Unlocking Human Potential: A Capability Approach to Adult Learning and Organizational Development

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD
2 hours ago
27 min read

Listen to this article:

Abstract: Organizations increasingly recognize that workforce capability development extends beyond technical skills acquisition to encompass broader human flourishing and agency. Drawing on the capability approach framework, this article examines how organizational adult learning initiatives can expand employees' real freedoms to achieve valued outcomes rather than merely delivering standardized training interventions. Evidence suggests that participation inequalities persist across socioeconomic, educational, and demographic lines, with significant consequences for both organizational performance and individual wellbeing. This review synthesizes research on capability-oriented learning systems, highlighting evidence-based organizational responses including conversion factor support, choice architecture redesign, social capability building, and agency-enhancing practices. Forward-looking recommendations emphasize psychological contract recalibration, distributed leadership structures, and continuous learning ecosystems that recognize learning as intrinsically valuable while simultaneously advancing organizational objectives. Organizations adopting capability-sensitive approaches demonstrate enhanced innovation capacity, employee retention, and adaptive performance in volatile environments.

The contemporary discourse on organizational learning and development faces a fundamental tension. On one hand, rapid technological change, demographic shifts, and competitive pressures demand continuous workforce adaptation. On the other, traditional training models often fail to achieve lasting behavioral change or equitable participation, particularly among those who might benefit most (Rubenson & Desjardins, 2009). This paradox points to a deeper challenge: conventional approaches frequently emphasize what organizations provide (courses, credentials, competency frameworks) rather than what employees can actually achieve with those resources.

The capability approach, originally developed by Amartya Sen and expanded by Martha Nussbaum and others, offers a reframing. Rather than focusing solely on resource inputs or skill outputs, this framework asks whether learning opportunities genuinely expand people's real freedoms to pursue lives and careers they have reason to value (Sen, 1992, 1993). For organizations, this perspective shifts the question from "How many training hours did we deliver?" to "Did our learning systems enable diverse employees to convert opportunities into meaningful capabilities?"

This matters now more than ever. Research consistently demonstrates that adult learning participation remains highly stratified, with lower-educated, older, immigrant, and economically disadvantaged workers substantially underrepresented (Boeren, 2017; Roosmaa & Saar, 2017). These inequalities compound over careers, creating capability traps where those with fewer initial resources systematically lack access to development opportunities that could expand their agency (Rubenson & Desjardins, 2009). For organizations, this represents both a moral challenge and a strategic liability—untapped human potential, reduced innovation capacity, and workforce fragility.

This article synthesizes evidence on capability-oriented approaches to organizational learning. We examine the current participation landscape, organizational and individual consequences of capability constraints, evidence-based interventions, and forward-looking strategies for building long-term learning capability.

The Organizational Adult Learning Landscape

Defining Capability in the Learning Context

The capability approach distinguishes between functionings (what people actually achieve—e.g., completing a certification, gaining promotion) and capabilities (the real freedoms people have to achieve those functionings if they choose). This distinction proves crucial for understanding learning inequalities (Robeyns, 2005; Sen, 2009).

Consider two employees offered identical leadership development programs. One has supportive management, flexible scheduling, childcare support, prior educational confidence, and network connections. The other faces skeptical supervision, inflexible hours, family care responsibilities, educational anxiety, and social isolation. The first employee can readily convert the training opportunity into actual leadership capability; the second faces substantial conversion factors—personal, social, and environmental circumstances—that constrain real freedom to benefit (Robeyns, 2005).

Capability theory identifies three conversion factor categories (Robeyns, 2005):

Personal conversion factors: individual characteristics affecting ability to convert resources into capabilities (e.g., prior education, digital literacy, learning confidence, health status)
Social conversion factors: societal norms, power relations, and social networks that enable or constrain conversion (e.g., workplace learning culture, peer support, professional networks, freedom from discrimination)
Environmental conversion factors: institutional structures, policies, and physical context (e.g., learning infrastructure accessibility, time allocation policies, financial support systems, technological platforms)

Understanding these conversion factors explains why resource-equal opportunities often produce unequal outcomes. Organizations that focus solely on providing learning resources without addressing conversion factors essentially offer "formal freedoms" that many cannot exercise (Walker, 2005).

Prevalence, Drivers, and Distribution of Learning Participation

Large-scale studies consistently reveal substantial participation inequalities in adult learning. European data shows participation rates vary dramatically by educational attainment, with tertiary-educated adults participating 2-3 times more frequently than those with lower secondary education (Boeren et al., 2012; Roosmaa & Saar, 2017). Age compounds these patterns—participation typically peaks in the 25-34 age range and declines significantly after 45, precisely when career transitions and technological displacement create greatest need (Boeren, 2009).

Immigrant status, employment status, and firm size create additional stratification. Immigrants participate substantially less than native-born workers across European contexts, even controlling for education (Roosmaa & Saar, 2017). Temporary and part-time workers access fewer learning opportunities than permanent full-time employees (Boeren et al., 2012). Small and medium enterprises provide less training than large corporations, creating systematic disadvantage for their workforces (Cedefop, 2014).

These patterns reflect multiple interacting mechanisms:

Matthew effects concentrate learning opportunities among those already advantaged. Employers rationally invest more in workers with longer expected tenure and higher initial skill levels. Prior education builds confidence and learning strategies that facilitate future learning. Professional networks provide information and encouragement (Rubenson & Desjardins, 2009).

