Assigment For Researcher_D
Workplace Training
Questions This Chapter Will Help Managers Answer
1. Why should firms expect to expand their training outlays and their menu of choices for employees at all levels?
2. What kind of evidence is necessary to justify investments in training programs?
3. What are the key issues that should be addressed in the design, conduct, and evaluation of training programs?
4. Why should we invest time and money on new-employee orientation? Is there a payoff?
5. How should new-employee orientation be managed for maximum positive impact?
E-LEARNING HELPS SMALL ORGANIZATIONS ACT LIKE BIG ONES
Sources: Borzo, J. (2004, May 24). Almost human. The Wall Street Journal, pp. R4, R10; Brown, K. G., & Ford, J. K. (2002). Using computer technology in training: Building an infrastructure for active learning. In K. Kraiger (ed.), Creating, implementing, and managing effective training and development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 192-233; Tyler, K. (2001, May). E-learning: Not just for e-normous companies anymore.HRMagazine, pp. 82-88; Brown, K. G. (2001). Using computers to deliver training: Which employees learn and why? Personnel Psychology, 54,271-296; Log on for company training. (2000, Jan. 10). BusinessWeek, p. 140; E-Learning strategies for executive education and corporate training. (2001, Apr. 10). Fortune, p. S10.
Human Resource Management in Action
Companies such as Cambridge Technology Partners, a consulting concern, are moving to Internet training at warp speed. When a new CEO decided to explore Web-based training, he brought in DigitalThink, an Internet startup that offers Net-training technology, to digitize “E-Commerce Fundamentals” and “New Economy Fundamentals,” two course he believed were crucial for all of the firm’s 4,400 employees. Each course takes about 10 hours. As the CEO noted, “To train the entire company the old way would take a year. Now it takes us less than a quarter. When you’re moving at Internet speed, that’s important.”
Before we go any further, let’s take a moment to define some terms. E-learning is simply one form of computer-based training (CBT). CBT is the presentation of text, graphics, video, audio, or animation via computer for the purpose of building job-relevant knowledge and skill.1 Common forms of CBT include multimedia learning environments (CDs, DVDs, desktop systems), intranet- and Web-based instruction, e-learning, intelligent tutoring systems, full-scale simulations, and virtual-reality training.2
E-learning includes asynchronous (meaning it is not delivered to the same user at the same time) text-based courses, job aids, educational games, and video and audio segments, as well as synchronous media such as video-conferencing and chat rooms. How do we access e-learning? There are two main ways to deliver it: through a company intranet or through learning portals on the Internet. Learning portals are like online libraries. They offer courses on a wide variety of topics, from computer software tutorials, such as courses on spreadsheets, to time management and customer-service training.
Online learning is projected to boom in the near future. U.S. companies spent about $3 billion in 2004 for all types of CBT, but the market for CBT is expected to double by 2007. What’s driving the trend? Both demand and supply forces are operating. On the demand side, rapid obsolescence of knowledge and training makes learning and relearning essential if workers are to keep up with the latest developments in their fields. In addition, there is a growing demand for just-in-time training delivery, coupled with demand for cost-effective ways to meet the learning needs of a globally distributed workforce. Finally, there is demand for flexible access to lifelong learning.
On the supply side, Internet access is becoming standard at work and at home, and advances in digital technologies now enable training designers to create interactive, media-rich content. In addition, increasing bandwidth and better delivery platforms make e-learning particularly attractive. Finally, there is a growing selection of high-quality e-learning products and services.
Features like these allow small companies, such as Broadwing Inc., a Cincinnati-based telecommunications firm, to offer a safety course delivered over the Internet. They also led the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce to create an online learning center for its 2,200 members—most of whom employ fewer than 100 employees. Online learning also permits large firms, such as General Motors, to reach more than 175,000 employees at 7,500 dealerships in less than a week, using interactive distance learning (IDL) technology. IDL will let employees view a live course, beamed in by satellite, and ask questions of the instructor, without leaving their dealerships, which slashes travel time and costs, and improves quality, because GM can select its best instructors to teach each course.
Classroom courses are not going away, and e-learning does have its drawbacks, as we shall see in the conclusion to this case, but one thing is certain: E-learning is changing corporate training forever.
Challenges
1. What are some of the key advantages of e-learning?
2. Are some types of material or course work better suited than others to e-learning?
3. What disadvantages or opportunity costs can you identify with e-learning?
Traditionally, lower-level employees were “trained,” while higher-level employees were “developed.” This distinction, focusing on the learning of handson skills versus interpersonal and decision-making skills, has become too blurry in practice to be useful. Throughout the remainder of this chapter, therefore, we will use the terms training and development interchangeably. In the United States, as in many other countries, training is big business, and the first half of this chapter examines some current issues in the design, conduct, and evaluation of training programs.
Change, growth, and sometimes displacement (e.g., through layoffs and restructuring) are facts of modern organizational life. Young people entering the workforce today can expect to be laid off several times by the time they reach age 50.3 As those laid off find new jobs, they discover what all new employees do: You have to “relearn the ropes” in the new job setting. Orientation training, the subject of the second part of this chapter, can ease that process considerably, with positive results both for the new employee and for the company. Trends such as leased employees, disposable managers, and free-agent workers will make orientation even more important in the future. Let’s begin by defining training, and consider some emerging trends in this area.
