Whilst educationalists are alert to the potential for significant workplace learning, others with capacity to influence acting upon this may not recognise that a workplace is a place of learning beyond skills training to do the job. However, this is not to say that ‘others’ are all blind to the potential for increased enterprise productivity and enhanced self-image by individuals. The others referred to especially include leaders (of varying rank) as became apparent upon revisiting research data accrued in the course of a 2002 to 2005 exploration of what might increase the likelihood of a Country Fire Authority (CFA) volunteer to remain as a volunteer.

The 2002 to 2005 research had as its focus Enhanced organisation achievement through making the most of what a person knows and can do as an outcome from their lifelong learning.  The CFA exploration was a facet of a wider study; however the implications were profound in terms of volunteer numbers, self-image, and community safety. A model for organisation achievement– the LCM Model enmeshing valuing of learning outcomes (L) with valuing a workplace culture supporting this (C and valuing motivations  (M)- was the outcome from the totality of the research (Hughes 2007). The research was ethnographic and data was viewed through a Cultural Historic Activity Theory (CHAT) prism.

Exploration of the broad efficacy of the LCM Model is continuing and includes strengthening the social capital outcomes from the delivery of vocational education and training (VET) in learning institution and workplace settings. It is the workplace settings aspect, and looking beyond formal learning, which has caused deepened exploration of learning at and through work -initially, with women especially in mind. Also, as for the VET and Social Capital research of Hughes and Hughes (2011, 2012), European nuances are also under exploration and includes the melding of work-based learning with formal education outcomes as is under-addressed through recognition of prior learning processes in an Australian context.

Although women were the original focus, the accruing insights add weight to the view that there is much to be gained by pursuing equity in learning at and through work in a manner which is not gender divided – i.e. the sought equity is not about women as a ‘need’ group, but is about nurturing of learning at and through work by men and women. In this respect, it has emerged that the nurturing of learning disposition of workplace leaders (men and women) is at the core of the issue. Noting that this quality in leaders is not gender determined, some male leaders are nurturing in nature and some men are not. Likewise, some women leaders are nurturing in nature and some women are not.

It is acknowledged that the above nurturing findings are not a great surprise. However, the goal is motivating/supporting workplace action in respect of gender equity in learning at and through work; and drawing upon the LCM Model, as a component of the tool/artifact element of interacting activity systems in embedding nurturing dispositions, does have promise.      

Australian Public Service Commission (2006), Lifting & raising the Bar, Australian Public Service Commission, Office of Women, Canberra. Cairns, L.G. & Stephens, J. (2009), Capable Workplace Learning, SENSE Publishers, the Netherlands. Daniels, H., Edwards, A., Engestrom, Y., Gallagher, T. & Ludvigsen, S. (Eds.) (2010), Activity Theory I Practice: Promoting learning across boundaries and agencies, Routledge, New York. Engestrom, Y. (2001), Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization, Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 14, No 1. Hughes, L. (2007), Applying outcomes of lifelong learning to organisational achievement, PhD Thesis, Deakin University Hughes L. & Henry J. (2003), ‘Volunteers as a learning bridgehead to the community’, in The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, Vol 18, No 4, November 2003, Emergency Management Australia, Mt. Macedon. Hughes, L.B. & Hughes, L.C. (2011), Social capital building within a human capital focused VET system: an Australian case study strengthening the deaf community – ECER 2011, Berlin. Hughes, L.B. & Hughes, L.C. (2012), Social Capital and VET – Researching Coupling of ‘Want’ to ‘Need’: and Australian comparison with Europe – ECER 2012, Cadiz. Hughes, L. & Cairns, L.(2013), ‘Competency-Based Training in Australia: What Happened and Where Might We ‘Capably’ Go?’ in L. Deitmer, U. Hauschild, F. Rauner & H. Zelloth (Eds.), The Architecture of Innovative Apprenticeship, Springer, Dordecht,. Koslovskiy, V., Voormann, R., Roossalu, T. (eds) (2010), Leaning in Transition: Policies and Practices of Lifelong Learning in Post-Socialist Countries, Nauka, St Petersburg. Raelin, J. (2003), Creating Leaderful Organizations: How to bring out leadership in everyone, Berrett-Koehler, San Fransisco. Svendsen, G.L.H. & Svendsen, G.T. (2004), The Creation and Destruction of Social Capital: Entrepreneurship, Co-operative Movements and Institutions, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., Snyder, W. (2002), Cultivating Communities of Practice, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.