What is lifelong learning for? Consider effects on health and well-being

Beier et al. convincingly argue that successful workers will need to engage in lifelong learning given the evolving nature of work. Indeed, if the ultimate goal is to succeed as a worker and remain employable, it is essential to maintain the relevance of one’s competencies to the labor market. However, one can question whether this is indeed individuals’ ultimate goal and whether, for many, work is not simply a means to securing a livelihood, thereby achieving good health and well-being. Moreover, as argued in literature on sustainable employability (Fleuren, Reference Fleuren2019), competencies alone are insufficient for sustained employability. Workers who theoretically have all the necessary competencies to execute their work thanks to their lifelong learning participation, but who are not healthy enough or are burnt out, cannot effectively and sustainably participate in employment. Consequently, for a sensible and truly person-centric approach, researchers and practitioners need to consider the reasons for and consequences of lifelong learning for individuals.

Initial research on sustaining workers’ employability highlights that although workplace learning opportunities help employability, they may come with health and well-being costs. For instance, Fleuren (Reference Fleuren2019) shows that the availability of developmental opportunities can be valued by workers and facilitate positive employability development. However, these same opportunities can also be associated with declines in health and well-being. Moreover, Shin et al. (Reference Shin, Kim, Kim and Kang2020) find that employer-provided (as opposed to self-funded) training is negatively related to well-being. Additionally, although self-directed learning can be empowering, workers already burdened by high workloads or financial pressures can experience increased stress and anxiety due to such demands (OECD, 2019). Importantly, some studies show no or even positive effects of workplace learning on well-being or health (Watson et al., Reference Watson, Tregaskis, Gedikli, Vaughn and Semkina2018). Following appraisal theory (Lazarus & Folkman, Reference Lazarus and Folkman1984), this variation in findings makes sense, as learning opportunities’ effects will depend on how well workers think they can cope with learning demands given their existing skill set and the support available in their environments. In sum, particularly when applying a “lifelong lens” and a truly person-centric perspective to workplace learning, including health and well-being indicators seems sensible.

Who is lifelong learning for? From individual agency to societal facilitation

In emphasizing the need for more person-centric approaches to workplace learning, Beier et al., comment on the point of individual agency. The authors recognize the relevance of vulnerable groups of workers and note that assuming individual agency may be overly simplistic. Indeed, many workers globally face precarious conditions due to the demographic groups they belong to, low-wage and insecure jobs, and the automation risks or gig-based nature of their work (Kalleberg, Reference Kalleberg2018). Participation in lifelong learning among these groups in particular remains alarmingly low (OECD, 2021), which can be understood given the financial pressures, time constraints, and limited access to learning resources these workers often face (Poulissen et al., Reference Poulissen, De Grip, Fouarge and Künn-Nelen2023). Crucially, the focal article restricts itself to organizations and workers when considering workplace learning, whereas (local) governments and sectoral actors can play important roles in coconstructing learning journeys for all groups of workers (Katz et al., Reference Katz, Roth, Hendra and Schaberg2022).

A first particular problem with focusing on individual workers and organizations lies in the employability paradox and organizations’ interests. The employability paradox refers to the idea that although organizations will need to train their workers to sustain their employability, doing so might increase workers’ movement capital, thereby benefiting competitors (Rodrigues et al., Reference Rodrigues, Butler and Guest2019). Whether real or perceived, the employability paradox can influence organizations’ willingness to invest in employee development. For example, some organizations might not care about their employees’ development as they maintain a short-term exploitative model, others can afford to have high turnover given a continuing labor supply, and yet others can be forced to make investments as one of few ways to sustain a competitive advantage in their sector. Appreciating worker–organization power asymmetries (Bouchareb, Reference Bouchareb, Thornley, Jefferys and Appay2010) and how work contextual factors can incapacitate willing workers (Kraiger & Ford, Reference Kraiger and Ford2021), it seems relevant to include governmental parties in workplace learning (Murray & Shillington, Reference Murray and Shillington2012). An example of government interventions is the provision of training opportunities to underresourced or at-risk groups. For example, a Dutch governmental training voucher plan targeting low-education level workers is found to increase training participation while simultaneously introducing a 60% deadweight loss (Hidalgo et al., Reference Hidalgo, Oosterbeek and Webbink2014). More effective solutions that address power and capability imbalances regarding workplace learning between relevant actors are needed.