Training consists of planned programs designed to improve performance at the individual, group, and/or organizational levels. Improved performance, in turn, implies that there have been measurable changes in knowledge, skills, attitudes, and/or social behavior.
When we examine the training enterprise as a whole, it is clear that training issues can be addressed from at least two perspectives. At the structural level, we can examine issues such as the following, among others: the aggregate level of expenditures by the various providers of training (e.g., federal, state, and local governments, educational institutions, private-sector businesses), the degree of cooperation among the providers, incentives (or lack of incentives) for providing training, who gets training, and the economic impact of training.4 These are macro-level concerns.
At the micro level, we may choose to examine issues such as the following: what types of training seem to yield positive outcomes for organizations and trainees (i.e., what “works”); how to identify if training is needed and, if so, what type of training best fits the needs that have been identified; how to structure the delivery of training programs; and how to evaluate the outcomes of training efforts.
Unfortunately, organizations sometimes place too much emphasis on the techniques and methods of training and not enough on first defining what the employee should learn in relation to desired job behaviors. In addition, fewer than half of all organizations even try to measure the value of training, and fewer still calculate the return in monetary terms. This is true even of sales training, which would seem easy to measure. Just 11 percent of companies attempt to assess the payoffs of training on sales.5
In this section, we will do two things: (1) discuss several structural issues at the macro level and (2) illustrate research-based findings that might lead to improvements in the design, delivery, and evaluation of training systems. Before we do so, however, let’s consider some important training trends.
Several trends suggest that the time and money budgeted for training will increase during the next decade. These include automation; continuing worker displacement as a function of mergers, acquisitions, and downsizing; and the shift from manufacturing to service jobs.6 In 2004, for example, 87 percent of U.S. employees worked in service-based industries.7 Here are some other major challenges that they face:8
· Hypercompetition, both domestic and international, largely due to trade agreements and technology, most notably, the Internet. As a result, senior executives will be required to lead an almost constant reinvention of business strategies/models and organization structures.
· A power shift to the customer. Using the Internet, customers can access databases that allow them to compare prices and examine product reviews; hence there are ongoing needs to meet the product and service needs of customers.
· Collaboration across organizational and geographic boundaries. In some cases suppliers are collocated with manufacturers and share access to inventory levels. Strategic international alliances often lead to the use of multinational teams, which must address cultural and language issues.
· The need to maintain high levels of talent. Because products and services can be copied, the ability of a workforce to innovate, refine processes, solve problems, and form relationships becomes an organization’s only sustainable advantage. Attracting, retaining, and developing people with critical competencies is critical for success.
· Changes in the workforce. Shifting demographics suggest that many unskilled and undereducated youth will be needed for entry-level jobs, and currently underutilized groups of racial and ethnic minorities, women, and older workers will need training.9
· Changes in technology impose training and retraining requirements on the existing workforce.
· Teams. As more firms move to employee involvement and teams in the workplace, team members need to learn behaviors such as asking for ideas, offering help without being asked, listening and feedback skills, and recognizing and considering the ideas of others.10
Indeed, as the demands of the information age spread, companies are coming to regard training expenses as no less critical a part of their capital costs than plants and equipment. The Center for Workforce Development estimates that U.S. companies spend between $30 billion and $50 billion per year on formal training, but that 70 percent of all workplace learning is actually informal.11 At the level of the individual firm, Edward Jones & Co., rated by Fortune magazine as the best employer to work for in America in 2003, is exemplary. It offers each employee a staggering 146 hours of training per year.12
What’s the bottom line in all of this? Organizations that provide superior opportunities for learning and growth have a distinct advantage when competing for talented employees.13
These trends suggest a dual responsibility: The organization is responsible for providing an atmosphere that will support and encourage change, and the individual is responsible for deriving maximum benefit from the learning opportunities provided. This may involve the acquisition of new information, skills, attitudes, or patterns of social behavior through training and development.
Retraining, too, can pay off. A study by the Work in America Institute found that retraining current workers for new jobs is more cost effective than firing them and hiring new ones—not to mention the difference that retraining makes to employee morale.14Intel illustrates this approach nicely.
COMPANY EXAMPLE: INTEL
Intel, the company that invented the microchip, and whose average product life cycle is just 2.5 years, has avoided major layoffs through a strong in-house redeployment policy. Every employee receives a brochure, entitled “Owning Your Own Employability,” and is afforded tools and resources to take advantage of the redeployment option. A redeployment event occurs when there is a business downturn or lack of a need for a particular skill. It does not replace performance management, as Intel’s Marile Robinson, corporate manager of redeployment, points out: “It’s not meant to shift around people with poor skills, poor performers, or those with behavioral problems.”16 To qualify, a fulltime employee must have two consecutive years of performance reviews that “meet requirements.”
Redeployment15
Should an employee become eligible for redeployment, he or she is given options, tools, and resources. The company has five employee development centers offering self-assessment tools, career counseling, educational opportunities, and job listings within Intel. Job skills have been redefined to encourage people to find new places within the company, and temporary assignments (as many as two assignments for a total of 12 months) and up to $8,000 of training are provided to prepare them for new positions. Funds are also available for relocation. The entire process is managed through a system that provides centralized tracking and reporting of all redeployment activity.
