Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Steve W.J. Kozlowski, Eduardo Salas, Steve W.J. Kozlowski, Eduardo Salas

• Éditeur: Routledge
• Année: 2009
• ISBN:
  9781135601034
• Édition: 1
• Sujet: Business
• Sous-sujet: Human Resource Management

This scholarly book in SIOP's Organizational Frontier series looks at research on enhancing knowledge acquisition and its application in organizations. It concentrates on training, design and delivery given the changing nature of work and organizations. Now that work is increasingly complex, there is greater emphasison expertise and cognitive skills. Advances in technology such as computer simulations and web-based training are necessitating a more active role for the learner in the training process. In the broad context of the organization systems, this bookpromotes learning and development as a continuous lifelong endeavor.

Section 1

The Learner, Learning Processes, and Training Outcomes

One of the key hallmarks of training and development research in the 1990s has been the shift from simplistic atheoretical research (e.g., “Is A training better than B training?”) to theoretically driven research that endeavors to elucidate learning processes and to understand the effects of interventions, individual differences, and their interaction—via learning processes—on a range of multidimensional training outcomes. Thus, the focus of this section encompasses individual differences and aptitude–treatment interactions, motivation and self-regulated learning, and advances in the ways that researchers can track the effects of training and individual differences on a broad array of learning outcomes.

Chapter 1 by Gully and Chen, “Individual Differences, Attribute– Treatment Interactions, and Training Outcomes,” addresses the growing literature identifying important individual difference characteristics that influence learning processes (e.g., cognitive ability, metacognitive ability, goal orientation, and personality), the ways in which these individual differences can interact with training interventions to yield differential effects on training outcomes, and the theoretical and research advances that will be needed to make progress in this emerging area of work.

Chapter 2 by Beier and Kanfer is entitled “Motivation in Training and Development: A Phase Perspective.” From a theoretical perspective, one of the major advances of the past decade had been our improved understanding of skill acquisition and learning processes through the self-regulation of intention, action, and emotion. This chapter considers theory and research advances, and new directions for work, in the broad area of learning as a motivated process, with the regulation of attention, effort, and emotion as important determinants of learning.

In Chapter 3, “Experts at Work: Principles for Developing Expertise in Organizations,” Salas and Rosen unpack the implications of the nature of expertise for training and development. There has been a tremendous amount of research on the nature of expertise and how it is that experts do what they do. Much of that knowledge has not been used by organizational psychologists in the design or delivery of training systems. This chapter discusses how research findings from the study of expert performance can help in the design, delivery, and implementation of training and learning systems.

Chapter 4 is by Ford, Kraiger, and Merritt, who provide “An Updated Review of the Multidimensionality of Training Outcomes: New Directions for Training Evaluation Research.” No consideration of the advances in training research over the last decade would be complete without acknowledging the contribution made by the expanded conceptualization of training outcomes. This chapter considers advances in the treatment of training outcomes (e.g., interrelationships, validity, and evaluation issues) in light of research findings over the last decade. The goal is to update, integrate, refine, and expand further the conceptualization of training outcomes, with an eye toward simulating new research.

1

Individual Differences, Attribute–Treatment Interactions, and Training Outcomes

Stan Gully

Rutgers University

Gilad Chen

University of Maryland

Researchers and practitioners have long been aware of the important role that individual differences play in determining learning and training outcomes (for a review, see Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997). In 1984, Hunter and Hunter conducted a meta-analysis that included predictors of training performance. Their results showed that training success was predicted by peer ratings (r = .35), biodata (r = .30), college GPA (r = .30), and the Strong Interest Inventory (r = .18) (Hunter & Hunter, 1984). These findings indicated that individual characteristics played a key role in determining training success. However, their work focused on predictors of job success instead of individual characteristics related to training success. Thus, it had limited application to the development of new theories about individual differences and training outcomes.

Several theoretical frameworks and empirical investigations of training success later focused more explicitly on individual differences. For example, Noe (1986) included locus of control, career and job attitudes, and trainee motivation as key determinants of training effectiveness. Baldwin and Ford (1988) included trainee characteristics such as ability, personality, and motivation in their model of determinants of training transfer. As Baldwin and Ford noted, a variety of trainee characteristics thought to affect transfer had been suggested, but “empirical investigations of ability, personality, and motivational effects on training and transfer outcomes are quite limited” (p. 68). Awareness of the important role of individual differences is supported further by their inclusion in (person) needs analysis (Goldstein & Ford, 2002).

