Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12
Trainees’ Attributes and Attitudes: Neglected Influences on Training Effectiveness RAYMOND A, NOE University of Minnesota, ‘Studies ofthe influence of trainees’ characteristics on training etle= tiveness have focused on the level of ability necessary to learn pro {gram content. Motivational and environmental iiluences of traning Stlectivenses have received lle attention. This angiyais integrates important motivational and situ jational foctors {ron organizatianal behavior theory and research into @ model which describes how trainees’ attributes and attitudes may Influence the effectiveness of training. Training & defined as a planned learning ‘experience designed to bring about permanent ‘change in an individual's knowledge, atitudes, ‘or sls (Campbell, Dunnetto, Lawler, & Weick, 1970). Training and management development activities are currently receiving incroased ation- tion in the industrial and academic communities This emphasis is illustrated by recent figures which repor that organizations spend upwards ‘of $30 billion dollara annually for training pro- grams involving 15 billion work hours (Huber, 1985), In academic circles, the importance of training anddevelopment is reflected by the fact that the Anrual Review of Psychology hes de voted two chaptors in the laet five years to the topic of personnel training (eee Goldstein, 1860, ‘Wesley, 1980, Currently, the majority of applies ‘work and academic research has focused on the ‘appropricteness ol various instructional methods, needs assessment, and evaluation methodology. ‘Training Eifectiveness Authough the "bottom line” for most training programsisellectiveness,litlecttention has been devoted to sudying why training proarams are tllscive for some individuals and inellective for ‘others, Training eifectiveness usually is doter~ ‘mined by asseasing some combination of the ex terla presented in Kirkpatrick (1967) iorarchi ‘cal model of training outcomes. This hierarchy is ‘composed ol four levels of traning outcomes: (a) ‘wainees’ reactions to the program content ond ‘raining process (reaction) (6 knowledge ot sll ‘acquisition (earning); (c) behavior change (be- havior) and (@) improvements in tangible indi ‘dual or organizational cutomes such as turn ‘over, accidents, oF productivity (results. Each training outcome aflects the next level in the hierarchy. Trainees’ satisfaction with the pro- (gram is beloved to have an important infiuence ‘on learning, the content of the raining program ‘must be mastered to some degree for improve- ments in on-the-job behavior, and behavior change is important for positive changes in results such as quality or quantity of production. ‘A numberof training evcluation studies have ‘provided indirect support for the hierarchical ‘model (e.g., Fromin, Brandt, King, Sherwood, Fisher, 1975 Latham, Wadley, & Purcell, 1975) bby demonstrating that satisaction with training, learning, and behavior ctange occurs jointly The strongest evidence in support of the hierar- chy ia provided by Clement (1978). Using path ‘analysis, he found that trainee reactions had a 78 ‘causal impact on learning and learning had ‘significant influence on behavior change. Poatve reactions ol rciness, learning, behav. Jorchange, andimprovements in job-related out ‘comes are expected from well-designed and iiministered training programs. However, the ctutudes, interests, values, and expectations of ‘eainees may attenuate or enhance the ellocive. nessoftaining. Determining the speciicindivic. al characteristics that influence the elloctive eas of training is important if we are to under. ‘sand how to increaee the likelihood that beh ‘rainability (One of the fit models of managerial perior- mance was developed by Porter and Lawlet (0966). They propeeed that perlormance was a function of abilites, trait, effort, and role per ceptions. This model may be useful for under. sanding why learning, behavior change, ond performance imerovement difer among trsin- {ng program porieipants. Trainability is hypoth- sized fo be c function of three factors: ability. ‘motivation, and perceptions ofthe work environ. ment Mrainability = Ability, Motivation, Werk Environment Perceptions|). The cognitive and ‘paychomotor skils that trainees possess directly Influence whether or not they will be able 10 understand and master the content of the train: {ng program. However, as Mater (1973) indicated, ‘even if trainees possess the prerequisite skille ‘needed to learn the taining program conten performance willbe poor if motivation is low or absent, Stoers and Porter (1975) suggested that motive: tion is composed of eneryizing, directing, and ‘maintenance components. Ina taining situation, ‘motivation is the force that influences enthus:. ‘asm about the program (energizer) a simulus that directs participants to learn and attempt to ‘aster the conten of the program (director: and ‘force thot influences the use of newly acquired Inowledge and thls even in the presence of criticism and lackof reinforcement for use af the training content (maintenance). 7 The influence ofthe work environment on tain ‘ability ts another factor that shuld not be 1g: nored. Of particular importance are the climate ‘of the organtzation concerning change and the ‘extant to which the sonal context eupervigors, ‘co-workers ol the work sting proves reinforce. ‘ment and feedback, A eupeorive wark climate Jn which reinforcement and feedback from co. workers are obraned is more lcly to result in fronsier ol ile fran the taining environment 12 the work environment: thats, trainees Gre more Mey © uso the eblle ccquired in the coining program on the job (Bahn, 1973; Mare, 1962: Salinger. 1873) In addition, wotk by Peters and hus associates (eg, O'Connor, Peters, Pooyan, Weekley, Frank, & Erenkrarz, 194; Peters, Fisher, & O'Connor, 1982; Petate, Q Connor. & Fuudoll, 1980) has suggested thet trainees’ per- ‘ceptions oftask constraints, euch as lack of equ ‘mentor financial resources, may indirectly inf fence behavior change and locrning by either reducing motivation lear new sls or appli- ‘cation of ails acquired in traning to fob tasks ‘The ability component of trainabilty has re- ceived the most attention; that most studies ‘addressing the trainability issue have focused fn the relationship between the tainees’ ability levels and mastary of the program content e.g. Gordon & Cohen, 1973: Slogal & Ruh, 1973, th the results of trainability testing studies summa: tized by Robertson and Downs (1579) are consi fered cn indicater of the relatiship betwreon ‘bility cnd training ellecivenees, then approx: ‘mately 16 percent f the vanancs in traines por formance can be attributed to ability. Perhaps ‘nainees’ motivation and perceptions ef the lavor- bility of the work environment can aecount for ‘an additional 15-20 percent of training ellective- ose verionce, ‘The purpose of this analysis isto Kdentfy and integrate relevant concepts, theories, and research in organizational behavior into a model ddeseribing the influences of trainees attributes ‘and attitudes on traning aHectiveness. The ins fence of trainees’ ability on training ellectivencss will not be discussed. A Model of the Motivational Influences on Training Effectiveness, ‘A conceptualization of the motivational inf ‘enceson the efectivences of raining programs ls shown in Figure |. The dependent variables for ‘the model include the multiple measures of tein- ng etlectiveness described by Kickpatrick (1957). ‘The model deserbos the posaible inlkuences of tuainoes’ attitudes toward their behavior, job, ‘career, and work environment on learning, behavior change, end attainment of desirable ‘organizational outcomes. The variables included {nthe model were choson on the basis ola review ofthe organizational behavior and training and development literature. The purpose of this re- View was to dently attitudes end atiiites that s {influence trainees’ motivation to learn, and to ‘apply newly acquired skills in the work setting Many ofthe linkages proposed inthe model have not been previously’ studied. Likely, modiica tion ofthe model will be neceseary at more sta laa on this opic are conduc, ‘Model Overview ‘The oxiont 1 which the Individual Is apt to ‘make infernal ot external atributions regarding work outcomes (ocus of ental) directly inflse ‘ences his ot her reaction to:(a) sill assessmon! feedback: (b) expectancies concerning the link between ello and mastery of training program content (Expectancy 1), and rewards resulting rom successful completion of the program (Ex pectancy ID; and (¢) carest and job attitudes ‘Envioemericl Fvoraby Soe tree (Corcrfod Arun * aplorcton Training 1 valent Figure |. Motivational influences on training effectiveness. 738 Internals are more likely to identify peychologi- cally with their work and career (Thomism. 1978) to perceive eflor-periormance and periormance- ‘outcome linkages (Broedlling, 1875): and wo. acoept ‘assessment oftheir aklls, strengths. and woak- nesses than Exernals (Phares, 1978). Reaction to sil assessment feedback, expec: fancies, and career Gnd job attitudes directly {influences motvation to learn. Four conditions tre necessary fer high motivation to learn. Pust, ‘eainoos should fool that the assosement ofthe: seltcontidence, or salary increases. Third, mot- gage in career exploration behavior including sollassossment of interests, sil stongths and ‘weaknesses, and career planning. Fourth, train- 98 who perceive the work setting os providing the necessary resources o perform job tasks and have supportive interpersonal relationship with feodback and reinforcoment, are likely highly ‘motivated to learn. ‘A direct link between career/job tituces and the results crtena is hypothesized. Cues in the work environment which can improve work ‘bohavior likely are more salient to individuals ‘who are highly lnvelved with their jobs because ‘performance gans result in selbimage improve- enis which are reinforcing to these persons. ‘Aa qi result, smprovurmonts in product quali. Tower aecident rates, and other results criteria ‘are more probable for trainees who are highly 79 ‘nyolved with their joke beyond those directly ‘elated to taining program paricipation. ‘Motivation to learn is ¢ ditect antecedent of learning, tht is, acquistton of knowledge and sll presented in the training program. As die- ‘cussed earlier. trainess’ satisfaction with the Irinere and the contant ofthe waning program (reaction criteria) also liksly inluences eubes- ‘quent learning. ‘Ts relatwxuip between learning and Bena lor change is likely moderated by trainees mot ‘tion to use learned shlls and knowledge in the work soting. Maximum behavior change i Likely to result when waineos hava mastered the progiam content and are higtly motvated to use newly aequired sills on the job, Trainees! perceptions regarding work group suppor for the use of new sills and task constraints (en- ‘ronmental favorabiity) are aypothestzed 10 inluence motivation to transfer. It is Mkely that trainees will be motivated to use acquired ale in their daily work activites when supervisors ‘and co-workers are expected tc support behav- Jorchange by providing reinforcement and feed back, Also, i! trainees do not perceive that the neceeeary equipment, monetarysuppant or ino ation necessary to mest job demand will ba provided, learned skills may notbedemonstrted, fn the fob and consequently. no improvements sn coet-relatod outcomes will be realized. Motivational Components Locus of Control Locus of control is @ stable personality trait that is likely to affect Individual motivation and ‘blty to learn. Based on Rotte's (1988) definite, Individuals who are Internals believe that js performance and evonts that eccur in the work setting are contingent on their ovn behavior and ‘re, therelore, under personal contol, Because: Internals fel they com control their enviconmert ‘opportunities at work which may increase the probability of receiving rewards such a promo- tion, pay increases, or tecognition are particu lorly sallant to these individuals. Externals bo Neve that wark outcomes are beyond personal control and, therefore, ctribute the exuta for work ‘outcomes to luck, fate, or the actions of others, Foter (1986) doveloped the nteral-Extemnal Con- trol of Reinforcement Seale to assess locus al contol, Andiisani and Nestle (1876) developed a ‘more worl-criented version of this scale, using ‘leven ol the tems from the eriginal Rott scale Ina recent review of the effects of locus ‘control on erganizatonal behavior, eco suggested that because locus of contra is a per sonality chevacterisic that influences beliels bout the ablity to improve sills, it ehould be fn important determinant of individual train. ‘bility. Intemals may exert greater elfort toward collecting relevant information in a training et ‘tion than Enternals. As the modal indicates, locus of contol is hypothesized to have a direct influence on tinees’ expectations regarcing the leaining program, career and jab aides, and reactions to sill cessment information, A study bby Brosdling (1975) supports tho link between locus a contrl and efor performance expecta cies (Expectancy D. Here, Internals were more \Ueely to believe that performance was contin {gent on their personal effort than Externale, Applied to taining situation, the results o his study sugges! that Intemale may exert greciet efor toward collecting relevant knowledge and fils in a traning situation than Exiomals be cause they believe mastering the program con tent fs under their pereonal control The influence of locus f control on career gnd Job aitudes azo has received attention. A num: beer of studies have demonstrated that Internals Ihave higher levels of job invelvernent than Exter- nals (Dailey & Morgan. 