The ranks of Intel employees are filled with those who have made successful transitions from shop floor to sales and public relations positions, or from obsolete technology divisions to high-margin technology centers within the company. If none of this works, the company pays for outplacement assistance for affected employees. Redeployment is a continuing challenge at Intel because the company’s competitive strategy is to stay ahead of its rivals by making its products obsolete!
Intel redeploys approximately 80 percent of the affected workers. Thousands of employees have taken advantage of this option. In addition to being good for employees and their families, the policy is a strong deterrent to litigation based on allegations of wrongful discharge. It is a sound employee relations tool.
Structural Issues in the Delivery of Training
Despite compelling arguments for training, at least nine structural issues must be addressed if training systems are to reach their full potential. Here are some problems often identified at the macro level:17
1. Corporate commitment is lacking and uneven. Most companies spend nothing at all on training. Those that do tend to concentrate on managers, technicians, and professionals, not rank-and-file workers. Fortunately, this is changing; as a result of the rapid pace of introduction of new technology, combined with new approaches to organization design and production management, many companies simply cannot afford to overlook training.18 Workers have to learn three kinds of new skills: (1) the ability to use the new technology, (2) the ability to maintain it, and (3) the ability to diagnose system problems.19 In an increasingly competitive marketplace, the ability to implement rapid changes in products and technologies is often a key requirement to preserve the competitive edge.
2. Aggregate expenditures by business on training are inadequate. Thus, the American Society for Training and Development urges business to increase training expenditures to at least 2 percent of their annual payrolls on training—up from the current U.S. industry average of 1.2 percent. Leading companies invest much more: General Electric (4.6 percent of payroll), U.S. Robotics (4.2 percent), Motorola (4 percent), and Texas Instruments (3 percent).20
3. Businesses complain that schools award degrees, but degrees are no guarantee that graduates have mastered skills. As a result, business must spend large amounts of money to retrain workers in basic skills. In a recent survey, companies reported that, on average, 34.1 percent of applicants lack functional workplace literacy—the ability to read instructions, write reports, or do arithmetic at a level adequate to perform common workplace tasks. However, only about 6.5 percent of the companies provide remedial training in these basic skills.21
4. Poaching trained workers is a major problem for U.S. businesses and provides a strong disincentive for training. Unlike Germany, where local business groups pressure companies not to steal each other’s employees, there is no such system in the United States.22 Despite this problem, business may have no choice but to train. As one senior executive noted, “If knowledge is becoming antiquated at a faster rate, we have no choice but to spend on education.”23 This has profound consequences for “selling” senior managers on the value of training in the United States.
5. Despite the rhetoric about training being viewed as an investment, current accounting rules require that it be treated as an expense. Businesses might spend more on training if accounting rules were revised. Unlike investments in plant and equipment, which show up on the books as an asset, training expenditures are seen merely as expenses to be deducted in the year in which they are incurred.
6. Government is not providing enough funds for retraining to help workers displaced as a result of downsizing. This issue is difficult to address objectively, for what is “enough”? It’s not just a problem in the United States. Throughout the industrialized world, government leaders are focusing on one of the most corrosive, dangerous trends of the new millenium: the inability of modern economies to ease the transitions that the young, the poor, and older workers must make to keep up with rapid technological changes in the workplace.24
7. Businesses, with help from the government, need to focus on the 70 percent of non—college graduates who enter the U.S. workforce. At most, 30 percent of the future workforce will need a college degree. Marriott International Inc. focuses on the remainder. It targets welfare recipients for its six-week Pathways to Independence program that teaches business basics, such as showing up on time, and life lessons, such as self-esteem and personal financial management. Marriott works with federally funded local organizations to split the $5,500 per person costs. More than 600 Pathways graduates now work at Marriott as housekeepers, laundry workers, dishwashers, and other hourly jobs. Their 13 percent annual turnover rate is far below the company’s national average.25
8. Employers and schools must develop closer ties. Schools are often seen as unresponsive to labor market demands. Business is seen as not communicating its demands to schools. Fortunately, this is changing. Sematech, the semiconductor industry association, is working with Maricopa Community Colleges in Phoenix to develop a national curriculum for training entrylevel manufacturing technicians. Aegon US, an insurer in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, built a $10 million corporate data center at Kirkwood Community College to be shared by company employees and college students.26 The International Application box shows how the German’s do it.
9. Organized labor can help. Unions have developed first-rate apprenticeship programs in a number of crafts. Now they are getting involved in “soft-skills” training as well. In San Francisco, 12 unionized hotels agreed, as part of a contract with the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union, to a $3 million training program designed to teach problem-solving, communication, and conflict-resolution skills. The training program is being designed jointly by the union and the hotels.28
INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION In Germany Apprenticeship Training + College = Job Success
Young adults in Germany who opt for apprenticeship training before entering college tend to make a smoother transition into the job market than those who do not. A survey by Hochshule Information Systems in Hanover, Germany, found that 80 percent of those with the combined training find a full-time job compared with 74 percent of youths with only a college education. Among new college students in Germany, 62 percent of young men and 50 percent of young women are former apprentices. Prior apprenticeship training also pays off when one has to find a new job. Thus, nearly 50 percent of those with apprenticeship training had no problem finding new employment when they lost their jobs, compared with 38 percent of those with only a college degree.27
CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFECTIVE TRAINING PRACTICE
Surveys of corporate training and development practices consistently have found that four characteristics seemed to distinguish companies with the most effective training practices:29
· Top management is committed to training and development; training is part of the corporate culture. This is especially true of leading companies, such as Disney, Marriott, Hewlett-Packard, and Edward Jones & Co.