Despite previous work, gaps in our understanding exist and opportunities for research abound. In 1992, Tannenbaum and Yukl noted that research on trainee characteristics had focused more attention on selecting trainees who would pass training rather than designing programs to match trainee attributes or understanding how trainee characteristics improved training effectiveness. Colquitt, LePine, and Noe (2000) and Salas and Cannon-Bowers (2001) noted that research on trainee characteristics had proliferated in the preceding decade, but the assessment of trainees’ personality characteristics during needs analysis was still a neglected or ignored issue. They also called for the expansion of personality variables in training research to include emotions, adaptability, trait goal orientation, and other Big Five variables.

There are a number of reasons that much work on the topic remains needed. First, the role of individual differences is often given secondary attention. For example, training texts devote entire chapters to needs analysis, design, implementation, and evaluation, yet most include individual differences as ancillary material. Rarely is it treated as a topic in its own right. Second, much work has taken a piecemeal approach, incorporating one or relatively few individual differences into theoretical frameworks and empirical studies. There are few or no comprehensive frameworks that help us understand how, why, and when particular individual differences are likely to promote learning. Third, much empirical work has focused on relational or predictive relationships rather than a theoretical understanding of why observed relationships exist. Fourth, ability has received the most attention in training studies. Less work has focused on other, noncognitive trainee attributes and attitudes (Noe, 1986; Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001). Fifth, researchers generally have not focused on explanatory mechanisms that mediate the effects of individual differences on training outcomes. When such mechanisms have been invoked, they often focus on training motivation, expectancy, and self-efficacy. Although clearly relevant, other intervening mechanisms are likely to exist. Finally, most work has not considered how individual differences interact with training design and contextual factors to influence training outcomes. Both Campbell and Kuncel (2002) and Tannenbaum and Yukl (1992) noted that although they may be important, the potential of such interactions to be useful in organizational training applications remains unfulfilled.

Accordingly, the time is ripe for a framework devoted to understanding how individual differences influence training outcomes. Theory (e.g., Mathieu & Martineau, 1997; Smith, Ford, & Kozlowski, 1997) and research (e.g., Ford, Smith, Weissbein, Gully, & Salas, 1998; Kozlowski & Bell, 2006) indicate that trainees are active participants in the training process (see also Bell & Kozlowski, this volume). Trainees actively regulate their motivation, emotion, and learning processes. They decide what to attend to, determine how much effort they will devote, and actively engage themselves in, or disengage themselves from, training (see Beier & Kanfer, this volume). Trainees are ultimately responsible for applying and transferring trained skills to the work environment. It seems self-evident that individual differences will influence regulatory and motivational processes that determine whether trained content is learned, retained, applied, and transferred to the work context. Unfortunately, most previous work on individual differences has not focused on understanding the mechanisms that connect them to training outcomes. This is problematic because without a better understanding of the intervening mechanisms, it is difficult to know which individual differences matter and when they are likely to have influence. We suggest that in addition to the main effects on training outcomes observed in previous work, the effects of individual differences are dependent on training design features and contextual influences.

Theoretical Framework

The purpose of this chapter is to address these gaps by introducing a framework that includes a broad variety of individual differences and explanatory mechanisms (see Figure 1.1). This framework is used to introduce and discuss both main effects and aptitude– or attribute–treatment interactions (ATIs). Finally, we explore implications of the framework for theory, future research, and applied practice.

Training outcomes of interest are drawn from the work of Kraiger, Ford, and Salas (1993) and Ford and Kraiger (this volume). These include cognitive, behavioral, and affective and motivational outcomes. Cognitive outcomes include declarative, procedural, and strategic knowledge as well as the structure and organization of such knowledge. It also includes cognitive transfer, which is the ability to apply previously learned knowledge to new situations or contexts. Affective and motivational outcomes include satisfaction, self-efficacy, and expectancy, as well as perceived utility of training. Attitudinal outcomes include changes in attitudes toward tasks, jobs, or others. Behavioral outcomes include skill development, automaticity, and maintenance. Behavioral outcomes also include skill generalization and adaptability, which encompasses transfer of training (Baldwin & Ford, 1988).

FIGURE 1.1
Guiding framework.

