Controlling or compensating? A qualitative study of how organizational actors' different perceptions affect the design and evaluation of training initiatives within a company

Abstract: Competent and talented employees are important for most companies. Despite their importance, there is a difference in research on whether employees are seen as assets or investors of human capital. These differing views affect how organizational training activities such as competence development - either seen as a precursor for personnel controls and a part of the management control system, or as a form of compensation with the goal of attracting and retaining employees - should be designed and evaluated, and further, whether they should be invested in. This study adopts an interpretative epistemological stance on the field of human capital and personnel controls in order to understand how organizational actors' different perceptions and interpretations of these training initiatives affect the selection, design, and follow-up of such. As a theoretical lens, the theory of cognitive and paradoxical frames is used. We find that a possession of paradoxical frames by those responsible for organizational training is necessary to understand the inherent complexity of training activities arisen when different perceptions are considered. This is, in turn, a prerequisite for designing training initiatives perceived successful, either because it enables an alignment of actor's cognitive frames, or because the training matches the content of several different frames.