1978; Reitz & Jewell, 1979, Runyon, 1978; Weod, 1974). Thomton (1978) sound that Internals reported more career planning ‘activites and career information-eeeling behav tor following ¢ career planning workshop than Externals. Hammer and Vardi (1831) found that in setings which encouraged personal initiative Jn career development, Intomals initiated more Job moves and reporied greater saislacton with career experiences than Externals, These stud: 2 m9 Jee suggest that because Internals re more Likely to seek control over their cwn fate, they are expected to become more involved in thoi work ‘and career. Trainees with an internal locus of control ave ‘more likely to oct upon feedback :egarding thelr sll atrengthe and weaknesses than Externcla, that is, Intemals are more likely to exhibit high levels of motivation to lear in a training pro ‘via Ituernale may doubt the accusccy of nega {ive feedback (Stone, Guoutal & Meiniceh, 1964), However, research indicates that in comparaon to Externals, Internals are more likely !o acer! feedback and take overt acion fo correct per ‘sonal shortcomings (Phares, Ritchie, & Davis, I Expectanci ‘Vroom'(1964)notions concerning efor perfor. ‘mance and performance-outsome perceptions as ‘causes of behavior have parteular relevance in ‘taining situations. Trainees have prelerensos ‘among the varicus outcomes (e.g.. promotion, recognition) resulting from participation in the program (valences). Trainees also may have ‘expeciations regarding the liclihood that efior ‘nwvested in the training program (.e., paricipa- tion in group exercises, answering questions, and Dproctcing stil) will rault in mastery ofthe tine ing content (Expectancy D. Finally, trance dit fr in the extent to which ther believe that good performance in the training program willlead to desirable outcomes (Expectancy I}. Two studies Ihave found that individual expectancies oncom: {ng taining programs are elated o perlormance ‘and behavior change (Froman, 1977; Moites, 1978) ‘Measures of effor-porformance expectancies should assess rainses' perceptions regarcing the tolationship between different levels of elor Gnd dllerent levels of mastery of prograra content. In ‘order to assess periormance-oulcoms expectsn- cies, items should be included which assess \tainees' belies concerning training performance levels and the attainment of both intrinsic and ‘extrinsic outcomes (e.g., increased sellimage. ‘grecter promotion possiblities, recognition from peers). See Michell (1974) and igen, Nebeker, find Prichard (1581) for reviews of the method personal efficacy expeciations. According te Bandura (1977, sol-eficacy isthe belief that one can successfully execute the behavior required to cope with petentially threatening situations. Individuals witha high level cf self eticacy wall ‘exon considerasle ellor in order to cope with ‘tuations that may demand new behavior pat- ‘Studios in elineal peychology have shown that various phobias ean be overcome by increasing selketicacy perceptions (e.g.. Bandura, Adams, ‘k Beyer. 1977; Bandura, jolery, & Wright. 1974). Ina training aitiation, individuals with a high degree of sol eticacy are likely to exert consider able ellort to aster program content. Decker ‘and Nathan (1885) suggested that the success of behavior modeling training is attributable to ‘on increase in trainees’ selleficacy. Behavior ‘modeling programs incorporate a number of the ‘seatagies oullined by Bandura (1977) for increas- ing self-icacy (e.¢., the use of verbal persua- ‘ion topresont the key behaviors, vicarious learn {ng through presence of a model, and perfor mance aecompishment during practice o sill) The expectancy theory and salf-eficary litora- ture suggest that trainees’ belies thot (a) they ‘canleamn the material presented in the program, ‘and () desirable outcomes such as promotion salary increases, or prestige will result from skill ‘and knowledge acquisition may influence mott- ‘vation to learn the behavior, knowledge, or salls [Presented in the training program, m1 Career end Job Ati Exploratory Behavior. Holl (976) delined a ccareor as the “individual's peresived sequence ofcititudes and behaviors aseocated with work ‘elated experiences ond activites over the span ‘of the person's life"(p. . Supe: and his assoc ‘tes’ theory of adult career development dafinos four work-televant ie stages: exloration, estas. lishment, maintenance, and decine Super, 1957; Super, Crtee, Hummel, Moset, Overstreet, & Warnath, 1997). According Super, @ per 0m