Knowledge/cognitive competence

Knowledge/cognitive competence refers to possessing appropriate work-related knowledge and the ability to put this to effective use (Cheetham &

Chivers 1998). The learning outcomes in this category were perhaps the easiest to recognize by the interviewees. The trainees were supposed to learn the basics of many different jobs and tasks of the organization during the trainee period. Based on the results, learning in this category was shallow but broad. This means that the trainees acquired a basic understanding of a great number of tasks, but did not have time to gain profound understanding, not to mention expertise in any. Production related- and some clerical tasks were perhaps the exception, as some of them were rather straightforward to learn.

The most significant learning outcome was gaining a holistic understanding of the organization. This learning outcome was mentioned by all interviewees. Deeper knowledge of some key process areas, such as customer relationship management was acquired and mentioned by the majority of the interviewees.

“In general it was beneficial to see the big picture, to really understand what different people do, what their jobs contain and how the processes work.” (Christina)

“Knowledge related to Lindström’s customer relationship management, and of course all Lindström related facts such as when it was founded etc...” (Peter)

Additionally, a great number of technical skills and procedural knowledge was learned – skills how to operate different systems and tools – which were prerequisites for many jobs. As Bergenhenegouwen (1997) has argued, these types of know-how and skills related to work can be learned through training rather easily. Learning was evident in this category and also clear to articulate and recognize. This category overlaps with functional competence. The results here seem to correspond with the typical workplace learning characteristics, that learning is not just a mental

process but a combination of using a variety tools and thinking at the same time (Resnick 1987). Theory and practice are combined into practical wisdom, just as knowledge and skills are also molded together.

This can be compared to Schön’s (1983) knowing-in-action.

“Certainly this knowledge kind of competence grew a lot, for example knowledge regarding how to use the CRM-system.

We did not have that before, but that was learned during the year.” (Peter)

Deepening understanding of distinct parts of the business processes can be translated into learning tacit-practical knowledge, which is knowledge linked to or embedded within specific functional or personal competences (Cheetham & Chivers 1996). This learning came from interaction with colleagues. Aggregated learning from different tasks led to better overall process understanding also in very practical matter, such as better understanding of how business processes flow from one function to another. The trainee program taught something extra to the trainees in this sense compared to regular employees. This type of contextual knowledge is unique to the organization (Cheetham & Chivers 1996), but it was regarded as very valuable by the interviewees.

“That placement [production] was pretty good. I noticed afterwards that I knew things about the process which the customer care people really did not. […] That was eye-opening.” (Peter)

”Those moments when you are sitting next to someone and you really in practice see how the work is done, but then you – more than others who have been just doing their own work – can connect the dots for the whole process. Those are the

’Aha!’ moments, like now I understand why it was so important that the previous guy did this in the certain way, because of how it affects the rest of the chain.” (Christina)

The interviewees also gained understanding of how complex decision making processes work. This can be regarded as procedural (understanding certain routines) and also contextual knowledge of this particular organization. This category also overlaps with the personal competence category of intra-professional competence (Cheetham &

Chivers 1996), which relates interaction with other professionals and understanding certain professional norms, such as decision making in this context.

”During the trainee year you got the picture of how the decision making processes go, like what’s the right channel and who makes the final decision and how to get there.”

(Christina)

Building up a professional network and getting to know people from different parts of the organization was a clear learning outcome, which the interviewees saw as beneficial. These networks would also be useful after the trainee program. Networking competence and interpersonal skills are addressed more thoroughly in the following chapters. This finding however highlights the social aspects of learning.

”Networking has been really beneficial because I got to know people; it helps you no matter what your job is then after [the trainee period].” (Christina)

Understanding the differences between units was another learning outcome, which came only through personally experiencing the differences while working in different units and countries. Even though Lindström’s operations are highly conceptualized, there is a great variation in operations depending on the context of the particular unit or subsidiary.

Experiencing the discrepancies between what is taught in formal trainings compared to how it is actually translated into action in the field was educational, as was seeing how the work could be done in many different ways.

“Perhaps the most tangible thing was seeing how subsidiaries do things, to learn the difference how things are done in subsidiaries compared to Finland.” (Christina)

”First you heard those eloquent phrases during the orientation on how it should work, but then got a bit different interpretation of the same situation from a sales rep or someone else who was doing that work in practice. That was very educational.”

(Peter)