Time poverty and competing demands disproportionately affect lower-wage workers, women with care responsibilities, and workers in inflexible employment. Learning requires not just course time but preparation, travel, and recovery time that many cannot spare (Boeren, 2017).

Psychological and cultural barriers include educational trauma, learning anxiety, and identity conflicts. Workers whose prior schooling involved negative experiences may avoid formal learning contexts. Some occupational cultures stigmatize development participation as admitting inadequacy (Rubenson, 2001).

Information asymmetries and complexity mean disadvantaged workers often lack awareness of opportunities, struggle to navigate fragmented learning markets, or cannot assess quality and relevance. The "informed consumer" model assumes capabilities that many lack (Rubenson & Desjardins, 2009).

Economic constraints and risk aversion make learning investment particularly risky for those with limited financial buffers. Opportunity costs (foregone wages, childcare expenses) and uncertain returns discourage participation, especially when credentials don't guarantee advancement (Boeren, 2017).

The cumulative result: adult learning systems often reinforce rather than reduce initial inequalities, creating what researchers term "opportunity hoarding" among already-privileged groups (Boyadjieva & Ilieva-Trichkova, 2018).

Organizational and Individual Consequences of Capability Constraints

Organizational Performance Impacts

Capability-constrained learning systems generate significant organizational costs, though these often remain invisible in conventional metrics. Research evidence highlights several performance dimensions:

Innovation capacity limitations. Organizations whose learning systems engage only already-educated employees miss diverse perspectives crucial for innovation. Studies demonstrate that cognitively diverse teams produce more creative solutions and that frontline workers often possess critical operational insights (Schuller et al., 2004). When learning access patterns systematically exclude certain groups, organizations forfeit innovation potential.

Workforce fragility and adaptation deficits. Rapid technological and market changes require broad workforce adaptability. Organizations with narrow participation in upskilling face concentrated obsolescence risk—when substantial workforce segments lack development pathways, organizational agility suffers. Research on Industry 4.0 transitions shows that firms investing in broad-based learning demonstrate better change implementation outcomes (Ruhose et al., 2019).

Talent acquisition and retention costs. Capability-constrained learning environments drive voluntary turnover, particularly among high-potential employees seeking development. Studies indicate that perceived learning opportunities strongly predict retention intentions, especially among younger workers and knowledge professionals (Schuller & Desjardins, 2010). Replacing lost talent costs typically 50-200% of annual salary, making retention through development highly cost-effective.

Productivity and quality impacts. Unequal learning access creates performance gaps that compound over time. Workers denied development opportunities plateau in contribution while costs increase with tenure. Research shows that comprehensive learning access correlates with higher productivity and quality metrics, though causality requires careful analysis (Schuller et al., 2004).

Employer brand and legitimacy risks. Increasingly, capability-constrained systems face external scrutiny. Investors apply ESG frameworks examining workforce development equity. Regulatory bodies in some jurisdictions mandate training equity. Public awareness of learning inequalities creates reputational risks, particularly for consumer-facing brands (Boyadjieva & Ilieva-Trichkova, 2018).

Individual Wellbeing and Life-Course Impacts

Beyond organizational consequences, capability constraints in learning impose substantial individual costs that organizational leaders increasingly recognize as stakeholder responsibilities:

Economic wellbeing and career progression. Workers denied learning access face wage stagnation, limited mobility, and heightened unemployment risk during economic disruptions. Research documents significant wage premiums associated with learning participation, particularly for initially lower-educated workers (Ruhose et al., 2019). The capability approach highlights that these aren't just individual losses but injustices—workers willing to develop who face conversion factor barriers experience constrained agency.

Psychological wellbeing and self-efficacy. Learning participation correlates with enhanced self-efficacy, sense of control, and psychological wellbeing, particularly for those overcoming initial disadvantage (Feinstein & Hammond, 2004; Hammond & Feinstein, 2005). Conversely, exclusion from learning opportunities while others advance damages self-concept and creates learned helplessness. Studies show that workplace learning access predicts life satisfaction beyond income effects (Schuller et al., 2004).

Social integration and relationship quality. Learning participation builds social networks, professional communities, and workplace belonging. These social capabilities prove intrinsically valuable and instrumentally important for career advancement. Research demonstrates that learning-rich environments foster stronger workplace relationships and reduce isolation, with particular benefits for immigrants and other marginalized groups (Balatti & Falk, 2002).

Health and longevity. Emerging evidence links adult learning participation to better health outcomes and cognitive reserve in later life. While mechanisms remain debated, research suggests learning opportunities contribute to health-related capabilities through multiple pathways including stress reduction, social connection, and cognitive stimulation (Schuller et al., 2004).

Agency and life control. Perhaps most fundamentally, capability-constrained learning systems diminish human agency—people's real freedom to shape their life courses. Workers who recognize development needs but face insurmountable conversion barriers experience what Sen (1993) termed "capability deprivation"—formal opportunities that translate into no real freedom. This represents arguably the deepest cost, touching human dignity and self-determination.

Evidence-Based Organizational Responses

Organizations can adopt evidence-informed practices that address conversion factors systematically rather than simply adding more learning resources. The following interventions demonstrate effectiveness across diverse contexts.

Conversion Factor Support Systems

Research consistently shows that learning participation increases when organizations actively support employees in converting opportunities into capabilities rather than merely offering opportunities. Conversion support operates across multiple dimensions (Robeyns, 2005; Walker, 2005).

Effective conversion support approaches include:

Economic conversion support: Direct learning subsidies, paid learning time, income protection during extended development, childcare and eldercare subsidies during learning periods, technology and materials provision, and elimination of upfront cost barriers
Time flexibility arrangements: Modular course design allowing incremental completion, micro-credential systems recognizing partial achievements, workplace-integrated learning reducing time conflicts, flexible scheduling accommodating shift work and care responsibilities, and extended completion timeframes for part-time learners
Psychological and confidence building: Pre-learning confidence programs addressing educational trauma, peer support networks and learning cohorts reducing isolation, recognition of informal and experiential learning validating existing capabilities, non-evaluative exploratory learning opportunities reducing fear, and visible leader participation normalizing learning
Navigation and information support: Personalized learning advising helping employees identify relevant opportunities, simplified program information reducing cognitive load, skills gap assessments clarifying development needs, career pathway mapping showing progression possibilities, and employer endorsement signals reducing uncertainty about relevance
Social and cultural support: Manager training on learning support responsibilities, peer mentoring connecting learners across hierarchies, community learning approaches building collective capability, workplace learning culture initiatives normalizing development, and inclusive program design addressing diverse learning styles

At AT&T, facing massive technological disruption requiring workforce reskilling, leadership recognized that simply offering online courses would reproduce existing inequalities. The company implemented "Workforce 2020," combining tuition reimbursement with paid learning time, manager training on development support, personalized career pathway tools, and internal mobility preference for program participants. The multi-dimensional approach increased participation among frontline workers and older employees—groups typically underrepresented in technical upskilling—while supporting successful transition of over 50,000 employees into emerging technology roles.

The retailer Woolworths in Australia addressed persistent participation gaps among store associates through integrated conversion support. Rather than optional training catalogues, the company established store-level learning ambassadors (peer role models), guaranteed scheduling for learning time, modular certifications enabling progressive achievement, and explicit career pathways linking learning to advancement. Participation among previously underrepresented groups (part-time workers, immigrants, older workers) increased substantially, while stores with higher participation demonstrated improved customer service metrics and lower turnover.

Singapore's SkillsFuture initiative exemplifies comprehensive conversion support approaches that integrate multiple dimensions: individual learning accounts (economic support), career guidance services (navigation support), flexible modular course design (time flexibility), workplace training partnerships (employment integration), and national digital platforms simplifying access (institutional support). Similar multi-dimensional approaches in various national contexts have demonstrated potential to increase participation among mid-career workers and lower-wage employees—groups traditionally underrepresented in adult learning (Rubenson & Desjardins, 2009).

Choice Architecture and Capability-Sensitive Design

Rather than assuming employees can navigate complex learning markets as informed consumers, capability-sensitive organizations redesign choice architecture to enable genuine agency even for those with limited educational confidence or information-processing capacity (Boeren, 2017).

Choice architecture improvements include:

Simplified default pathways: Role-based learning journeys with clear sequences rather than overwhelming catalogues, smart defaults enrolling workers in foundational programs with opt-out rather than opt-in, guided progression systems recommending next steps based on completed learning, structured onboarding programs establishing learning habits early, and employer-curated options pre-screened for quality and relevance
Transparent information and decision support: Plain-language program descriptions avoiding educational jargon, explicit time and cost estimates enabling planning, outcome data showing typical participant results and career impacts, prerequisite transparency preventing mismatched enrollments, and comparative information helping workers choose among similar options
Incremental commitment and reversibility: Low-commitment exploration options (workshops, webinars, informational interviews), stackable credentials building toward larger qualifications without upfront long-term commitment, exit points allowing honorable completion at multiple stages, transfer pathways preserving investment if workers change direction, and clear communication about withdrawal processes reducing anxiety
Social proof and normalization: Visible participation data showing learning as normal rather than remedial, peer testimonials from similar workers demonstrating achievability, leader modeling showing learning isn't just for struggling employees, diversity in marketing materials representing all worker groups, and celebration of learning achievements at all levels
Capability-based rather than deficit-based framing: Program descriptions emphasizing capability expansion rather than skill gaps, strength-based assessments identifying existing capabilities as development foundations, recognition systems validating informal learning and experience, aspirational messaging connecting learning to positive futures, and avoiding stigmatizing language about "low-skilled" workers

The global manufacturing company Siemens redesigned its technical training approach after recognizing that traditional course catalogues overwhelmed many employees while failing to guide development effectively. The company implemented role-based learning pathways with clear sequences, integrated assessment identifying relevant starting points, simplified program descriptions focused on job outcomes rather than technical content, peer success stories featuring diverse employees, and manager discussion guides supporting planning conversations. Participation increased across all employee segments, with particular gains among production workers and non-engineering roles. Employee surveys indicated increased confidence in navigating learning options and clearer understanding of career possibilities.

Healthcare systems face particular capability challenges given diverse workforce education levels, demanding schedules, and critical service requirements. Kaiser Permanente addressed participation inequalities through choice architecture redesign: establishing clear pathways from entry-level to advanced roles, creating cohort-based learning with peer support built in, offering multiple entry points throughout the year reducing delay penalties, providing decision support tools helping workers assess readiness, and implementing "learning ambassadors" providing accessible guidance. The redesign increased program completion rates substantially, particularly among workers in lower-wage roles, while supporting advancement of thousands of employees into higher-responsibility positions.

Social Capability Building and Collective Learning

Capability theory emphasizes that many valued functionings inherently involve social relationships and collective action rather than purely individual achievement (Robeyns, 2005). Organizations can foster social capabilities through learning structures that build community and collective competence (Balatti & Falk, 2002).

Social capability approaches include:

Cohort-based learning models: Fixed groups progressing through programs together, creating accountability and mutual support, peer learning integrated into curriculum design, diverse cohort composition exposing participants to varied perspectives, facilitated relationship-building as explicit program component, and alumni networks extending support beyond formal program completion
Communities of practice development: Role-based or interest-based communities providing ongoing learning forums, practitioner-led rather than top-down formats emphasizing peer expertise, regular convenings (physical and virtual) maintaining engagement, knowledge-sharing platforms capturing and disseminating learning, and leadership rotation building facilitation capabilities broadly
Cross-hierarchical learning structures: Reverse mentoring pairing junior and senior employees for mutual learning, cross-functional project teams as learning contexts, leadership development programs with deliberately diverse participants, action learning sets tackling real organizational challenges collaboratively, and employee-led learning initiatives empowering grassroots organization
Collective intelligence systems: Problem-solving platforms enabling distributed contribution to organizational challenges, innovation processes inviting ideas from all levels and roles, learning repositories to which all employees can contribute knowledge, storytelling platforms sharing learning experiences across the organization, and recognition for knowledge sharing and teaching alongside individual achievement
Network-building infrastructure: Structured networking events and platforms connecting learners across boundaries, interest-based groups forming around learning topics or aspirations, internal job shadowing and secondment programs building cross-organizational understanding, alumni tracking and engagement from learning programs, and mentoring matching systems facilitating developmental relationships

The professional services firm Deloitte recognized that traditional individual development planning failed to build collective capability or address isolation experienced by many employees, particularly those in underrepresented groups. The company implemented "Circles"—small peer groups of 6-8 employees from different functions meeting regularly for mutual learning and support. Participation was voluntary but actively encouraged through manager awareness and scheduling accommodation. Research on the program showed participants reported stronger organizational belonging, broader professional networks, increased learning confidence, and higher retention rates. The social capability approach particularly benefited employees from underrepresented backgrounds who lacked informal networks.

Manufacturing organizations often face social segmentation between shop floor and professional staff, limiting learning community formation. The automotive manufacturer BMW addressed this through integrated problem-solving teams combining engineers, technicians, and production workers to tackle quality and efficiency challenges. These teams served as learning contexts where workers built both technical and social capabilities. Evaluation showed increased cross-hierarchical understanding, enhanced innovation in process improvements, broader participation in continuous improvement initiatives, and reduced status barriers that previously limited communication and learning.

Agency-Enhancing Practices and Voice

The capability approach fundamentally concerns human agency—people's ability to pursue goals they value (Sen, 1992). Learning systems can enhance or diminish agency depending on whether they expand or constrain worker choice, voice, and self-determination (Biesta & Tedder, 2007).

Agency enhancement approaches include:

Authentic choice in learning pathways: Self-directed learning budgets allowing workers to pursue valued learning rather than only employer-designated programs, broad recognition of learning forms including informal and non-credentialed development, multiple pathways to valued roles rather than single prescribed routes, opt-in rather than mandatory participation (except for compliance/safety), and exit options from programs without career penalty
Voice in learning system design: Employee advisory groups shaping program offerings and policies, feedback mechanisms genuinely influencing program design and delivery, co-design processes involving intended participants in program development, employee-led learning initiatives receiving organizational support, and transparency about how employee input influences decisions
Recognition of learning as intrinsically valuable: Organizational communication acknowledging learning value beyond job performance, support for learning unrelated to current role including personal interests, celebration of learning achievement independent of career advancement, career pathways for deep expertise without mandatory management transition, and resource allocation reflecting intrinsic learning value
Career self-authoring support: Career development conversations focused on worker aspirations not just organizational needs, tools and processes supporting reflective career planning, exposure to diverse role possibilities through shadowing and rotations, internal mobility systems enabling employee-initiated transitions, and explicit messaging that workers own their development
Transparency and information symmetry: Open communication about career pathway requirements and possibilities, salary and advancement criteria transparency reducing information asymmetry, skills demand forecasting shared with workforce enabling informed development choices, learning outcome data helping workers assess program value, and honest discussion of organizational constraints and possibilities

The global technology company Salesforce addressed agency concerns in its learning strategy by implementing "Trailhead," a platform offering thousands of learning modules across technical, business, and personal development domains. Rather than prescribed learning paths, employees choose based on their interests and aspirations. The company provides learning time and celebrates achievement publicly through gamification elements, but participation and direction remain employee-controlled. The approach increased learning engagement substantially, revealed employee interests in areas leadership hadn't prioritized (prompting program expansion), and supported unexpected career transitions as employees discovered and developed new capabilities. Employee surveys indicate the autonomy-supportive approach enhanced both learning motivation and organizational commitment.

The UK-based retailer John Lewis Partnership, with its employee ownership structure, established democratic processes for learning system governance. Employee councils provide input on learning priorities and program design, working groups including frontline staff shape implementation, and regular surveys assess whether learning systems serve employee-defined needs. This voice-inclusive approach ensures learning opportunities align with employee capabilities and values rather than purely management-defined priorities, while building ownership and participation.

Inclusive Leadership and Managerial Capability Development

Research consistently identifies immediate supervisors as critical enablers or barriers to employee learning participation (Rubenson & Desjardins, 2009). Organizations can build manager capability to support learning across diverse employees (Schuller et al., 2004).

