ETHICAL LEADERSHIP IN EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT 203automobile company, interviewees’ expressed ambition was that the future
generation would furnish the company with employees who were more recep-
tive to TBL than the current workforce. They were optimistic that employees
of the future would welcome computer-mediated forms of communication
because it was offered by some interviewees as being self-evident that young
people are more conversant than older people with computer technology.
Designers and developers were central in exhorting the role of youth as
being critical to TBL design and use. Designers were conceived of as primarily
being young people who would design and deliver technology-based training
solutions by consumption primarily by young employees, but that this must
be governed by the dictate and vicissitude of business need. Interviewees’
accounts frequently made managerial assertions on the unity of good design
with good business. This was epitomized in the oft-used jargon phrase, ‘train-
ing integration’. It was commonplace for interviewees’ accounts of employee
development and training solutions to emphasize that solutions were easier to
apply in some areas of the company than in others. Business and commercial
areas of the company were reported to be more receptive to TBL than employ-
ees from engineering and technical services. We interpret this ‘receptiveness’ as
partly a consequence of changing management priorities within the company.
The internal environment (of the company) attached increasing importance
to the commercial and business areas and was less willing than before to be
led by product values dominated by professional and technical values and
commitments.
TBL was however not popular with all of the employees in HR, Training and
Development who were sometimes disparagingly referred to by interviewees
as the ‘delivery army’. Employees from HR, Training and Development were
said to be resistant for two main reasons. First, TBL threatened to put them
out of work, and second, it was believed to be ineffective for some training
and development goals, particularly whenever face-to-face communication
was considered central to achieving intended learning outcomes. There was an
overriding sense in many of the interviewees’ accounts that TBL was unpopu-
lar with people from engineering and technical backgrounds.
Old people were characterized by interviewees as employees most likely
to be resistant to training solutions whereas young people were described as
being more comfortable with computer technology and appreciative of its
potential. Employee resistance to TBL was characterized by interviewees as
caused by technophobia or ‘unwillingness to change’. Designers and devel-
opers nevertheless were espoused to be passionate about the new technol-
ogy and therefore were the reverse of the stereotype of an older employee.
Designers and developers were described by their managers as motivated by
the challenges of creative, professional, and technical work, and consequently,
were said to be in need of constant reminding of the importance of serving
customers and evaluating products according to business objectives.