· Training is tied to business strategy and objectives and is linked to bottomline results.
· Organizational environments are “feedback rich”; they stress continuous improvement, promote risk taking, and afford opportunities to learn from the successes and failures of decisions.
· There is commitment to invest the necessary resources, to provide sufficient time and money for training.
Some businesses, small and large, shy away from training because they think that by upgrading the skills of the workforce their employees will be more marketable to competitors. That is true. However, there is also an interesting paradox that affects both employee and employer. That is, if an employee takes charge of her own employability by keeping her skills updated and varied so she can work for anyone, she also builds more security with her current employer—assuming the company values highly skilled, motivated employees. As Hewlett-Packard’s director of education noted, “What’s going to entice them away? Money? Maybe you can buy them for a short time, but what keeps people excited is growing and learning.”30
At the same time, if a company provides a large number of training and learning opportunities, it is more likely to retain workers because it creates an interesting and challenging environment. As the general manager of London-based Marks & Spencer noted: “Train them to the point where you may lose them, and then you won’t lose them.”31 This is the training paradox: Increasing an individual’s employability outside the company simultaneously increases his or her job security and desire to stay with the current employer.
How Training Relates to Competitive Strategies
The means that firms use to compete for business in the marketplace and to gain competitive advantage are known as competitive strategies.32 A key objective of any training program, therefore, is to tie workplace training to business targets. Motorola is especially adept at this. For instance, it will set a goal to reduce product-development cycle time (i.e., to increase speed), then create a course on how to do it. This is not learning for its own sake: Trainers drill students in specific tasks until they get them right, whether it’s operating a tool or being more persuasive with customers.33 While the potential returns from wellconducted training programs are hefty, considerable planning and evaluation are necessary to realize these returns. The remainder of this chapter examines some key issues that managers need to consider. Let us begin by examining the broad phases that comprise training systems.
WHAT DETERMINES EFFECTIVE TRAINING?
Research shows that a number of factors affect training effectiveness.34 For example, training success is determined not only by the quality of training but also by an individual’s readiness for training and the degree of organizational support for the training. Characteristics of the individual as well as the work environment are important influences before training (by affecting the motivation to participate), during training (by affecting learning), and after training (by influencing the transfer of learning and skills from the training situation to the job situation).
Admittedly some individual characteristics, such as trainability (i.e., the ability to learn the content of the training) and personality are difficult, if not impossible, for organizations to influence through policies and practices. The organization clearly can influence others, however, such as job or career attitudes, a person’s belief that he or she can learn the content of the training successfully, the attractiveness of training outcomes, and the work environment itself.35
ASSESSING TRAINING NEEDS AND DESIGNING TRAINING PROGRAMS
One way to keep in mind the phases of training is to portray them graphically, in the form of a model that illustrates the interaction among the phases. One such model is shown in Figure 8-1.
Figure 8-1 A general systems model of the training and development process. Note how information developed during the evaluation phase provides feedback, and therefore new input, to the assessment phase. This initiates a new cycle of assessment, training and development, and evaluation.
The assessment (or planning) phase serves as a foundation for the entire training effort. As Figure 8-1 shows, the training and development phase and the evaluation phase depend on inputs from assessment. The purpose of the assessment phase is to define what it is the employee should learn in relation to desired job behaviors. If this phase is not carefully done, the training program as a whole will have little chance of achieving what it is intended to do.
Assuming that managers specify the objectives of the training program carefully, the next task is to design the environment in which to achieve those objectives. This is the purpose of the training phase. Choose methods and techniques carefully and deliver them systematically in a supportive, encouraging environment, based on sound principles of learning. More on this later.
Finally, if both the assessment phase and the training and development phase have been done competently, evaluation should present few problems. Evaluation is a twofold process that involves (1) establishing indicators of success in training, as well as on the job, and (2) determining exactly what job-related changes have occurred as a result of the training. Evaluation must provide a continuous stream of feedback that can be used to reassess training needs, thereby creating input for the next stage of employee development.
Now that we have a broad overview of the training process, let us consider the elements of Figure 8-1 in greater detail.
There are four levels of analysis for determining the needs that training can fulfill:36
· Organization analysis focuses on identifying where within the organization training is needed.
· Demographic analysis is helpful in determining the special needs of a particular group, such as workers over 40, women, or managers at different levels. Those needs may be specified at the organizational level, the business-unit level, or at the individual level.
· Operations analysis attempts to identify the content of training—what an employee must do in order to perform competently.
· Individual analysis determines how well each employee is performing the tasks that make up his or her job.
Training needs might surface in any one of these four broad areas. But to ask productive questions regarding training needs, managers often find that an “integrative model” such as that shown in Figure 8-2 is helpful.