Treatments are broadly defined to include training design features and contextual or situational characteristics of the training system. Training design features include sequencing, complexity, delivery mode, and goals of the training content. Situational characteristics include work environment features such as the reward system, climate to support training transfer, and climate of support for skills updating. Research evidence supports the notion that both individual and situation factors influence training outcomes (e.g., Tesluk, Farr, Mathieu, & Vance, 1995). For additional discussions pertaining to training methods and contextual influences on learning processes, see the chapters by Cannon-Bowers and Bowers, Mathieu and Tesluk, Cooke and Fiore, and Mayer in this volume.

Individual differences include demographics and relatively enduring trainee characteristics that influence cognition, motivation, and behavior such as personality, interests, and cognitive capabilities. Although individual differences may evolve or be somewhat malleable over longer periods of time, the characteristics of interest are somewhat stable, exerting influence during and throughout the entire training process, including transfer. Thus, statelike, transient, and more malleable individual differences such as mood, task-specific self-efficacy, and motivation to learn are not reviewed in the framework except where relevant as part of the intervening mechanisms that connect the more distal individual difference variables to the outcomes of interest (e.g., Chen, Gully, Whiteman, & Kilcullen, 2000).

Individual differences are grouped into four general categories: (a) capabilities, (b) demographics, (c) personality traits, and (d) values and interests. Capabilities include general mental ability and specific talents, capabilities, or skills. Demographics refer to physical and observable characteristics of the individual such as sex, ethnicity, and age. Personality traits include umbrella traits such as the Big Five, as well as self-concept traits such as goal orientation, general self-efficacy, self-esteem, and locus of control. Values and interests include career orientation, vocational interests, and education.

We suggest that the impact of individual differences on training outcomes is transmitted through intervening process mechanisms. Snow (1998) argued that process explanations of aptitude theory were perhaps the most important issue underlying theory-oriented aptitude research. Similarly, despite some progress, several authors have noted recently that more work is needed to identify the connections between training design, trainee characteristics, and learning processes and outcomes (e.g., Bell & Kozlowski, 2008; Debowski, Wood, & Bandura, 2001; Gully, Payne, Koles, & Whiteman, 2002; Heimbeck, Frese, Sonnentag, & Keith, 2003; Keith & Frese, 2005; Kozlowski & Bell, 2006).

We propose that intervening mechanisms include (a) information-processing capacity, (b) attentional focus and metacognitive processing, (c) motivation and effort allocation, and (d) emotional regulation and control. Thus, training outcomes are determined by a combination of mechanisms that influence how people process information, focus their attention, direct their effort, and manage their affect during learning (Ackerman & Kanfer, 2004; Ackerman, Kanfer, & Goff, 1995; Kanfer, Ackerman, & Heggestad, 1996; Kozlowski, Toney, et al., 2001). These are consistent with other models of self-regulation that emphasize the roles of self-monitoring, self-evaluation, and self-reaction in the realloca-tion of attention and effort to move closer toward goal accomplishment (Ackerman & Kanfer; Bandura, 1997; Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989). Chapters by Beier and Kanfer and by Bell and Kozlowski (this volume) consider the roles of self-regulatory mechanisms in learning more fully. We will briefly review them here, but our main focus is on reviewing the influences of various individual differences on learning outcomes and mechanisms.

First, information-processing capacity involves the manner in which individuals process and organize information during learning. It is often argued that general intelligence, or g, influences information-processing capacity and, as a result, is a key determinant of training outcomes (Ree, Carretta, & Teachout, 1995). Information-processing capacity also helps explain differences between experts and novices on task learning and performance, as experts process and organize information more efficiently and accurately than novices (Chase & Simon, 1973; Chi, Glaser, & Rees, 1982). Age also explains differences in information-processing capacity. As noted by Kanfer and Ackerman (2004), relative to younger adults, older adults tend to have access to a wider amount and variety of information (i.e., greater crystallized intelligence, or gc), but are also less able to process novel information quickly (i.e., lower fluid intelligence, or gf). Clearly, individuals vary in the manner in which they process information, and the effects of individual differences such as ability, task exp...

Table des matières

• Cover Page
• Half Title page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• The Organizational Frontiers Series
• The Organizational Frontiers Series
• SIOP Organizational Frontiers Series
• Dedication
• Contents
• Series Foreword
• Preface
• About the Contributors
• Section 1 The Learner, Learning Processes, and Training Outcomes
• Section 2 Emerging Issues for Design and Delivery
• Section 3 The Organizational Context, Levels, and Time
• Section 4 Reflection and an Agenda for the Future
• Author Index
• Subject Index