strives fo implement his/her sal-concapt by choosing to enter the occupation most hksly 12 ‘permit self-expression. One ol the key assump: tions of Super's theory is that any given person ‘possesses the potential for success and eatslas ening vonety of erupatona stings spo Tordacn (1969) emphasized exploratory behav. for cs okey detstminant of occupational success ‘and eatistaction. Exploratory behavior refers © ‘mental or physical activites undertaken wih the ‘purpose of eliciting information about oneself or ‘one's environment, or forming decisions regard- tng occupational adjustment, progression, oF choice, Exploratory behavior includes set ‘Gzsoaement of the sirngths and weaknesses of tlie, career values, interests goals, or plane, ‘8 well as the search for job-related iniormation ‘hom lomily, fronds, counselore, and other career Information outlets (Mihai, Sores, Compote, 1984: Stumpf, Colarell, & Hartman, 1989), Stumpf et 4]. (1383) developed the Carest Exploration Sur vey which measures several cepecis of explor- tory behavior (environment exploration, sel Gxploration, inlended-systematic exploration, focus) as well as reaction to exploratory behav {of (tess, satisfaction] and betes about oppor tunites (labor matket conditions, importance ol ebiaining o prelerred position, Exploratory behaviors reloted to occupational satitlaction dnd interview perlstmance (Green: haus & Stlarem, 1961; Stamp! & Colarelli, 1980 Slumpl ot cl, 1983). Additionally, the exten to ‘Super & Hall, 1978). Gould's (1978) career plan: ning scale cseste¢ the extent to which carest lana exis, how frequently career plans cre changed, how clear career plans are, and whether or not a strategy exists for achieving career coals. The relationship between exploratory behav- for and trainirg etfectveness is unknown, One possible hypethesie i that twainees who fre quently engage in cognitive or environmental search activites are likely to have a better undor- standing of their strengths, weaknesses, and ‘nterests, This results in a high lovel of motiva- {ten to learn in raining programs which are con- ‘gruent with thelr carser goals, These individ: als are likely tighly motivated to learn because ofthe selfrealzation of skill weaknesses result ing from thei investments and interests in caroot ‘growth and progression as evidenced by the re. qustey end inlenaty of exporoioy type be Job Involvement, Trainees’ motivation to im- prove work-related skills may be influenced by {he exten! to which they are involved in thett Jabs (i.e, the degree to which the individual ‘dentiies peyctologically with the wotk, or the ‘mportance of the work fr the persons total sll. ‘mage, Ledahl i Kejner, 1985). The original mec. sure ofjob involvement wes developed by Lod cond Kejner (1965). Sevora! studies have demon- strated that this mecsure is multidimensional (eg., Gorn & Kanungo, 1980; Wood, 1980). Asa result, Kanunga (1979) criticized the measure because job involvement fs believed to be a unidimensional construct. He presented on “un ‘contaminated” thrse-iem scale believed fo spe cafcally assess cn individual's identification with work. < Individuals who are highly involved with thir Jobs are more litely to be motivated to learn new skills becouse participation in taining activises ‘can increase levels of ails, improve job perion. m2 ‘mance, and elevate feelings ef seltworth. Post ‘ove changes in the enter deed 1 evaluate tain. ing etiectiveness, independent of motivation 10 learn, are also probable, Regardless of motiva. tion toleam, cues in the work environment (such ‘a8 co-worker suggestions which can facllicie [behavior change and perlormance improvement) fare likely more salient to individuals who are ‘mote highly involved with the obs. These case ‘use more salient because the seltinage clin. dividuals who are more highly nvelved wit thir obs is tied directly to their ausoese or flare at Work—cues that increase jab performance are ‘mote likely to be focused on. Reaction to Skill Assessment Feedback Positive or negative reactions to the informa: tion individuals receive regarding their srenjhs ‘and weaknesses aro likely determinants of mot vation to improve skills in a taining program, ‘ond subsequent learning and behavir change Tesulting from training program participation. igen, Fisher, and Taylor (1979 oullined proper tes ol the source, content, and recipient of feed ‘back that can influence the olectiveness of the ‘message for behavior change. Credibility othe souree, usalulness of the message, belie! in the ‘accuracy olthe information presented, and level