Figure 8-2 Training need? Alternative solutions
At a general level, it is important to analyze training needs against the backdrop of organizational objectives and strategies. Unless you do this, you may waste time and money on training programs that do not advance the cause of the company.37Pre-employment training programs (PETs) are prime examples of close alignment between organizational needs and training curricula. PETs are industry-specific, community-based coalitions. Member companies contribute time, money, and expertise to designing training, and they also contribute employees to teach courses. Such programs can be found in the aviation industry (Clarksburg, West Virginia), in manufacturing technology (Licking County, Ohio), in polymer chemistry (Parkerburg, Ohio), and in customer-service (Knox County, Ohio).38
It is also essential to analyze the organization’s external environment and internal climate. Trends in the strategic priorities of a business, judicial decisions, civil rights laws, union activity, productivity, accidents, turnover, absenteeism, and on-the-job employee behavior will provide relevant information at this level. The important question then becomes “Will training produce changes in employee behavior that will contribute to our organization’s goals?”
In summary, the critical first step is to relate training needs to the achievement of organizational goals. If you cannot make that connection, the training is probably unnecessary. However, if a training need does surface at the organizational level, a demographic analysis is the next step.
Demographic analysis provides information that may transcend particular jobs, even divisions of an organization. With respect to managers, for example, level, function, and attitudes toward the usefulness of training all affect their self-reported training needs.39 Taking this information into account lends additional perspective to the operations and person analyses to follow.
Operations analysis requires a careful examination of the work to be performed after training. It involves: (1) a systematic collection of information that describes how work is done; (2) determination of standards of performance for that work; (3) how tasks are to be performed to meet the standards; and (4) the competencies necessary for effective task performance. In fact, validated competency models can be very helpful in driving training curricula.40 Job analyses, performance appraisals, interviews (with jobholders, supervisors, and higher management), and analyses of operating problems (quality control, downtime reports, and customer complaints) all provide important inputs to the analysis of training needs.
Finally, there is individual analysis. At this level, training needs may be defined in terms of the following general idea: The difference between desired performance and actual performance is the individual’s training need. Performance standards, identified in the operations analysis phase, constitute desired performance. Individual performance data; diagnostic ratings of employees by their supervisors, peers, or customers; records of performance kept by workers in diary form; and attitude surveys, interviews, or tests (job knowledge, work sample, or situational) can provide information on actual performance against which each employee can be compared with desired performance standards. A gap between actual and desired performance may be filled by training.
One especially fruitful approach to the identification of individual training needs is to combine behaviorally based performance-management systems with individual development plans (IDPs) derived from self-analysis. IDPs should include
1. Statements of aims—desired changes in knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, or relationships with others.
2. Definitions—descriptions of areas of study, search, reflection, or testing, including lists of activities, experiences, or questions that can help achieve these aims.
3. Ideas about priorities—feelings of preference or urgency about what should be learned first.
Individuals often construct their own IDPs, with assistance, in career planning workshops, through structured exercises, in the practice of management by objectives, or in assessment centers. They provide a blueprint for selfdevelopment.
As a result of needs assessment, it should be possible to determine what workers do, what behaviors are essential to do what they do effectively, what type of learning is necessary to acquire those behaviors, and what type of instructional content is most likely to accomplish that type of learning.41 This information should guide all future choices about training methods and evaluation strategies.
COMPANY EXAMPLE: QWEST COMMUNICATIONS
At Qwest Communications, installers were uncertain about whether and how much they could charge for work on noncompany equipment and wiring, so they were billing very little. The company, in turn, seeing little revenue generated by the labor-hours spent, had stopped marketing the technicians’ services. A team of internal consultants—a company manager, a representative of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and a representative of the Communications Workers of America—recognized this problem and tried to solve it by involving a cross section of interested parties. The new task force agreed on two goals: increasing revenues and increasing job security.
From Needs Analysis to Training to Results!
A subcommittee of two task developers and two technicians developed a training program designed to teach installers how and what to charge and also why they should keep accurate records: to increase their job security. The committee agreed to measure the revenues generated by time and materials charging so that these revenues could be weighed against labor costs in layoff decisions.
The training consisted of two 6-hour days and was presented by technicians to about 400 installers throughout Washington State and Oregon. In addition to the course, the task force identified a need for a hotline that technicians could call when bidding for a job. The line was set up, and one of the course instructors was promoted to a management position for answering calls.
Results
The results of the training and hotline were phenomenal, as shown by the pattern of revenues from work on noncompany equipment. In January, prior to the training course, the installers had billed for $1,115 (in 2004 dollars). In April, when half the workers had completed the training, they billed for $39,000 in outside work. By the following February, billings for customized work and charges reached $340,000. Total revenues over the 14-month period were about $2.6 million (in 2004 dollars), or nearly twice the task force’s projection of $1.5 million.
In light of these results, the company now markets the installers’ services aggressively. For example, if an installation crew drives by a construction site on their way from another job, they stop and bid on the work. The hotline receives about 50 calls per day from systems technicians, installers, the business office, and customers.
The efforts of the task force increased company revenues, as well as the job security of the installers. Demand for their services grew with increased bidding on jobs, and more installers were added, providing union members in other job titles with opportunities for promotions or transfers into this work group. Future layoffs are unlikely, since the savings in labor costs must be weighed against the revenues generated by the installers.42 Careful assessment of the need for training, coupled with the delivery of a training program that met targeted needs, produced results that startled management, the union, and the installation technicians. Everybody won!
After training needs have been identified, the next step is to structure the training environment for maximum learning. Careful attention to the fundamental principles of learning will enhance this process.
Principles That Enhance Learning
To promote efficient learning, long-term retention, and application of the skills or factual information learned in training to the job situation, training programs should incorporate principles of learning developed over the past century. Which principles should be considered? It depends on whether the trainees are learning skills (e.g., drafting) or factual material (e.g., principles of life insurance).43
To be most effective, skill learning should include four essential ingredients: (1) goal setting, (2) behavior modeling, (3) practice, and (4) feedback. However, when the focus is on learning facts, the sequence should change slightly: (1) goal setting, (2) meaningfulness of material, (3) practice, and (4) feedback. Let’s consider each of these in greater detail.
Motivating the Trainee: Goal Setting
A person who wants to develop herself or himself will do so; a person who wants to be developed rarely is. This statement illustrates the role that motivation plays in training—to learn, you must want to learn. While cognitive ability does predict training outcomes, so also does motivation. What determines motivation to succeed in training? Both personal and contextual factors are important. At the level of the individual, the personality characteristics of conscientiousness (striving for excellence, having high performance standards, setting challenging personal goals) and internal locus of control (belief that one controls his or her own fate) are important determinants of motivation to learn. At the level of the organization, the climate in which the trainee functions, coupled with the support he or she receives from supervisor and peers is also critical.44
Perhaps the most effective way to raise a trainee’s motivation is by setting goals. More than 500 studies have demonstrated goal setting’s proven track record of success in improving employee performance in a variety of settings and cultures.45 On average, goal setting leads to a 10 percent improvement in productivity, and it works best with tasks of low complexity.46
Goal theory is founded on the premise that an individual’s conscious goals or intentions regulate her or his behavior.47Research indicates that once an individual accepts a goal, and is committed to achieving it, difficult but attainable goals result in higher levels of performance than do easy goals or even a generalized goal such as “do your best.”48 These findings have three important implications for motivating trainees:
1. Make the objectives of the training program clear at the outset.
2. Set goals that are challenging and difficult enough that the trainees can derive personal satisfaction from achieving them, but not so difficult that they are perceived as impossible to reach.
3. Supplement the ultimate goal of “finishing the program” with subgoals during training, such as trainer evaluations, work-sample tests, and periodic quizzes. As trainees clear each hurdle successfully, their confidence about attaining the ultimate goal increases.
While goal setting clearly affects trainees’ motivation, so also do the expectations of the trainer. In fact, expectations have a way of becoming self-fulfilling prophecies, so that the higher the expectations, the better the trainees perform. Conversely, the lower the expectations, the worse the trainees perform. This phenomenon of the self-fulfilling prophecy is known as the Pygmalion effect. Legend has it that Pygmalion, a king of Cyprus, sculpted an ivory statue of a maiden named Galatea. Pygmalion fell in love with the statue, and, at his prayer, Aphrodite, the goddess of love and beauty, gave it life. Pygmalion’s fondest wish—his expectation—came true.
Much of what we learn is acquired by observing others. We will imitate other people’s actions when they lead to desirable outcomes (e.g., promotions, increased sales, or more accurate tennis serves). The models’ actions serve as a cue as to what constitutes appropriate behavior.51 A model is someone who is seen as competent, powerful, and friendly and has high status within an organization. We try to identify with this model because her or his behavior is seen as desirable and appropriate.Behavior modeling tends to increase when the model is rewarded for behavior and when the rewards (e.g., influence, pay) are things the imitator would like to have. In the context of training (or coaching or teaching), we attempt to maximize trainees’ identification with a model. For us to do this well, research suggests the following:
1. The model should be similar to the observer in age, gender, and race. If the observer sees little similarity between himself or herself and the model, it is unlikely that he or she will imitate the model’s behaviors.
2. Portray the behaviors to be modeled clearly and in detail. To focus the trainees’ attention on specific behaviors to imitate, provide them with a list of key behaviors to attend to when observing the model and allow them to express the behaviors in language that is most comfortable for them. For example, when one group of supervisors was being taught how to “coach” employees, the supervisors received a list of the following key behaviors:52 (1) Focus on the problem, not on the person; (2) ask for the employees’ suggestions, and get their ideas on how to solve the problem; (3) listen openly; (4) agree on the steps that each of you will take to solve the problem; and (5) plan a specific follow-up date.
3. Rank the behaviors to be modeled in a sequence from least to most difficult, and be sure the trainees observe lots of repetitions of the behaviors being modeled.
4. Finally, have several models portray the behaviors, not just one.53
PYGMALION IN ACTION: MANAGERS GET THE KIND OF PERFORMANCE THEY EXPECT
To test the Pygmalion effect and to examine the impact of instructors’ prior expectations about trainees on the instructors’ subsequent style of leadership toward the trainees, a field experiment was conducted at a military training base.49 In a 15-week combat-command course, 105 trainees were matched on aptitude and assigned randomly to one of three experimental groups. Each group corresponded to a particular level of expectation that was communicated to the instructors: high, average, or no pre-specified level of expectation (due to insufficient information). Four days before the trainees arrived at the base, and prior to any acquaintance between instructors and trainees, the instructors were assembled and given a score (known as command potential, or CP) for each trainee that represented the trainee’s potential to command others. The instructors were told that the CP score had been developed on the basis of psychological test scores, data from a previous course on leadership, and ratings by previous commanders. The instructors were also told that course grades predict CP in 95 percent of the cases. The instructors were then given a list of the trainees assigned to them, along with their CPs, and asked to copy each trainee’s CP into his or her personal record. The instructors were also requested to learn their trainees’ names and their CPs before the beginning of the course.
The Pygmalion hypothesis that the instructor’s prior expectation influences the trainee’s performance was confirmed. Trainees of whom instructors expected better performance scored significantly higher on objective achievement tests, exhibited more positive attitudes, and were perceived as better leaders. In fact, the prior expectations of the instructors explained 73 percent of the variability in the trainees’ performance, 66 percent in their attitudes, and 28 percent in leadership. The lesson to be learned from these results is unmistakable: Trainers (and managers) get the kind of performance they expect. This is not an isolated instance. The Pygmalion effect has been confirmed in many studies, using both male and female trainees.50
Research continues to demonstrate the effectiveness of behavior modeling over other approaches to training.54 It is particularly appropriate for teaching interpersonal and computer skills.55 To a large extent, this is because behavior modeling overcomes one of the shortcomings of earlier approaches to training: telling instead of showing.
Meaningfulness of the Material
It’s easier to learn and remember factual material when it is meaningful. Meaningfulness refers to material that is rich in associations for the trainees and is therefore easily understood by them. To structure material to maximize its meaningfulness:
1. Provide trainees with an overview of the material to be presented during the training. Seeing the overall picture helps trainees understand how each unit of the program fits together and how it contributes to the overall training objectives.56
2. Present the material by using examples, terms, and concepts that are familiar to the trainees in order to clarify and reinforce key learning points. Such a strategy is essential when training the hard-core unemployed.57
3. As complex intellectual skills are invariably made up of simpler ones, teach the simpler skills before the complex ones.58 This is true whether teaching accounting, computer programming, or X-ray technology.
Anyone learning a new skill or acquiring factual knowledge must have an opportunity to practice what he or she is learning.59Practice has three aspects: active practice, overlearning, and the length of the practice session. Let’s consider each of these.
· Active practice. During the early stages of learning, the trainer should be available to oversee the trainee’s practice directly. If the trainee begins to “get off the track,” the inappropriate behaviors can be corrected immediately, before they become ingrained in the trainee’s behavior. This is why low instructor—trainee (or teacher—pupil) ratios are so desirable. It alsoexplains why so many people opt for private lessons when trying to learn or master a sport such as tennis, golf, skiing, or horseback riding.
· Overlearning. When trainees are given the opportunity to practice far beyond the point where they have performed a task correctly several times, the task becomes “second nature” and is “overlearned.” For some tasks, overlearning is critical.60This is true of any task that must be performed infrequently and under great stress: for example, attempting to kick a winning field goal with only seconds left in a football game. It is less important in types of work where an individual practices his or her skills on a daily basis (e.g., auto mechanics, electronics technicians, assemblers).
· Length of the practice session. Suppose you have only one week to memorize the lines of a play, and during that week, you have only 12 hours available to practice. What practice schedule will produce the greatest improvement? Should you practice two hours a day for six days, should you practice for six hours each of the final two days before the deadline, or should you adopt some other schedule? The two extremes represent distributed practice (which implies rest intervals between sessions) and massed practice (in which the practice sessions are crowded together). Although there are exceptions, most of the research evidence on this question indicates that for the same amount of practice, learning is better when practice is distributed rather than massed.61 This is especially true for learning simple motor tasks that involve very brief rest periods. It is less true for tasks of high complexity, such as those often found in organizational training settings. Under those circumstances, longer rest periods appear to be more beneficial for learning.62
Constructive feedback facilitates learning and supports a trainee’s desire to perform well.
This is a form of information about one’s attempts to improve. Feedback is essential both for learning and for trainee motivation.63The emphasis should be on when and how the trainee has done something correctly; for example, “You did a good job on that report you turned in yesterday—it was brief and to the heart of the issues.” It is also important to emphasize that feedback affects group, as well as individual, performance.64 For example, application of performance-based feedback in a small fast-food store over a one-year period led to a 15 percent decrease in food costs and a 193 percent increase in profits.65
To have the greatest impact, provide feedback as soon as possible after the trainee demonstrates good performance, especially to novices.66 It need not be instantaneous, but there should be no confusion regarding exactly what the trainee did and the trainer’s reaction to it. Feedback need not always be positive, but keep in mind that the most powerful rewards are likely to be those provided by the trainee’s immediate supervisor. In fact, if the supervisor does not reinforce what is learned in training, the training will be transferred ineffectively to the job—if at all.
