Human Resource Development International

Vol. 15, No. 2, April 2012, 209–226

How do organizational and task factors influence informal learning in

the workplace?
Ki Seok Jeona* and Kyung-Nyun Kimb
a
Learning and Performance System Department, The Pennsylvania State University, University
Park 16803, USA; bKorea Research Institute for Vocational Education & Training, Seoul, Korea
(Received 15 November 2011; final version received 28 November 2011)

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between organizational
and task factors and the effectiveness of two types of informal learning: peer
interaction and learning by doing via own task. The data examined were
secondary data derived from the Human Capital Corporate Panel data in 2007,
organized and collected by the Korea Research Institute of Vocational Education
and Skill Training (KRIVET). A hierarchical multi-regression analysis was
applied to data in this study. Study results supported the belief that top
management leadership in human resource development (HRD) as well as open
communications positively affected the effectiveness of informal learning.
However, innovation culture did not have a statistically significant relationship
with the effectiveness of informal learning. Further, this study showed that new
task and task satisfaction positively influenced this effectiveness. Effectiveness
increased when employees recognized that knowledge and skills obtained from
current tasks were also useful to other organizations. Implications for practice
and recommendations for further research are discussed.
Keywords: informal learning; workplace learning; peer interaction; learning by
doing

Introduction
In the current era, organizations face global competition, more diverse customer
expectations, and rapid changes in technology. Organizations need prompt, effective
and creative ways to adapt and prepare for these challenges. In fact, billions of
dollars are spent on formal learning to improve employees’ knowledge and skills
(O’Leonard 2008).
However, some scholars have pointed out that workplace learning mainly occurs
outside of formal learning settings (Carnevale 1984; Conner 2005; Hartley 2000;
Marsick and Watkins 1990). A report by Michaels, Handfield, and Axelrod (1997)
revealed that 70% of workplace learning occurs through on-the-job experiences
regarded as external to formal learning settings. Further, formal learning does not
always offer employees the skills they need to keep pace with the steady stream of
changes due to technology development, high customer expectations and global
competiveness (Hartley 2000; Sternber and Keeton 1999). With the recognition of
informal learning as a predominant learning method in the workplace has come

*Corresponding author. Email: kxj166@psu.edu

ISSN 1367-8868 print/ISSN 1469-8374 online

Ó 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2011.647463
http://www.tandfonline.com
210 K.S. Jeon and K.-N. Kim

increased academic and practical interest in this area, especially in the last several
years (Ashton 2004; Berg and Chyung 2008; Ellinger and Cseh 2007; Ellström,
Ekholm, and Ellström 2008; Lohman 2005).
Human resource development (HRD) scholars have emphasized the crucial
importance of organization factors such as learning organization culture and
different task characteristics as conditions of learning in an organization (Billett
2004; Education Development Center 1998; Ellström 2001; Watkins and Marsick
1996). The learning potential of tasks can influence the effectiveness of workplace
learning according to that task’s characteristics, such as complexity and competence
requirements (Ellström 2006). Routine or innovative tasks may influence informal
learning (Ellström 2001, 2006; Skule 2004). In addition, the utility of knowledge and
skills gained from learning a task may be influences, too (Ellström 2001, 2006).
Although organizations have recognized the need to provide a workplace
environment that encourages and shapes various opportunities for informal
learning, few researchers have examined the potential ways in which organizational
environment may enhance informal learning (Ellinger 2005; Marscik and Volpe
1999; Skule 2004). More research on the relationship between an organization’s
contextual (or environmental) factors and informal learning is needed not only to
improve understanding of the essence of informal learning, but also to provide the
field of HRD with a sense of the practical implications of informal learning for
organizational contexts.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine organizational and task
factors and their impact on the effectiveness of informal learning in improving job
competencies in the workplace.

Literature review
Informal learning in the workplace
Informal learning is a predominant method in workplace-based learning (Ellström,
Ekholm, and Ellström 2008; Jacobs and Park 2009). Coombs and Ahmed (1974)
described informal learning as unstructured activities with experiential character-
istics that take place outside the formal educational system. Marsick and Watkins
(1990) linked informal learning to incidental learning, as follows:
Informal learning, a category that includes incidental learning, may occur in
institutions, but it is not typically classroom-based or highly structured, and control
of learning rests primarily in the hands of the learner. Incidental learning is defined
as a byproduct of some other activity, such as task accomplishment, interpersonal
interaction, sensing the organizational culture, trial and error experimentation, or
even formal learning (p. 12).
These researchers distinguished informal learning and incidental learning by
introducing the concepts of intentionality and structure (planned): ‘incidental
learning is never planned or intentional, whereas informal learning can be planned
or intentional’ (p. 7).
On the other hand, OECD (2005) stated that ‘informal learning is an ‘‘experience’’
or ‘‘unintentional learning’’ that occurs throughout life without the learner
necessarily being aware of the knowledge or skill that they have gained’ (p. 5).
Furthermore, OECD differentiated between informal and non-formal learning: ‘non-
formal learning is achieved when an individual follows an organized programme of
instruction’ (p. 5).
 Human Resource Development International 211