of dota! ofthe information previded are impor tant determinants of whether feedback ia per ceived as positive or negative, whethor it ‘@>cepted, and whether it motirates the individ ual 6 change behavior. ‘Currently, no measures of trainees react to stall assessment feeciback are available, How. cover, the work by gen et. (1379) suggests that such measures should include tems cridressing, trainees’ beliels concerning the accuracy ofthe ‘needs aszosoment information and overall satis. faction with the needs assessrnectmnethod. Alas ‘the extent io which the needs casessment proce: dure resulls in cn improvenent in trainees ‘understanding of thelr skill strengths and weak nestes and provides skill information be maintained, behavior change wil result. and postive increments in job petiormance will be realized, Tho importance of reinforcement from. ‘members the social ntwork’n the wort seting, ‘including recognition and leedback from super. visors, co-workers, and subordinates, cannot be ‘veremphasized. Howse (1966) suggested that the degree to which social influences li.e.. peers oF ‘supervisors) reward or punish tranoos lor adapt- ing otttudes or behavior prescribed in training 44 major determinant of whether trainees will demonstrate learned attitudes or behaviors Feedback maintains behavicr y providing infor- ‘ation to the trainee concerning the appropri: ‘tenes of demonstrating new skills in the work setting and to what extent modiicationsin behav Jor are necessary to meet standards of success" fulperformance, Studios by Fleshman (1855) and Hand, Richards, ond Slocum (1973) demonstrated the influence of work group atitudes en uso of leadership sills emphasized in human relations ‘raining programs, Ths exter to which newly ‘rained attitudes ere ovident in trainees’ job ‘behavior depended on supervisors’ and auboral notes’ oxpectations, ‘Trainees’ perceptions regarding peer and ‘supervisor support for training activities may be Considered one indicator of the organizational climate for employee development. In their work ‘on organizational climate, Schneider (1972) and Jones and James (1975) described measures of ‘workgroup iriendliness and cooperation. mana- \gerial support. and organizational concern for ‘employees. These measures are applicable 10 ‘any aseessmenol the supportiveness ofthe social ‘environment for training activites. Ales, such ‘on aseesementahould include items conceming ‘attitudes of peers and supervisors toward train ing and communications between supervisors ‘and subordinaes ‘Asdepicied nthe model, environmental favor- ability i suggested to have a direct influence on ‘motivation 10 learn, motivation to tranaler, and resulis criteria, Prior to participating in the trai {ng program, trainees may be cognizant of task ‘constraints andlor @ nonsupportive social not. ‘work present in the work eeting that likely will Inhibit use of inowledge and sills aoquired in tobe low, andlearning, behavior change, and perforrnance improvement are less likely to oocur. ‘Trainees may be motivated to learn the content ‘of the taining program for personal develop- ‘ment, but ma/ lack motivation to use newly ‘acquired skis and knowledge in the work set- ‘ung because cf perceptions of an unfavorable wwotk environment. Finally, traineos may master the content of fe training program and modity ‘their behavior, but perceptions of constraints {inhibit application of knowledge, slills, and ‘behaviors fo ob tasks. As result, valuable tan- gible outcomes(such ax quality and productivity Improvements) expected as ¢ result of employee ‘participation in the training program are not realized Implications and Conclusions Research ie needed to identily ifthe factors ‘outlined here are indeed determinants of whether for not learning, behavior change. or perfor hance improvetuent oocur aaa feault of raining ‘program participation. Only the relationship Between locus of control and the proposed ante- ms cdots of mouvaton 19 learn (reaction to skill Gisectment, catestic alitudes, expectancies Gand the motivation te learmearning linkage hhave been invesigated empicsully Shsiew tn thle area can have important practical implica tone for training proctionere and managers For example, expectancies ara found to be _stongly reloted i ellectveness. hs would indi ‘ie that managers need fo tao steps to ensure that tinees understand both he purpose ot training ond the potent outcmes (promotion, Toloee, fecoontion, st.) they may obtain by por tiejpating in andl completing the program. Such

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi