Informal workplace learning (IWL) is an important part of workrelated continuing education, especially in the case of bluecollar workers. The current article presents a new measure of IWL, which we developed based on the already existing Dynamic Model of Informal Learning by Tannenbaum et al. (2010). We extended the model to eight components by theoretical considerations, introducing a second-order structure. Each component is represented on the IWL scale with three items, the subscales have sound internal consistencies (α range between .76 and .92). The article also presents a short version of the scale comprising eight items (α = .79). Study 1 describes the process of item selection, while Study 2 deals with different theoretically conceivable models comparing their model fits. The predicted model with eight factors in a second-order structure achieves the best model fit. In addition, convergent, discriminant, and criterion validity are demonstrated. Mediumsized relationships of IWL components to conscientiousness and learning outcomes confirm the nomological network we developed previously in our study. The discussion provides limitations and possible scientific and practical applications of the IWL scale, for example, the transfer of the measure to other contexts and target groups. K E Y W O R D S blue-collar workers, informal workplace learning, scale development

We investigated informal workplace learning (IWL) within an under-researched target group: blue-collar workers. IWL is particularly important for these workers because of learning barriers to participation in formal training. Based on meta-analytical conceptualizations and findings, we developed a conceptual framework of antecedents, processes, and learning outcomes of IWL among blue-collar workers (APO framework), following an input-process-output perspective. The results of our structural equation model analysis with N = 702 blue-collar workers from small and medium-sized businesses provided support for seven of eight hypotheses: Personal antecedents, namely curiosity, learning goal orientation, and self-directed learning orientation were positively related to IWL; organizational antecedents, namely social support—containing supervisor support, coworker support, and error-related learning climate—and, surprisingly, time pressure were positively related to IWL; IWL was positively related to three learning outcomes, namely job involvement, newly acquired competency, and organizational citizenship behavior. The findings establish a basis for future longitudinal studies and theory building in workplace learning research, and they provide managers in organizations with guidance to promote IWL.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract