
self-efficacy affects the learning
process
self-efficacy can be learned
(Frayne & Latham, 1987; Gist, 1989; Gist et al., 1991)
self-efficacy is malleable
(Haccoun & Saks, 1997)
self-efficacy is affected by internal
and external factors
(Haccoun & Saks, 1997)
14
Outcome Expectancies
belief that the behaviour will produce
favourable/unfavourable results
(Bandura,
Bandura, 1977, 1986)
integration of pay or promotion
(Latham & Crandall, 1991; Heyes & Stuart, 1996)
environmental constraints
(Peters et al., 1985; Latham & Crandall, 1991)
Ee motivation to learn is contingent on
perceived benefits and relationship with
manager, and moderated by perceived
organizational support
(Maurer, Pierce & Shore, 2002)
15
The role of social capital in the
learning process
Self-Efficacy
Outcome
Expectancies
Demographics &
Characteristics
(Organization,
Job, Individual)
Social Capital
Access to
Learning /
Resources
Learning
(Informal &
Formal)
Individual
(i.e. Career
Progression) and
Organizational
Benefits
(i.e. efficiency)
16
Access to Learning
Factors that affect learning
opportunities
„
Demographic
„
Organizational
„
Job
„
Individual
17
Access to Learning –
Demographic
Demographic changes affecting training
in organizations:
skilled entry-level workers
minority workers
women in the workforce
workers over 40 years of age
contingent workers
18
Access to Learning –
Organizational Factors
Subsidiaries
Recently established organizations
Size of organization
(Alba(Alba-Ramirez, 1994; Elias & Healey, 1994; Greenhalgh & Stewart, 1987; Storey & Westhead,
Westhead, 1997)
19
Access to Learning – Job
Factors
increasing job complexity and skill
requirements
(Westhead,
Westhead, 1998)
the incidence of training varies with
skill requirements
(Altonji & Spletzer,
Spletzer, 1991)
vocational preparation
(Altonji & Spletzer,
Spletzer, 1991)
20
Access to Learning – Individual
Factors
Participation in training may be influenced by group
membership
„
„
„
disabilities
race
gender
(Tharenou,
Tharenou, 1997)
(Duncan & Hoffman, 1979; Weiss, 1988)
(Altonji & Spletzer,
Spletzer, 1991; Royalty, 1996)
Could be due to:
„
„
discrimination
differences in job or labour market positions held by those
individuals
Human Capital Theory
(Royalty, 1996; Jennings, 1994)
21
Social Capital
“the aggregate of the actual or potential
resources which are linked to possession of
a durable network of more or less
institutionalized relationships of mutual
acquaintance or recognition”
(Bourdieu,
Bourdieu, 1985)
“the ability of actors to secure benefits by
virtue of membership in social networks or
other social structures”
(Portes,
Portes, 1998)
22
Social Capital
Three attempts to conceptualize social
capital
„
“weak ties” theory
(Granovetter, 1973)
„
“structural holes” approach
(Burt, 1992)
„
“social resources theory”
(Lin, Ensel & Vaughn, 1981)
23
Positive Outcomes of Social
Capital
academic performance
intellectual development
sources of employment
occupational attainment
career success
(Seibert, Kramer & Liden,
Liden, 2001)
Org should provide underlying social networks to
foster learning
(Cross et al., 2001; Bogenrieder,
Bogenrieder, 2002)
24
Making the connection:
L/W workers, learning and social capital
constrained skill levels and isolation between
workers thus reducing opportunities for social
capital development
(Boggis,
Boggis, 2003)
Affected by factors which hinder access to learning:
„
„
„
„
Demographic
Organizational
Job
Individual
Likely to have
Low social capital
Low outcome expectancies
Low self-efficacy
25
Research Design
„
Sample
6-8 Nursing Homes
„
„
„
Small workplace
25-40 ees
2/3 private, 1/3 public
9 Light Manufacturing Plants
„
„
„
Small workplace
50-60 ees
One union local but own collective agreement at each
workplace
26
USWA Local 8300 in Toronto
Name
Spring Air Canada Ltd.
Sealy Canada Ltd.
Bedford Furniture
Star Bedding
Barrymore Furniture
Distinctive Design Furniture
Shade-O-Matic
Springwall Sleep
Rochman Universal Doors
# of employees
18
150
105
70
57
145
248
49
91
Products: most units make furniture or mattresses including one that
makes steel doors
27
Completed By:
Oct – Nov 2003
Research Design
„
Interviews with Key Informants
With mgmnt & ee from each workplace
Nov – Dec 2003
„
Focus Groups
2 Nursing Homes & 3 Mftg Plants
Jan – Mar 2004
„
Survey Design & Pre-test
April – May 2004
„
Administration of Survey
June – Sept 2004
„
Analyze Data
Fall 2004
„
Focus Groups
2 Nursing Homes & 3 Mftg Plants
28