However, according to Hodkinson, Colley and Malcom (2003), there is no

significant difference between informal and non-formal learning, so these two
concepts may be used interchangeably. Further, Jacobs and Park (2009) pointed out
that some writers have used the concept of informal and incidental learning
interchangeably or in ways that make it difficult to clearly distinguish from related
concepts. A full review of the concept and definitions of informal learning are
beyond the goal of this study.
Informal learning includes a variety of methods, such as working experience with
success, trial and error, on-the-job training, coaching, mentoring, talking and
sharing with others, and searching the internet (Lohman 2005; Marsick and Watkins
2001). The effectiveness of informal learning in light of these variations is affected by
several factors such as organizational environmental influences, the human
relationship with co-workers, and the reflection of individuals (Berg and Chyung
2008; Ellinger and Cseh 2007; Eraut 1998; Marsick and Watkins 2001).
Researchers have begun to examine how employees interact with others in
informal learning contexts (Ellinger and Cseh 2007). Individual employees benefit
from interaction with others, and colleagues and supervisors may act as informal
workplace trainers involved in supporting employee learning in the workplace in one
or more ways (Ellström 2001; Leppanen et al. 2008; Poell et al. 2006). Trust among
employees is also important because employees with a greater tendency to help
their colleagues fostered informal learning in the workplace (Beitler and Mitlacher
2007).
Learning by doing is one of the predominant methods of informal learning.
Further, little is known about task factors and informal learning, although task
factors in terms of task complexity or routine task characteristics seem to be a critical
influence on informal learning via learning by doing (Ellström 2001, 2006; Skule
2004).

Organizational factors and informal learning

Top management leadership in HRD and informal learning
The concept of a learning environment is associated with conditions and practices in
an organization that relate to improving or impeding learning (Burke and Hutchins
2007; Ellström, Ekholm, and Ellström 2008; Jensen 2005; Kleiner 2003). Learning is
influenced by constraints and/or opportunities present within organizations’ systems,
reward processes and cultures that are friendly or unfriendly to learning; they are
also influenced by the availability of resources, and whether these are limited or
unlimited (Marsick and Watkins 1996).
Rothwell (2002) identified learning-oriented leadership as one of the key aspects
of organizational factors that encourage/discourage workplace learning, in addition
to the presence of a learning culture that encourages open-minded attitudes toward
learning and has sufficient financial resources and time for employee learning
experiences. Further, Ellinger (2005) showed that learning-committed leadership and
management exerted more influence on the success or failure of workplace learning –
in fact, these were more important than other factors such as an internal culture
committed to learning, work tools and resources, and relationship to learning,
especially from an informal learning point-of-view. These views suggest the
following hypothesis:
212 K.S. Jeon and K.-N. Kim

H1. The top management leadership in HRD will be positively related to the
effectiveness of informal learning in an organization.

Open communication and informal learning

Active communication in an organization is imperative to the successful practice of
management. It is especially important to facilitate informal learning with peers in
the workplace – this involves knowledge-sharing and the exchange of information to
solve problems and generate new ideas (Lewicki and Bunker 1996). Good com-
munication with peers and possibilities for collegial feedback based on positive,
constructive communication is one organizational factor that encourages workplace
learning (Doornbos, Bolhuis, and Simons 2004; Rothwell 2002). In fact, the presence
and encouragement of open communication is a basic condition for learning through
interaction with others – peers, supervisor, and subordinates – because employees
must collaborate in order to solve problems, listen carefully and effectively in
interactions with other colleagues, and receive and provide positive and collegial
feedback (Ellinger and Cseh 2007). Open communication is a key to improving
workplace learning in the organizational environment (Ellström, Ekholm, and
Ellström 2008; Kleiner 2003; Marsick and Watkins 1996; Senge 1990; Skule 2004).
These discussions suggest the following hypothesis:

H2. Open communication in an organization will be positively related to the

effectiveness of informal learning.

Innovation culture and informal learning

An organization’s innovation-oriented culture serves to facilitate workplace learning
because innovation and learning interact in the production, diffusion and use of new
ideas and products (Lundvall 2010). Organizations tend to be more innovation-
oriented when their employees are more committed to workplace learning (Lundvall
2010).
Innovation takes place during the process of knowledge-sharing and feedback
among employees. Sharing typically occurs via organizational communication, which
is a type of informal learning activity (Lundvall 2010; Rothwell 2002). To support,
nurture, and leverage informal learning in the workplace is to foster innovation, which
takes place in an environment that encourages learning relationships, trial and error,
and occasional failure and analysis to gain insights into lessons learned (Cross 2007).
However, little is empirically known about the relationship between innovation culture
and the effectiveness of informal learning. These discussions suggest the following
hypothesis:

H3. An innovation-oriented culture will be positively related to the effectiveness of

informal learning.

Task factors and informal learning

Task characteristic and informal learning
A varied set of tasks provides employees with many learning opportunities. In fact, a
task’s learning potential is related to informal learning.
An important characteristic of a task that has learning potential is task routine
and complexity (Poell et al. 2006). Routine is typically explained according to two
 Human Resource Development International 213

dimensions: variability and analysability (Perrow 1967). Variability is the frequency

of exceptional events encountered in the work process and conceived by the worker
on an assembly line that presents little variability. Task analyzability is the
standardized step followed in performing a task and concentration of information on
problem-solving.
The overall advantage of a routine task is that workers can save energy and time
by focusing on maintenance of the work process as well as functioning automatically
in many cases (Gersick and Hackman 1990; Nembhard and Osothsilp 2002).
However, routine also leads to dysfunctional consequences such as reduced
innovation, and diminished opportunities to improve competence, skill and
perspective. The reason may be that a worker’s task repertoire does not change or
expand over the long term (Gersick and Hackman 1990). Employees gain
opportunities to learn when faced with new demands during their employment
(Ellström 2006).
Task complexity influences a worker’s performance and learning during a task.
Complex tasks typically tend to be performed by people with more task experiences
and advanced professional education (Lee, Rainey, and Chun 2010). Papa and Papa
(1990) determined that when employees perceive a task to be complex, productivity
is reduced and learning related to the performance of more complex tasks is slower.
However, generally a high degree of exposure to change and task demands may
influence informal learning (Ellström 2006; Skule 2004). Little research has been
conducted on how task characteristics influence informal learning, despite acknowl-
edgment of a task’s learning potential (Ellström 2001, 2006). These discussions
suggest the following hypothesis:

H4. Routine and repeated tasks will be negatively related to the effectiveness of informal
learning.

Firm-specific knowledge and skills and informal learning

The distinction between general and firm-specific competence (knowledge and skills)
was originally developed within human capital theory (Becker 1964). General (or
firm-non-specific) competence involves knowledge and skills that can be applied to
other organizations as well as current tasks in an organization. Firm-specific
competence is applied to one particular organization and is not useful to other
organizations.
Døving and Nordhaug (2002) used the concepts of firm specificity and task
specificity to explain four types of firm-specific competence, criticizing the classical
distinction linked to firm-specific competence. Firm specificity relates to the
operation of physical production equipment unique to only one firm and then to a
technology-related firm specificity. Task specificity is the degree to which
competencies are linked to the execution of a narrow range of work tasks.
In the four types of competence identified by Døving and Nordhaug, first, meta-
competence (low firm specificity and low task specificity) encompasses a broad
spectrum of knowledge, skills and aptitudes (e.g. literacy, learning capacity, ability to
communicate and cooperate with others). Second, intra-organizational competence
(high firm specificity and low task specificity) includes knowledge of colleagues,
elements in the organizational culture, informal network within the firm and political
dynamics. Third, standard technical competence (low firm specificity and high task
specificity) includes a variety of operatively oriented knowledge and skills such as
214 K.S. Jeon and K.-N. Kim

knowledge of generic budgeting and accounting principles and methods and

professional task-oriented skills that can be applied across industries. Lastly, firm-
specific technical competencies (high firm specificity and high task specificity) related
to very few tasks within only one firm, meaning that knowledge and skills related to
the operation of unique technologies and routines such as the use of specialized tools
crafted in the firm. Little research has been conducted on the relationship between
firm-specific competence and informal learning. These discussions suggest the
following hypothesis:

H5. The effectiveness of informal learning will differ according to the utility of
knowledge and skills learned from a current task.

Task satisfaction and informal learning

Although there are many definitions of job satisfaction, it broadly refers to an
individual’s general attitude toward his or her job. Spector (1997) stated that, ‘Job
satisfaction is simply how people feel about their jobs and different aspects of their
job’ (p. 2). Many studies have demonstrated that workers with a high level
of job satisfaction respond with high productivity and performance (Muchinsky
2005).
All three measures of workplace learning – informal, incidental and formal –
have a positive relationship with job satisfaction, with informal learning having the
highest correlation value (Rowden 2002). The other side of the coin, job satisfaction,
significantly influences learning commitment and learning capacity (Chiva and
Alegrel 2009; Tsai et al. 2007). Job satisfaction as used in this study involved overall
job satisfaction, human relationships and salary satisfaction. However, little is
known about the relationship between satisfaction with a task itself, which is
assumed to be related to learning motivation, and the effectiveness of informal
learning. These discussions suggest the following hypothesis:

H6. Satisfaction with an individual task will be positively related to the effectiveness of
informal learning.

Methods
Data and participants
This study used secondary data derived from the Human Capital Corporate Panel
(HCCP) Data, organized and collected in 2007 by the Ministry of Labor in South
Korea and Korea Research Institute of Vocational Education and Skill Training
(KRIVET). The HCCP was designed to collect information in order to gain insights
into the: (a) realities of human resource management and development, (b)
mechanism of knowledge and skill development and (c) impact of (a) and (b) on
corporate performance.
The target population of HCCP included corporations in South Korea. The
target population was selected using KIS Corporate Data (2005) from the Korea
Information System, and was selected based on industry, size, and type of enterprise.
This included 11,473 full-time workers from 467 sample companies with over 100
employees; the final sample population totalled 1899.
Corporate sampling was done by industry (large category: 3 industries –
manufacturing, finance and non-financial services; middle category: 16 industries).
 Human Resource Development International 215

Manufacturing industries included food, fibre, chemical/oil, rubber/plastic, machine

tools, computer manufacturing, electricity industry, electronic industry and
automotive. The finance industry involved banks, insurance and pensions; the
non-financial service industry included telecom/communication, SW/SI, education
and entertainment.
The 11,473 workers included 3553 team managers and supervisors and 7920 team
staff and operation workers. A total of 8382 (72%) respondents were in
manufacturing, 971 (8%) were in finance and 2314 (20%) were in services. The
data for the survey were collected using an interview conducted by trained visiting
examiners. In this study, data from 10,169 surveys, not including respondent errors,
were examined.

Survey questions and analysis

This research examined how organizational and task factors influence informal
learning effectiveness in the workplace.

Effectiveness of informal learning

Questions about the effectiveness of informal learning had two foci: the effectiveness
of learning through peer interaction, and the effectiveness of self-learning through
own tasks. Effectiveness of informal learning was measured through the extent to
which two types of informal learning affected the development of job competencies.
The effectiveness of these two types of informal learning was adopted as a dependent
variable with a 4-point Likert scale (nearly nothing ¼ 1, a little ¼ 2, somewhat ¼ 3,
strong ¼ 4).

Top management leadership in HRD

The KRIVET research team who gathered this HCCP data developed three items for
measuring top management leadership in human resources based on relevant
previous research. Three items were: (a) my company treats excellent and talented
employees considerately and specially, (b) the top management of my company has a
clear vision about HRD, and (c) the top management of my company often
emphasizes the importance of competent people. A 5-point Likert-type scale was
used (strongly no ¼ 1, strongly yes ¼ 5). For the present study, the internal
consistency reliability scale was 0.88.

Open communication
Six items were adapted from relevant previous studies, such as interpersonal trust at
work (Cook and Wall 1980) and working group cohesion (Price and Mueller 1986)
to measure communication in an organization. The three sample items were: (a) my
company shares company situations such as strategy and the finance performance
with employees through top management or information system, (b) I freely speak
my opinion to my boss in my company, and (c) the communication among different
departments or units goes well. A 5-point Likert-type scale was used. For the present
study, internal consistency reliability was 0.85 after one item was excluded due to low
reliability.
216 K.S. Jeon and K.-N. Kim

Innovation-oriented culture
Four items with responses based on a 5-point Likert-type scale were developed
by the KRIVET research team. These items were: (a) my company fears the
changes and restraints of new challenges as one can (needed reverse), (b) appropriate
rewards for innovation are provided by my company, (c) customer satisfaction is
preferred over internal efficiency in my company, and (d) creative employees are
preferred over a sincere person. For the present study, internal consistency reliability
was 0.69.

Task characteristic
Task characteristic was measured as the degree or extent of routines relating to a
task, according to a 4-point Likert-type scale (my task is routine and repeated ¼ 1,
sometimes an exceptional situation takes place in my task ¼ 2, often exceptional
situations take place ¼ 3, new situations always take place ¼ 4).

Utility of knowledge and skills

Utility of knowledge and skills learned from own task indicated the extent to which
or how useful to other corporations or other tasks knowledge and skills learned were
from a current task. The four categories for characteristics of knowledge and skills
were: useful in only current particular organization (reference category 1), useful in
other organizations of the same industry with current corporation (category 2),
useful in only the same kind of job, regardless of type of business or industry
(category 3), and widely useful in many organizations without limitation
(category 4).

Task satisfaction
Four job satisfaction items were adapted from relevant previous research by
KRIVET (Bradley and Roberts 2004; Tsui, Egan, and O’Reilly 1992). These four
items included: satisfaction with task itself, compensation, human relationship
in the workplace and overall satisfaction. This study used only one item,
measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale: satisfaction with the task itself, not
including satisfaction with salary and human relationships. The item is: (a) I am
satisfied with my current task or job itself. Research questions were analysed with
SPSS 18.0 for Window, using descriptive statistics and multiple regression
analysis.

Results
Table 1 presents descriptive statistics on the study variables and the Pearson
Correlation matrix. Results in Tables 2 and 3 show the hierarchical multi-regression
analysis performed to identify the relationship between effectiveness of informal
learning and organizational factors: (a) Top management leadership in HRD, (b)
open communication in the organization, and (c) innovation-oriented culture.
Further, Tables 2 and 3 demonstrate the relationship between the effectiveness of
informal learning and task factors: (a) task characteristics in terms of routine and
repeated tasks, (b) task satisfaction in terms of task itself and (c) utility of the
Table 1. Correlations among indicator variables.

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Informal learning by interaction 1.000
with peers
Informal learning by learning 0.505** 1.000
by doing
Leadership (ORG1) 0.240** 0.169** 1.000 (0.88)
Open communication (ORG2) 0.263** 0.195** 0.730** 1.000 (0.85)
Innovation culture (ORG3) 0.179** 0.124** 0.617** 0.638** 1.000 (0.69)
Task characteristics (Task1) 0.149** 0.179** 0.127** 0.145** 0.052** 1.000
Task satisfaction (Task2) 0.177** 0.157** 0.402** 0.448** 0.365** 0.160** 1.000
Task3_1a 0.043** 0.035** 0.023* 0.038** 0.068** 0.022* 0.056** 1.000
Task3_2b 0.000 70.018 70.009 70.020* 70.053** 70.004 70.031** 70.560** 1.000
Task3_3c 0.020* 0.049** 0.088** 0.076** 0.033** 0.129** 0.065** 70.489** 70.164** 1.000
Mean 2.81 3.08 3.42 3.34 3.36 2.09 3.69 0.63 0.16 0.13
Standard deviation 0.86 0.73 0.85 0.69 0.61 0.88 0.77 0.48 0.37 0.33

Notes: Scale reliabilities are shown on diagonal in parentheses. Task3_1a: Useful in other organization within same industry with current corporation. Task3_2b: Useful in
only same kind of job regardless of type of business or industry. Task3_3c: Widely useful in many organizations without limitation. *p 5 0.05. **p 5 0.01.
Human Resource Development International
217
218 K.S. Jeon and K.-N. Kim

Table 2. Regression analysis of impact of organization and task factors on effectiveness of

informal learning (learning through interaction with peers).

Model 1 2 3
Union (Controls) 70.012 70.015 70.018
Gender (Controls) 70.017 70.013 70.013
Education_Associate (Controls) 70.006 70.006 70.008
Education_Bachelor (Controls) 0.007 0.004 70.001
Education_ Master & Doc. (Controls) 70.016 70.015 70.019
Leadership (ORG1) 0.105** 0.088**
Open communication (ORG2) 0.243** 0.204**
Innovation culture (ORG3) 70.014 70.007
Task characteristics (Task1) 0.099**
Task satisfaction (Task2) 0.056**
Task3_1a 0.122**
Task3_2b 0.114**
Task3_3c 0.063
F 0.337 104.05** 78.57**
R2 0.000 0.076 0.091
DF 276.87** 35.00**
DR2 0.076 0.016

Notes: Task3_1a: Useful in other organization within same industry with current corporation. Task3_2b:
Useful in only same kind of job regardless of type of business or industry. Task3_3c: Widely useful in many
organizations without limitation. Reference of Task 3_1, 3_2, and 3_3 is that knowledge and skills
obtained from a current task are only useful in current organization. *p 5 0.05. **p 5 0.01.

Table 3. Regression analysis of impact of organization and task factors to effectiveness

informal learning (learning by doing through own tasks).