Inclusive learning leadership development includes:

Manager training on learning support: Education on conversion factors and participation barriers, coaching skills for development conversations, awareness of bias in learning recommendations and support, practical tools for accommodating learning within work demands, and accountability for team learning participation and advancement
Revised performance expectations: Team learning metrics as management performance indicators, recognition and rewards for development of others alongside individual achievement, diversity of advancement and learning participation as equity metrics, time allocation expectations legitimizing learning support, and consequences for managers demonstrating patterns of unequal support
Structural support and resources: Clear guidelines on granting learning time and flexibility, budget transparency and adequate learning resources, simplified approval processes reducing managerial gatekeeping burden, HR business partner support for development planning and difficult conversations, and workload management systems preventing learning participation from creating unsustainable work intensity
Role modeling and norm-setting: Senior leader visible participation in learning programs, leader storytelling about personal development and struggles, public discussion of leader learning failures and pivots normalizing difficulty, manager cohort learning building shared commitment to development culture, and celebration of managers whose teams show strong development outcomes
Addressing managerial barriers and incentives: Reducing disincentives for managers to support team learning (concerns about losing talent, work coverage during learning, budget pressures), creating positive incentives through recognition and career advancement, providing managers with development resources to expand team capacity, implementing succession planning reducing hoarding of talent, and addressing manager insecurity about team member skill development

The global bank HSBC recognized that frontline manager behavior substantially determined whether diversity initiatives and learning access improvements reached diverse employees. The company implemented mandatory inclusive leadership development for all people managers, combining awareness education, skill-building in equitable development conversations, accountability through team diversity metrics, and ongoing coaching support. Post-implementation analysis showed more equitable distribution of high-visibility assignments, formal learning participation, and advancement opportunities across demographic groups. Manager feedback indicated the program shifted mindsets from viewing learning support as discretionary to seeing it as core management responsibility.

Manufacturing environments often feature supervisors promoted from technical excellence without people leadership development. The industrial company 3M addressed this through comprehensive supervisor development programs combining technical leadership skills with people development capabilities. Training emphasized identifying potential across diverse team members, accommodating learning within production demands, coaching for growth rather than simply directing work, and creating inclusive team environments where learning is normalized. Supervisors completing the program demonstrated higher team engagement scores, more equitable learning participation across their teams, and improved retention of diverse talent.

Building Long-Term Learning Capability and Organizational Resilience

Beyond immediate interventions, organizations pursuing capability approaches require foundational shifts in how they conceptualize and structure learning systems. The following pillars support sustainable capability-oriented development.

Psychological Contract Recalibration

The traditional employment psychological contract—loyalty and tenure in exchange for security and steady advancement—has largely dissolved, yet many learning systems still assume this model. Capability approaches suggest recalibrating toward what researchers term "relational self-determination" contracts (Rubenson, 2001; Ryan & Deci, 2000).

This recalibration involves:

Explicit mutual investment agreements. Organizations commit to genuine, accessible development opportunities; employees commit to continuous learning and capability building. Both parties acknowledge employability and career agency as shared objectives rather than organizational paternalism or individual self-sufficiency alone.
Transparency about organizational constraints and possibilities. Rather than implying unlimited advancement opportunity or job security, organizations communicate realistic career possibilities and market dynamics while committing to capability expansion that enhances agency even if careers extend beyond current employment.
Recognition of learning's intrinsic and extrinsic value. Organizations acknowledge that learning serves both organizational productivity and individual flourishing, resisting purely instrumental framing that undermines motivation and autonomy.
Long-term perspective beyond immediate job performance. Capability contracts emphasize development for career-long adaptability rather than narrow current-role optimization, recognizing this serves both parties in volatile environments.

The technology sector, facing high mobility and rapid skill evolution, increasingly adopts such contracts explicitly. Companies like Microsoft and Google publicly commit to employee capability building including skills potentially valuable to competitors, reasoning that meaningful development attracts and retains talent while contributing to broader innovation ecosystems from which they also benefit. This represents a shift from viewing employee development as proprietary investment to seeing it as mutual capability building with positive spillovers.

Distributed Learning Leadership and Governance

Capability approaches challenge concentrated control of learning system design and resource allocation. Distributed leadership involves multiple stakeholders—including intended participants—in shaping learning opportunities (Boyadjieva & Ilieva-Trichkova, 2018).

Distributed governance structures include:

Cross-hierarchical learning councils with representation from various organizational levels and roles advising on priorities, budget allocation, and system design.
Employee-led learning communities receiving organizational support (time, resources, legitimacy) while retaining autonomy over focus and approach.
Democratic feedback mechanisms ensuring learning system evolution responds to diverse user experiences rather than only management assumptions.
Capability metrics and accountability tracking whether systems expand real freedoms across diverse populations, with transparency about participation and outcome patterns by demographic group.
Co-investment models where organizational and individual resources combine, creating shared ownership and commitment while preventing purely employer-directed development.

Organizations with strong worker voice mechanisms (including but not limited to unionized environments) increasingly incorporate learning into collective bargaining and joint governance. The European Works Council model, for instance, often includes training and development in consultation processes. Such approaches ensure learning systems address worker-defined capability needs alongside organizational productivity objectives.

Purpose, Meaning, and Belonging in Learning

Research on human motivation consistently shows that meaningful connection to purpose predicts learning engagement more strongly than extrinsic incentives alone (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Capability-oriented organizations cultivate learning cultures that connect development to meaning and belonging (Baumeister & Leary, 1997).

This involves:

Connecting learning to organizational mission and values. When learning opportunities clearly link to meaningful organizational purposes (innovation, customer value, social contribution), participation becomes identity-affirming rather than merely instrumental.
Community and belonging as learning outcomes. Explicitly designing learning experiences to build social connections and organizational belonging, recognizing these as intrinsically valuable capabilities beyond their instrumental benefits.
Identity-affirming learning approaches. Program design and communication that respect and build on diverse participants' existing identities, experiences, and values rather than requiring identity suppression or assimilation.
Celebration and storytelling. Organizational narratives highlighting diverse learning journeys, struggles and successes, and capability expansion across all roles and levels.
Integration with broader wellbeing and inclusion initiatives. Positioning learning as part of holistic approaches to employee flourishing rather than isolated training functions.

Professional service organizations increasingly recognize that purpose-driven cultures attract and retain talent while supporting learning engagement. Companies like Patagonia explicitly connect employee development to environmental and social missions, with learning opportunities spanning both professional skills and broader sustainability capabilities. Employees report that mission alignment sustains learning motivation even during challenging development processes.

Healthcare systems similarly leverage purpose and meaning. The Mayo Clinic frames learning opportunities in relation to patient care quality and medical mission, rather than purely as career advancement or compliance requirements. This mission-connection approach appears to enhance participation and persistence, particularly when learning is difficult or time-consuming.

Continuous Learning Ecosystems and Infrastructure

Isolated training programs cannot sustain capability development in rapidly changing environments. Organizations require learning ecosystems—interconnected elements that make continuous learning feasible, accessible, and normative (Jarvis, 2012).

Ecosystem components include:

Embedded learning in work processes. Rather than separating learning from work, integrating development into daily activities through action learning, reflective practice protocols, peer coaching, project-based development, and communities of practice.
Technology infrastructure supporting accessibility. Learning platforms with inclusive design, mobile accessibility for frontline workers, multilingual content and interfaces, offline access options for connectivity-limited environments, and assistive technology compatibility.
Time architecture legitimizing learning. Protected learning time in work schedules, workload management preventing learning from creating unsustainable intensity, cultural norms supporting learning during work hours, flexible learning options accommodating diverse schedules, and elimination of expectations that learning occurs only during personal time.
Knowledge-sharing systems and practices. Platforms and processes enabling employees to share learning with others, recognition for teaching and knowledge contribution, storytelling mechanisms disseminating learning across the organization, documentation systems capturing and organizing knowledge, and collaborative problem-solving approaches spreading capability.
Continuous assessment and adaptation. Regular evaluation of who participates and who doesn't, exploration of emerging capability needs and opportunities, experimentation with new learning approaches and technologies, feedback loops informing continuous improvement, and agility in program design responding to changing context.

The consulting firm Accenture developed comprehensive learning infrastructure recognizing that episodic training couldn't sustain capability in rapidly evolving technology domains. The company implemented always-on learning platforms, role-based learning communities, project-embedded development, peer teaching networks, and continuous micro-credentialing. Critically, workload expectations and project staffing incorporate learning time rather than treating it as additional burden. The ecosystem approach supports continuous skill currency while making learning feel accessible rather than overwhelming.

Manufacturing environments face particular challenges given production demands and diverse workforce technology comfort. The aerospace company Boeing addressed this through multi-channel learning ecosystems: digital platforms for those preferring technology-mediated learning, classroom options for those favoring face-to-face environments, workplace-integrated training embedded in production processes, peer mentoring networks, and physical learning centers offering hands-on resources. The multi-modal approach recognizes that learning accessibility varies across workforce segments, requiring infrastructure diversity rather than one-size-fits-all solutions.

Conclusion

The capability approach reframes organizational learning from resource provision to freedom expansion—from asking "what did we offer?" to "what can diverse employees actually achieve?" This shift matters because traditional learning systems, however well-resourced, often reproduce inequalities when they ignore conversion factors that determine who can translate opportunities into real capabilities.

Evidence reviewed here demonstrates that capability-conscious organizations adopt several interconnected strategies:

Address conversion factors systematically. Rather than assuming equal ability to access learning, provide economic support, time flexibility, psychological scaffolding, navigation assistance, and social connection that enable diverse employees to participate and benefit.
Redesign choice architecture inclusively. Simplify decision-making, provide clear pathways and guidance, enable incremental commitment, and use capability-affirming rather than deficit-based framing.
Build social capabilities and collective learning. Recognize that many valued outcomes are inherently social and that learning community can be as important as content mastery.
Enhance agency through voice and choice. Give employees genuine influence over learning systems, authentic choice in pathways, and support for self-authored development that serves their aspirations not just organizational productivity.
Develop inclusive leadership capabilities. Equip managers to support diverse employees, address unconscious biases, and create learning-rich environments where development is expected and resourced.
Recalibrate psychological contracts. Move toward mutual investment in long-term capability and employability rather than paternalistic or purely transactional relationships.
Distribute governance and incorporate voice. Include diverse stakeholders, especially intended participants, in learning system design and evolution.
Connect learning to purpose and belonging. Frame development as meaningful and identity-affirming rather than purely instrumental.
Build continuous learning ecosystems. Create integrated infrastructure making learning accessible, normal, and sustainable rather than episodic and burdensome.

For organizational leaders, the capability approach offers both challenge and opportunity. The challenge: truly equitable learning systems require confronting structural barriers, investing in support infrastructure, and ceding some control to distributed governance. The opportunity: organizations that expand employee capabilities across diverse populations unlock innovation potential, build adaptive workforce resilience, enhance retention and engagement, and fulfill stakeholder responsibilities in ways that strengthen rather than conflict with performance objectives.