A second issue necessitating a broader perspective on lifelong learning is the challenge both individuals and organizations face in predicting future up- and reskilling needs. Regardless of a person- or organization-centric focus, exactly anticipating the future developments, which competencies they require, and how individuals and/or organizations should best develop these remains challenging. Individuals are, for example, often not aware of the automation risks of their occupation (Lergetporer et al., Reference Lergetporer, Werner and Wedel2023). As Beier et al. argue, organizations are better equipped to detect such trends than individuals. Moreover, organization have more control over and resources for workplace learning opportunities. Consequently, overemphasizing individual responsibility for learning seem unwise. However, organizations too operate in contexts they can neither fully control nor predict, and knowing what the future will hold and how to adapt to it timely requires advanced dynamic capabilities (Apascaritei & Elvira, Reference Apascaritei and Elvira2022). As national and local governments can play an important role in shaping these contexts, they are generally better equipped to make reasonable predictions regarding future labor demands. Moreover, governmental agents have a direct interest in maximizing labor potential and participation themselves, given for instance associations between unemployment rates, economic growth, and societal well-being (e.g., Di Tella et al., Reference Di Tella, MacCulloch and Oswald2003). Therefore, besides individual and organizational agency, the societal actors and their role in workplace learning need to be considered more profoundly.

What is needed for a profound person-centric perspective on lifelong learning?

A third remaining question regarding the person-centric perspective as proposed by Beier et al. is what it would actually look like in (research) practice. The focal article is relatively unspecific regarding what person-centricity (or person-centeredness) entails. The authors mention several broad directions for research, but their person-centricity remains underspecified. Building on the aforementioned need to incorporate health and well-being considerations and the involvement of multiple actors, the present commentary concludes by specifying three ways in which person-centric perspectives to workplace learning can be concretized: focusing on workers’ needs, motivations, and individual profiles.

Concerning workers’ needs, person-centric approaches to workplace learning need to consider specific subgroups and their—potentially counterintuitive—needs. Although for some groups of workers future competency needs are predictable, for others knowing which competencies to prioritize and invest in can be complex. For instance, research indicates that 30% of learning opportunities workers want to pursue do not benefit their professional role (Cedefop, 2022). Similarly, workers in industries susceptible to automation often fail to grasp the urgency of reskilling, which increases their risk of job displacement (World Economic Forum, 2020). Lergetporer et al. (Reference Lergetporer, Werner and Wedel2023) highlight that these workers need to receive accurate labor market information to combat their lack of perceived need for training. Besides knowing what to prioritize, metacognitive skills (i.e., one’s ability to reflect on one’s own cognitive processes; Zimmerman, Reference Zimmerman2002) can perpetuate inequalities as well. These skills are known to facilitate learning and are likely underdeveloped in already at-risk groups. Thus, identifying needs for metacognitive skill developments can arguably facilitate workplace learning and, by extension, enhance competence development. Finally, workers who feel empowered to engage in self-directed learning can simultaneously experience stress due to feeling the need to do so, especially when they are already burdened by high workloads or financial pressures (OECD, 2019). In such cases, resource provision or workload alleviation by organizational or governmental actors is essential to foster learning and ensure that workers can participate effectively.

Identifying why workers may want to engage in or refrain from workplace learning is perhaps as important as knowing what they need to engage in it effectively. As discussed, just as workers are unlikely to work for its own sake, it is also unlikely that they engage in workplace learning for the pure enjoyment of learning. More commonly, workplace learning is likely a means to an end, such as staying employable and, via that, securing a living. The implication is that engagement in workplace learning may be an issue of what individual workers value and consider worthwhile time investments. Such themes can be explored qualitatively by interviewing different subgroups of workers (particularly those in vulnerable positions). Alternatively, quantitative studies could look at how individual’s needs/willingness interact with their abilities and the opportunities provided by organizations when it comes to lifelong/workplace learning. Whether one adopts a person–environment fit framework (Kristof-Brown et al., Reference Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman and Johnson2005), capability approach (Sen, Reference Sen1999), or reasoned action approach (Fishbein & Ajzen, Reference Fishbein and Ajzen2009), matching individuals’ needs and motives with opportunities available in their employment context may elucidate the variation in workplace learning.

Although workplace learning relevant subgroups of workers may be derived theoretically (e.g., precarious workers or migrant workers), truly person-centered approaches (as opposed to variable-centered) approaches can be used as well. The aforementioned needs- and motive-oriented suggestions rely on variable-centered reasoning; a certain variable relates to another in a certain way (e.g., workers who are more aware of their need to train are more willing to do so). Truly person-centered approaches look at the natural existence of certain constellations or patterns of scores on variables within people. An interesting way to explicate person-centric research on workplace learning could be to use the person-centric latent profile analysis approach (Morin et al., Reference Morin, McLarnon and Litalien2020). Such an approach could be applied to sets of motives, needs, demands, opportunities, or any other characteristic set, to see if different workplace learning relevant subgroups with unique scoring patterns exist in the working population. Similarly, growth mixture modeling can be used to identify clusters of individuals with characteristic temporal patterns in workplace learning or relevant variables (Jung & Wickrama, Reference Jung and Wickrama2007). What makes these approaches person-centered is that they allow for naturally occurring patterns (temporal or scoring) to be identified from populations rather than considering average effects and relationships for whole populations. This can uncover new at-risk or in-need groups and highlight important issues relevant to workplace learning.