Model 1 2 3
Union (Controls) 0.002 0.001 0.018
Gender (Controls) 70.020 70.018 0.019
Education_Associate (Controls) 70.020 70.020 0.022
Education_Bachelor (Controls) 0.024 0.021 0.017
Education_ Master & Doc. (Controls) 0.006 0.007 0.027
Leadership (ORG 1) 0.052** 0.032*
Open communication (ORG 2) 0.172** 0.129**
Innovation culture (ORG 3) 70.014 70.006
Task characteristics (Task 1) 0.114**
Task satisfaction (Task 2) 0.059**
Task3_1a 0.109**
Task3_2b 0.073*
Task3_3c 0.121**
F 1.051 55.842** 58.186**
R2 0.001 0.042 0.069
DF 147.087** 59.371**
DR2 0.042 0.027

Notes: Task3_1a: Useful in other organization within same industry with current corporation. Task3_2b:
Useful in only same kind of job regardless of type of business or industry. Task3_3c: Widely useful in many
organizations without limitation. Reference of Task 3_1, 3_2, and 3_3 is that knowledge and skills
obtained from a current task are only useful in current organization.
*p 5 0.05. **p 5 0.01.
 Human Resource Development International 219

competence obtained from the current task. Results are offered according to each
hypothesis.

H1. The top management leadership in HRD will be positively related to the
effectiveness of informal learning.

In Table 1, leadership (ORG1) had a significant correlation with informal

learning through interaction with peers (r ¼ 0.24**) and learning by doing
(r ¼ 0.169**). Top management leadership in HRD had a positive influence on
informal learning through peers in model 2, Table 2 (BORG 1 ¼ 0.105, p 5 0.01).
Also, top management leadership in HRD was statistically significantly aligned
with informal learning by doing, as shown in model 2, Table 3 (BORG 1 ¼ 0.052,
p 5 0.01).

H2. Open communication in an organization will be positively related to the

effectiveness of informal learning.

Open communication among employees (ORG 2) had the highest significant

correlation with informal learning through interaction with peers (r ¼ 0.263**) as
well as through learning by doing (r ¼ 0.195**), respectively (see Table 1). Open
communication among employees was the factor that had the greatest influence on
the effectiveness of informal learning through interaction with peers in model 2,
Table 2 (BORG 2 ¼ 0.243, p 5 0.01).
Open communication among employees and top management leadership in
HRD were statistically significantly aligned with informal learning through learning
by doing in model 2, Table 3 (BORG 2 ¼ 0.172, p 5 0.01).

H3. An innovation-oriented culture will be positively related to the effectiveness of

informal learning.

The presence of an innovation-oriented culture did not have a statistically

significant relationship with informal learning through interaction with peers in
model 2, Table 2. Also, innovation-oriented culture did not have a statistically
significant relationship with informal learning through learning by doing (see model
2, Table 3).
Task factors summed statistically and significantly, as did the explanation of
variance in the effectiveness of informal learning through interaction with peers
(DR2 ¼ 0.016, DF ¼ 35.00, p 5 0.01) in model 3, Table 2. Also, task factors summed
statistically and significantly, as did the explanation of variance in the effectiveness of
informal learning through learning by doing (DR2 ¼ 0.027, DF ¼ 59.371, p 5 0.01) in
model 3, Table 3.

H4. Routine and repeated tasks will be negatively related to the effectiveness of informal
learning.

The increase in task-characteristic changes from routine to new situations

indicated an increase in the effectiveness of informal learning through interaction
with peers in model 3, Table 2 (BTask1 ¼ 0.099, p 5 0.01). Also, as task characteristics
changed from routine to new situations, the effectiveness of informal learning
220 K.S. Jeon and K.-N. Kim

through learning by doing also increased in model 3, Table 3 (BTask1 ¼ 0.114,

p 5 0.01).

H5. The effectiveness of informal learning will differ according to the utility of
knowledge and skills learned from a current task.

Model 3, Table 2 demonstrates that the effectiveness of informal learning

through interaction with peers increases when workers recognize that knowledge and
skills obtained from a current task are useful to other companies (BTask3_1 ¼ 0.122,
BTask3_2 ¼ 0.114, p 5 0.01, respectively). However, knowledge and skills, which
are useful in many organizations, were not statistically significantly
associated with the effectiveness of informal learning through interaction with peers
(BTask3_3 ¼ 0.063, ns).
On the other hand, the effectiveness of informal learning through learning by
doing was significantly higher when workers recognized that knowledge and skills
obtained from a current task were useful in other organizations within the same
industry and the current corporation, or in the same kind of job regardless of type of
industry, or in many organizations; rather, they believed that knowledge and skills
obtained from a current task were only useful in the current organization
(BTask3_1 ¼ 0.109, BTask3_2 ¼ 0.073*, BTask3_3 ¼ 0.121, p 5 0.01) (see model 3,
Table 3).

H6. Satisfaction with the individual task itself will be positively related to the
effectiveness of informal learning.

Greater satisfaction with task contents positively influenced the effectiveness

of informal learning through interactions with peers in model 3, Table 2, and
through learning by doing in model 3, Table 3 (B ¼ 0.056, B ¼ 0.059, p 5 0.01,
respectively).
Additionally, the size of the Beta value was used to determine the relative
importance of the variables, and was found to differ between informal learning
through interaction with peers and learning by doing (Pedhazur 1997). Namely, open
communication among employees (b ¼ 0.165, p 5 0.01) was the most influential
factor in informal learning through interaction with peers, while task characteristics
(b ¼ 0.136, p 5 0.01) was the most influential factor in informal learning through
learning by doing (see Table 4).

Discussion and conclusion

In this section, we analyse the results and discuss the implications of the results for
further research and HRD practice. We also describe the study’s limitations. The
purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between organizational factors
and task factors and the effectiveness of informal learning.
Firstly, study results supported the hypothesis of a positive relationship between
organizational factors and the effectiveness of two types of informal learning:
learning through interaction and learning by doing. This finding is broadly
consistent with the extant literature on the relationship between informal learning
and organizational factors such as leadership of the management group and open
communication in the organization (Burke and Hutchins 2007; Ellström, Ekholm,
 Human Resource Development International 221

Table 4. Beta value (standardized coefficients) of regression analysis for effectiveness of

informal learning.

Variables Interaction with peers (Beta) Learning by doing (Beta)

Leadership (ORG1) 0.088** 0.038*
Open communication (ORG2) 0.165** 0.122**
Innovation culture (ORG3) 70.005 70.005
Task characteristics (Task 1) 0.101** 0.136**
Task satisfaction (Task 2) 0.051** 0.063**
Task3_1a 0.069** 0.073**
Task3_2b 0.049** 0.037*
Task3_3c 0.024 0.054**

Notes: Task3_1a: Useful in other organization within same industry with current corporation. Task3_2b:
Useful in only same kind of job regardless of type of business or industry. Task3_3c: Widely useful in many
organizations without limitation. Reference of Task 3_1, 3_2, and 3_3 is that knowledge and skills
obtained from a current task are only useful in current organization. *p 5 0.05. **p 5 0.01.

and Ellström 2008; Jensen 2005; Kleiner 2003; Rothwell 2002; Watkins and Marsick
1996).
An innovation-oriented culture may inspire employees to commit to learning
(Lundvall 2010). However, study results did not support the hypothesis of a positive
relationship between innovation-oriented cultures as one organizational factor and
the effectiveness of two types of informal learning. There is one plausible explanation
for the study results. Excessive emphasis on innovation in organizations may lead to
distrust and defensiveness among employees (Lundvall 2010). The survey on degrees
of fatigue by one of Korea’s major newspapers presents 55% of employees had a
negative opinion about innovation activities driven by their organizations
(Economyplus 2010).
In addition, today, many companies in Korea emphasize innovation in the
workplace. Sometimes innovation is considered by employees as one way to
accentuate individualism and receive rewards based on individual performance.
However, workers in Korean organizations seem to prefer group activities and to be
familiar with group consciousness. This means that trust and openness within an
organization, as these relate to group consciousness, appear to have a greater impact
on informal learning than does an innovation-oriented culture, which may be
regarded as forcing individualism. Little is known about the relationship between
innovation and informal learning in Korea. More research on this finding is
required.
Second, this study supported the hypothesis of a relationship between the
effectiveness of informal learning and three task factors: (a) frequency of new task
situations as task characteristics, (b) satisfaction with the task itself, and (c) utility of
knowledge and skills obtained from a task. Less routine and repeated work as task
characteristics had a positive relationship with the effectiveness of informal learning.
This indicates that as employees frequently faced new tasks and situations, the
effectiveness of informal learning increased.
These results supported previous research which showed that employees may
facilitate informal learning when faced with new challenges never before
encountered (Ellström 2006; Gersick and Hackman 1990). This demonstrates
that the task itself is important in terms of determinants of the learning potential
of work.
222 K.S. Jeon and K.-N. Kim

Satisfaction with a task itself, not including satisfaction with a human relation-
ship and salary, positively influenced the effectiveness of informal learning both
through interactions with peers and learning by doing. This is not a new result –
previous research has revealed that general job satisfaction does have a positive
relationship with work motivation and performance, including informal learning
(Alonderiene 2010; Rowden 2002; Rowden and Connine Jr. 2005). However, few
research findings have revealed a relationship between satisfaction with a task itself
and effectiveness of informal learning.
The utility of knowledge and skills obtained from a current task has a significant
relationship with the effectiveness of two types of informal learning. The effectiveness
of both types increased when workers recognized that knowledge and skills obtained
from a current task are useful to other companies rather than being useful only in the
current workplace.
Additionally, the effectiveness of informal learning through interactions with
peers was impacted significantly by open communication among employees. On the
other hand, informal learning through learning by doing on one’s own was
significantly influenced by task characteristics such as routine and repeated tasks or
constantly new situations. This seems to be more often the case when workers share
their acquired knowledge and skills with their colleagues in a culture that inculcates
open communication. Also, it seems that workers tend to be motivated to improve
knowledge and skills through learning by doing when faced with new and
challenging tasks and situations.

Implications for HRD practice and future research

Efforts should be made to ensure an organizational environment that fosters open
communication because doing so can substantially contribute to the effectiveness of
informal learning. Given the significance of top management leadership, which
emphasizes the importance of HRD in this study, the management group must
recognize its role in creating an appropriate organizational environment to improve
the effectiveness of informal learning. HRD professionals should continually
consider ways to support the creation of a culture of open communication to
facilitate informal learning, which is the predominant learning method in the
workplace. Specifically, HRD professionals can educate employees about the
conditions that facilitate informal learning with peers and provide formal learning
programmes in communication and problem-solving skills that require cooperation
and teamwork in support of informal learning with peers. Also, HRD professionals
should consider co-locating workstations in proximity to others to promote collegial
interaction and knowledge-sharing.
In addition, organizations may take advantage of the finding that employees
should be encouraged to engage in informal learning when given new tasks
rather than in the course of routine and repeated ones. Organizations can
simultaneously improve the performance and productivity of employees by
providing them with new challenging tasks. Organizations could use a job
rotation system to avoid mannerisms due to routine and repeated tasks and
adopt an automation system through formalization of such tasks (Education
Development Center 1998; Ellström 2001). Also, organizations could consider
giving more benefits to employees who have gained knowledge and skills from
current tasks – doing so will ensure that these employees remain in their current
 Human Resource Development International 223

jobs rather than seeking new positions in companies perceived to offer better
working conditions.
In terms of future research, first, researchers could further study the effectiveness
of informal learning through interaction with peers and learning by doing through
engaging in own tasks in a variety of different types and sizes of corporations. The
effectiveness of informal learning may differ according to firm size because informal
learning in small and middle-size firms is preferred.
Second, an appropriate next step would be to replicate this study in an
examination of the relationship between task factors and individual factors and
informal learning. Individual factors such as a person’s ability and motivation,
unionized worker, gender and level of position can influence the effectiveness of
informal learning (Billett 2004; Ellström 2001; Livingstone and Raykov 2005).
A third area for future research would involve creation of an instrument that may
be used to assess the effectiveness of informal learning. Although many scholars
support the effectiveness and importance of informal learning, there has been little
assessment of informal learning, including organization culture, task and individual
factors (Lohman 2005; Skule 2004).

Limitations
This study had several limitations. First, results may be differentiated according to
the degree of each worker’s motivation and ability to learn as well as individual
readiness to learn because individual characteristics are another critical factor
influencing individual learning with organization and task factors (Ellström,
Ekholm, and Ellström 2008; Lohman 2005). However, the present study did not
include an analysis of individual characteristics.
Second, results have limited generalizability in other countries because the target
population was employees in corporations in South Korea. National cultural
contexts can impact the relationship between effective informal learning and
organization and task factors.
Third, there was the possibility of a common method variance and percept-
percept bias because this study used a self-report method, which can create false
correlations among constructs (Podsakoff et al. 2003).
Finally, use of a single item to examine specific factors can lead to reliability issues
often not found in the use of multi-items to measure a specific factor (Straub 1989). A
single item was used to measure task satisfaction, task characteristics, utility of
knowledge and skill, and effectiveness of two aspects of informal learning: through
interaction with peers, and learning by doing through own task, respectively.
Organizational efforts to foster openly communicative environments will
substantially improve the effectiveness of informal learning. Also, integration
of learning and work in a manner that has learning potential enhances employees’
competence in a fiercely competitive situation and allows creative and passionate
employees to keep searching for opportunities to enhance their competencies.

References
Alonderiene, R. 2010. Enhancing informal learning to improve job satisfaction: Perspective of
SMEs managers in Lithuania. Baltic Journal of Management 5, no. 2: 257–88.
Ashton, D.N. 2004. The impact of organizational structure and practices on learning in the
workplace. International Journal of Training and Development 8, no. 1: 43–53.
224 K.S. Jeon and K.-N. Kim

Becker, G. 1964. Human capital. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic

Research.
Beitler, M., and L. Mitlacher. 2007. Information sharing, self-directed learning and its impli-
cations for workplace learning: A comparison of business student attitudes in Germany
and the USA. Journal of Workplace Learning 19, no. 8: 526–35.
Berg, S.A., and S.Y. Chyung. 2008. Factors that influence informal learning in the workplace.
Journal of Workplace Learning 20, no. 4: 229–44.
Billett, S. 2004. Learning through work: Workplace participatory practices. In Workplace
learning in context, eds. H. Rainbird, A. Fuller, and A. Munro, 109–25. London, UK:
Routledge.
Bradley, D.E., and J.A. Roberts. 2004. Self-employment and job satisfaction: Investigating the
role of self-efficacy, depression, and seniority. Journal of Small Business Management 42,
no. 1: 37–58.
Burke, L.A., and H.M. Hutchins. 2007. Training transfer: An integrative literature review.
Human Resource Development Review 6, no. 3: 263–96.
Carnevale, A. 1984. Jobs for the nation: Challenge for a society based on work. Alexandria, VA:
American Society for Training and Development.
Chiva, R., and J. Alegrel. 2009. Organizational learning capability and job satisfaction: An
empirical assessment in the ceramic tile industry. British Journal of Management 20: 323–
40.
Conner, M. 2005. Informal learning: Ageless learner. http://agelesslearner.com/intros/
informal.html (accessed November 3, 2008).
Cook, J., and T. Wall. 1980. New work attitude measures of trust, organisational commitment
and personal need non-fulfilment. Journal of Occupational Psychology 53: 39–52.
Coombs, P., and M. Ahmed. 1974. Attacking rural poverty: How nonformal education can help.
Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
Cross, J. 2007. Informal learning: Rediscovering the natural pathways that inspire innovation and
performance. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Doornbos, A.J., S. Bolhuis, and P.R. Simons. 2004. Modeling work-related learning on the
basis of intentionality and developmental relatedness: A non-educational perspective.
Human Resource Development Review 3, no. 3: 250–74.
Døving, E., and O. Nordhaug. 2002. Learning firm specific knowledge and skills: Conceptual
issues and empirical results. Paper presented at the 3rd European Conference on
Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities, Athens, Greece.
Economyplus. 2010. Fatigue degree of employees in Korea. http://m-economy.chosun.com/
view.php?boardName¼C10t_num¼4782 (accessed December 21, 2011).
Education Development Center. 1998. The teaching firm: Where productive work and learning
converge. http://www.edc.org/sites/edc.org/files/pdfs/teaching_firm.pdf (accessed Decem-
ber 21, 2011).
Ellinger, A.D. 2005. Contextual factors influencing informal learning in a workplace setting:
The case of reinventing itself company. Human Resource Development Quarterly 16, no. 3:
389–415.
Ellinger, A.D., and M. Cseh. 2007. Contextual factors influencing the facilitation of others’
learning through everyday work experiences. Journal of Workplace Learning 19, no. 7:
435–52.
Ellström, P.E. 2001. Integrating learning and work: Problems and perspectives. Human
Resource Development Quarterly 12, no. 4: 421–35.
Ellström, P.E. 2006. Two logics of learning. In Learning, working and living: Mapping the
terrain of working life learning, eds. E. Antonacopoulou, P. Jarvis, V. Andersen, B.
Elkjaer, and S. Hoyrup, 33–49. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ellström, E., B. Ekholm, and P. Ellström. 2008. Two types of learning environment. Journal of
Workplace Learning 20, no. 2: 84–97.
Eraut, M.A. 1998. Learning from other people at work. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.
Gersick, C.G., and J.R. Hackman. 1990. Habitual routines in task performing groups.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 47: 65–97.
Hartley, D. 2000. All aboard the e-learning. Training and Development 54, no. 7: 37–9.
Hodkinson, P., H. Colley, and J. Malcolm. 2003. The interrelationships between informal and
formal learning. Journal of Workplace Learning 15, no. 7/8: 313–8.
 Human Resource Development International 225

Jacobs, R., and Y. Park. 2009. A proposed conceptual framework of workplace learning:
Implications for theory and research in the human resource development. Human
Resource Development Review 8, no. 2: 133–50.
Jensen, P.E. 2005. A contextual theory of learning and learning organization. Knowledge and
Process Management 12, no. 1: 53–64.
Kleiner, A. 2003. Core groups: A theory of power and influence for learning organizations.
Journal of Organizational Change Management 16, no. 6: 666–83.
Lee, J.W., H.G. Rainey, and Y.H. Chun. 2010. Goal ambiguity, work complexity, and work
routineness in federal agencies. The American Review of Public Administration 40, no. 3:
284–308.
Leppanen, A., L. Hopsu, S. Klemola, and E. Kuosma. 2008. Does multi-level inter-
vention enhance work process knowledge? Journal of Workplace Learning 20, no. 6:
416–30.
Lewicki, R.J., and B.B. Bunker. 1996. Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships.
In Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research, eds. Tyler, T.R., and R.M.
Kramer, 68–89. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Livingstone, D.W., and M. Raykov. 2005. Union influence on worker education and training
in Canada in tough time. Just Labour 5: 50–64.
Lohman, M.C. 2005. A survey of factors influencing the engagement of two professional
groups in informal workplace learning activities. Human Resource Development Quarterly
16, no. 4: 501–27.
Lundvall, B. 2010. National systems of innovation: Toward a theory of innovation and
interactive learning. New York, NY: Anthem Press.
Marsick, V.J., and M. Volpe. 1999. The nature and need for informal learning. In Informal
learning on the job, eds. Marsick, V.J., and M. Volpe, 1–9. San Francisco, CA: Berrett
Koehler.
Marsick, V.J., and K.E. Watkins. 1990. Informal and incidental learning in the workplace. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Marsick, V.J., and K.E. Watkins. 1996. In action: Creating the learning organization.
Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.
Marsick, V.J., and K.E. Watkins. 2001. Informal and incidental learning. In New directions for
adult and continuing education, ed. S.B. Merriam, 25–34. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Michaels, E., H. Handfield, and B. Axelrod. 1997. The war for talent. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School.
Muchinsky, P.M. 2005. Psychology applied to work. 8th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson
Wadsworth.
Nembhard, D.A., and N. Osothsilp. 2002. Task complexity effects on between-individual
learning/forgetting variability. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 29, no. 5:
297–306.
OECD. 2005. The role of national qualifications systems in promoting lifelong learning. http://
www.oecd.org/dataoecd/33/40/34259829.pdf (accessed December 21, 2011).
O’Leonard, K. 2008. The corporate learning fact book 2008: Statistics, benchmarks and analysis
of the U.S. corporate training market. Oakland, CA: Bersin & Associates.
Papa, M.J., and W.H. Papa. 1990. Perceptual and communicative indices of employee
performance with new technology. Western Journal of Speech Communication 54: 21–41.
Pedhazur, E.J. 1997. Multiple regression in behavioral research. 3rd ed. Orlando, FL: Harcourt
Brace.
Perrow, C. 1967. The framework for comparative organizational analysis. American
Sociological Review 32, no. 2: 194–208.
Podsakoff, P.M., S.B. MacKenzie, J. Lee, and N.P. Podsakoff. 2003. Common method biases
in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology 88, no. 5: 879–903.
Poell, R.F., F.J. Van der Krogt, A.A. Vermulst, R. Harris, and M. Simons. 2006. Roles of
informal workplace trainers in different organizational contexts: Empirical evidence from
Australian companies. Human Resource Development Quarterly 17, no. 2: 175–98.
Price, J.L., and C.W. Mueller. 1986. Handbook of organizational measurement. Marshfield,
MA: Pitman Publishing Inc.
Rothwell, W.J. 2002. The workplace learner. New York, NY: AMACOM.
226 K.S. Jeon and K.-N. Kim

Rowden, R. 2002. The relationship between workplace learning and job satisfaction in small
to mid-sized business. Human Resource Development Quarterly 13: 407–26.
Rowden, R., and C.T. Connine Jr. 2005. The impact of workplace learning on job satisfaction
in small US commercial banks. Journal of Workplace Learning 17: no. 4: 215–29.
Senge, P.M. 1990. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New
York, NY: Doubleday.
Skule, S. 2004. Learning conditions at work: A framework to understand and assess
informal learning in the workplace. International Journal of Training and Development 8,
no. 1: 8–20.
Spector, P. 1997. Job satisfaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sternber, B.G., and M.W. Keeton. 1999. Ecologies that support and enhance adult learning.
College Park, MD: University of Maryland College. Retrieved from ERIC database
(ED212246).
Straub, D.W. 1989. Validating instruments in MIS research. MIS Quarterly 13, no. 2: 147–66.
Tsai, P.C., Y.F. Yen, L.C. Huang, and I.C. Huang. 2007. A study on motivating employees’
learning commitment in the post-downsizing era: Job satisfaction perspective. Journal of
World Business 42: 157–69.
Tsui, A.S., T.D. Egan, and C.A. O’Reilly. 1992. Being different: Relational demography and
organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly 37, no. 4: 549–79.
Watkins, K.E., and V.J. Marsick. 1996. In action: Creating the learning organization.
Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.