The contemporary environment—characterized by rapid technological change, demographic diversity, and social expectations for equity—makes capability approaches not merely ethical but strategic. Organizations that view learning investment through capability lenses will increasingly outperform those clinging to narrower training paradigms. Human potential, when genuinely unleashed through freedom-expanding systems, proves organizational performance's most sustainable foundation.

References

Ahl, H. (2006). Motivation in adult education: A problem solver or a euphemism for direction and control? International Journal of Lifelong Education, 25(4), 385–405.
Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665–683.
Alkire, S. (2005). Why the capability approach? Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 115–135.
Allmendinger, J., Haarbrücker, J., & Fliegner, F. (2011). Lebensentwürfe im ländlichen Raum. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.
Anand, P., & van Hees, M. (2006). Capabilities and achievements: An empirical study. Journal of Socio-Economics, 35(2), 268–284.
Antikainen, A. (2005). In search of the Nordic model in education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 49(3), 229–243.
Archer, M. S. (2003). Structure, agency and the internal conversation. Cambridge University Press.
Aspin, D., & Chapman, J. (2000). Lifelong learning: Concepts and conceptions. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 19(1), 2–19.
Balatti, J., & Falk, I. (2002). Socioeconomic contributions of adult learning to community: A social capital perspective. Adult Education Quarterly, 52(4), 281–298.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.
Bandura, A. (2010). Self-efficacy. Wiley.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology, 1(3), 311–320.
Biasin, C., & Evans, K. (2019). Agency in turbulent times: Life and career transitions of immigrants from Bangladesh living in Italy. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 47(6), 691–702.
Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2007). Agency and learning in the lifecourse: Towards an ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39(2), 132–149.
Boeren, E. (2009). Adult education participation: The Matthew principle. Filosofija. Sociologija, 20(2), 154–161.
Boeren, E. (2017). Understanding adult lifelong learning participation as a layered problem. Studies in Continuing Education, 39(2), 161–175.
Boeren, E., Nicaise, I., & Baert, H. (2012). Theoretical models of participation in adult education: The need for an integrated model. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 31(3), 299–316.
Bøhler, K. K. (2019). Om aktørskap i levde liv [About agency in lived lives]. NTNU.
Booker, P. L. J., Beaunoyer, E., Guitton, M. J., Pavlov, D., Summers, K., Wyeth, P., & Johnson, D. (2021). Crowd control: Pros and cons of gamification of passive and active recruitment in an mHealth commercial physical activity app using time series data. JMIR Serious Games, 9(1), Article e21670.
Boomkens, C. C. E., Kuijpers, M. A. C. T., Zuidersma, J., & Oomen, L. (2019). High school students' career self-efficacy: Implications for career guidance conversations. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 47(3), 402–421.
Boyadjieva, P., & Ilieva-Trichkova, P. (2018). Lifelong learning as an emancipation process: A capability approach. In M. Milana, S. Webb, J. Holford, R. Waller, & P. Jarvis (Eds.), The Palgrave international handbook on adult and lifelong education and learning (pp. 679–697). Palgrave Macmillan.
Boyadjieva, P., & Ilieva-Trichkova, P. (2021). Promoting adult learning for empowerment and emancipation: An outcome-based approach. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 40(3), 231–246.
Brady, B., & Gilligan, R. (2020). Connecting a capabilities approach to child and youth care practice. Child & Youth Services, 41(1), 1–18.
Calaguas, N., & Consunji, P. M. (2022). Mindset, grit, and language learning achievement: A correlational study. LEARN Journal, 15(1), 244–267.
Cedefop. (2014). Tackling unemployment while addressing skill mismatch. European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training.
Chen, X. (2006). Social control in China: Applications of the labeling theory and the reintegrative shaming theory. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50(5), 541–555.
Chu, L. (2010). The benefits of meditation vis-à-vis emotional intelligence, perceived stress and negative mental health. Stress and Health, 26(2), 169–180.
Cobb-Clark, D. A. (2015). Locus of control and the labor market. IZA Journal of Labor Economics, 4(1), Article 3.
Cocquyt, C., Diep, N. A., Zhu, C., De Greef, M., & Vanwing, T. (2019). Examining the role of learning support in blended learning for adults' social inclusion and social capital. Computers & Education, 142, Article 103610.
Cross, K. P. (1981). Adults as learners. Jossey-Bass.
Egdell, V., & Graham, H. (2017). A capability approach to unemployed young people's voice and agency in the development and implementation of employment activation policies. Social Policy & Administration, 51(7), 1191–1209.
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023.
Evans, K. (2007). Concepts of bounded agency in education, work, and the personal lives of young adults. International Journal of Psychology, 42(2), 85–93.
Evans, K., Schoon, I., & Weale, M. (2013). Can lifelong learning reshape life chances? British Journal of Educational Studies, 61(1), 25–47.
Eynon, R., & Malmberg, L.-E. (2021). Lifelong learning and the Internet: Who benefits most from learning online? British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(2), 569–583.
Feinstein, L., & Hammond, C. (2004). The contribution of adult learning to health and social capital. Oxford Review of Education, 30(2), 199–221.
Field, J., & Lynch, H. (2015). Getting stuck, becoming unstuck: Agency, identity and obstacles on pathways to inclusion. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 20(1), 1–14.
Gangas, S. (2016). From active ageing to active citizenship in the EU: The role of lifelong learning. Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology, 6(1), 1–12.
Hachem, M. (2022). Building shared vision in adult education: A novel application of appreciative inquiry. Adult Education Quarterly, 72(2), 107–128.
Hall, R., Chai, W., & Albrecht, J. A. (2021). A systematic review of the impact of retail work on eating behavior and diet. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 121(5), 861–878.
Hammond, C., & Feinstein, L. (2005). The effects of adult learning on self-efficacy. London Review of Education, 3(3), 265–287.
Hart, C. S. (2016). How do aspirations matter? Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 17(3), 324–341.
Hitlin, S., & Elder, G. H. (2007). Time, self, and the curiously abstract concept of agency. Sociological Theory, 25(2), 170–191.
Hvinden, B., & Halvorsen, R. (2018). Mediating agency and structure in sociology: What role for conversion factors? Critical Sociology, 44(6), 865–881.
Ibrahim, S., & Alkire, S. (2007). Agency and empowerment: A proposal for internationally comparable indicators. Oxford Development Studies, 35(4), 379–403.
Jarvis, P. (2012). Adult learning in the social context. Routledge.
Kellenberg, F., Schmidt, K., & Werner, D. (2017). The adult learner: Self-determined, self-regulated, and reflective. Signum Temporis, 9(1), 23–29.
Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy in action. Jossey-Bass.
Kocór, M., & Worek, B. (2017). Return to learning in Poland: The role of cognitive skills. International Journal of Manpower, 38(6), 878–897.
Kormanik, M. B., & Rocco, T. S. (2009). Internal versus external control of reinforcement: A review of the locus of control construct. Human Resource Development Review, 8(4), 463–483.
Kuijpers, M., & Draaisma, A. (2020). Employability, career development and training. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education.
Kuijpers, M., Meijers, F., & Bakker, J. (2019). Career dialogue: A method for developing self-efficacy and agency for a rewarding career. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 47(3), 324–336.
Lanzi, D. (2007). Capabilities, human capital and education. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 36(3), 424–435.
Leung, C.-H., & Liu, A. M. M. (2011). The roles of social capital and locus of control in managing construction projects. Construction Economics and Building, 11(4), 68–82.
Lewis, G., & Giullari, S. (2005). The adult worker model family, gender equality and care: The search for new policy principles and the possibilities and problems of a capabilities approach. Economy and Society, 34(1), 76–104.
Marcaletti, F., Parma, A., & Tarozzi, M. (2018). Capabilities approach in support and professional guidance for adult learners. University of Bologna.
Meyers, C. (2017). Empowerment through agency and capabilities: A new approach to theory building and practice in nursing. Routledge.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2013). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Harvard University Press.
Radovan, M. (2012). Relation between self-concept and learning motivation in adult learners. Andragoška Spoznanja, 18(1), 44–59.
Regmi, K. D. (2015). Lifelong learning: Foundational models, underlying assumptions and critiques. International Review of Education, 61(2), 133–151.
Robeyns, I. (2000). An unworkable idea or a promising alternative? Sen's capability approach re-examined. Discussion Paper 00.30, Center for Economic Studies, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
Robeyns, I. (2005). The capability approach: A theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 93–117.
Robeyns, I. (2017). Wellbeing, freedom and social justice: The capability approach re-examined. Open Book Publishers.
Roosmaa, E.-L., & Saar, E. (2017). Adults who do not want to participate in learning: A cross-national European analysis of their perceived barriers. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 36(3), 254–277.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1–28.
Rubenson, K. (2001). The adult education and training survey: Measuring motivation and barriers in the AETS – A critical review. In Statistics Canada (Ed.), Adult Education and Training in Canada* (pp. 59–68). Statistics Canada.
Rubenson, K., & Desjardins, R. (2009). The impact of welfare state regimes on barriers to participation in adult education: A bounded agency model. Adult Education Quarterly, 59(3), 187–207.
Ruhose, J., Thomsen, S. L., & Weilage, I. (2019). The benefits of adult learning: Work-related training, social capital, and earnings. Economics of Education Review, 72, 166–186.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727.
Schuller, T., & Desjardins, R. (2010). Understanding the social outcomes of learning. OECD.
Schuller, T., Preston, J., Hammond, C., Brassett-Grundy, A., & Bynner, J. (Eds.). (2004). The benefits of learning: The impact of education on health, family life and social capital. RoutledgeFalmer.
Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Clarendon Press.
Sen, A. (1993). Capability and well-being. In M. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The quality of life (pp. 30–53). Clarendon Press.
Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. Harvard University Press.
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339.
Tikkanen, T., & Nissinen, K. (2018). The importance of the adult literacy skills and learning experiences in the 21st century. Revista Portuguesa de Pedagogia, 52(1), 83–107.
Unterhalter, E. (2003). The capabilities approach and gendered education: An examination of South African complexities. Theory and Research in Education, 1(1), 7–22.
Walker, M. (2005). Amartya Sen's capability approach and education. Educational Action Research, 13(1), 103–110.
Wehmeyer, M. L., Shogren, K. A., Little, T. D., & Lopez, S. J. (Eds.). (2018). Development of self-determination through the life-course. Springer.
Yamashita, T., Cummins, P. A., Millar, R. J., & Sahoo, S. (2022). Patterns of adult education participation and health in later life in the United States: Evidence from a national longitudinal study. Adult Education Quarterly, 72(1), 3–22.

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Associate Dean and Director of HR Programs (WGU); Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD/HR/Leadership Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.

Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2025). Unlocking Human Potential: A Capability Approach to Adult Learning and Organizational Development. Human Capital Leadership Review, 28(4). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.28.4.2