Transfer of training refers to the extent to which competencies learned in training can be applied on the job. Transfer may be positive (i.e., it enhances job performance), negative (i.e., it hampers job performance), or neutral. Long-term training or retraining probably includes segments that contain all three of these conditions. Training that results in negative transfer is costly in two ways—the cost of the training (which proved to be useless) and the cost of hampered performance. To maximize positive transfer, designers of training programs should consider doing the following before, during, and after training:67
1. Maximize the similarity between the training situation and the job situation.
2. Provide trainees as much experience as possible with the tasks, concepts, or skills being taught so that they can deal with situations that do not fit textbook examples exactly. This is adaptive expertise.68
3. Provide a strong link between training content and job content (“What you learn in training today, you’ll use on the job tomorrow”).
4. In the context of team-based training (e.g., in employee involvement), transfer is maximized when teams have open, unrestricted access to information, when the membership includes diverse job functions and administrative backgrounds, and when a team has more members to draw upon to accomplish its activities.69
5. Ensure that what is learned in training is used and rewarded on the job. Supervisors and peers are key gatekeepers in this process. If immediate supervisors or peers, by their words or by their example, do not support what was learned in training, don’t expect the training to have much of an impact on job performance.70
Action learning, in which participants learn through experience and application, is an excellent vehicle for facilitating positive transfer from learning to doing.71 Vulcan Materials Company, the largest producer of construction aggregates in the United States, used action learning to develop the next generation of senior executives. It wanted the executives to feel comfortable working in partnership with their peers from other divisions and to be able to balance a sense of what was best for the enterprise with what was best for their own divisions.72 The following company example is an overview of Vulcan’s strategy for encouraging positive transfer from training to application.
COMPANY EXAMPLE: VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY
At Vulcan, action learning helps focus attention on the important concept of “transfer of training.”73 All training activities are designed with a built-in compatibility between what managers are expected to learn and what they are expected to do on their jobs. Here is how the process works.
Following organizational and individual assessments of training needs, Vulcan offered a three-day workshop followed by two, 1-day follow-up sessions (phases II and III). The first two days of the workshop were designed to build trust, to provide a deeper understanding of group dynamics, and to give the participants an opportunity to get to know each other. On the third day, participants were divided into action learning project teams. Each team was given a project that was strategically important to the firm, and that required cross-divisional cooperation. For example,
· Identifying best practices in the divisions, and developing a process for sharing them across divisions.
· Looking at a product that cut across all seven divisions to explore ways to increase efficiency and reduce redundancies.
· Improving customer satisfaction—identifying what customers want, how to measure and monitor their satisfaction, and how to build better customer responsiveness into Vulcan’s system.
The teams then “went home” to work on their strategies for about eight weeks.
Action Learning
Phase II comprised a “midterm review.” A seminar faculty member visited each team to review its progress on the assignment and provided detailed feedback on how well the team was progressing. Sometimes teams made major changes at this point as they recognized, for example, that their analysis was not thorough enough.
Over the following eight weeks (phase III of the program), each team prepared its final strategic presentation—delivered to Vulcan’s executive committee. After each team presented its strategy, the committee provided constructive comments and criticisms. Task forces subsequently worked to implement each team’s recommendations, and they receive follow-up coaching to help them do so.
At the end of the process, an evaluation was completed that included qualitative as well as quantitative measures. Fully 89 percent of the participants reported observing increased cross-divisional cooperation in other participants’ day-to-day behaviors as a result of the action learning process. Not only did the process change people’s behaviors, but it also changed the company’s systems and processes. As a result, Vulcan now has a group of high-potential managers who are skilled and enjoy working across divisions; who are less likely to leave; and who are more likely to create a common, cooperative culture across the firm.
Up to this point, we have been discussing training and development as an individual enterprise. Yet today, as we have noted, there is an increasing emphasis on team performance. Cross-functional teams, intact or virtual, are common features of many organizations. A team is a group of individuals who are working together toward a common goal. It is this common goal that really defines a team, and if team members have opposite or conflicting goals, the efficiency of the total unit is likely to suffer. For example, consider the effects on a basketball team when one of the players always tries to score, regardless of the team’s situation.
A systematic approach to team training should includes four steps:74
1. Conduct a team-training needs analysis. Such an analysis has two objectives: (a) to identify interdependencies among team members and the skills required to master coordination of team tasks and (b) to identify the cognitive skills and knowledge needed to interact as a team (e.g., knowledge of team-member roles and responsibilities).
2. Develop training objectives that address both task-work and teamwork skills. In general, a core set of skills characterizes effective teamwork. These include adaptability, shared awareness of situations, performance monitoring and feedback, leadership/team management, interpersonal skills, coordination, communication, and decision-making skills. Attitudinal skills that characterize effective teamwork include beliefs about the importance of teamwork skills, belief in placing the team’s goals above those of individual members, mutual trust, and shared vision.75 Sequence the training so that trainees can master task-work skills before learning teamwork skills.
3. Design exercises and training events based on the objectives from step 2. As with individual training, opportunities for guided practice and constructive feedback are particularly important for team training. This may include, for example, team-coordination training (focusing on teamwork skills that facilitate information exchange, cooperation, and coordination of job-related behaviors); cross-training (providing exposure to and practice with other teammates’ tasks, roles, and responsibilities in an effort to increase shared understanding and knowledge among team members); and guided team self-correction(providing guidance to team members in reviewing team events; identifying errors and exchanging feedback; developing plans for the future).
4. Design measures of team effectiveness based on the objectives set at step 2, evaluate the effectiveness of the team training, and use this information to guide future team training.
Other research has revealed two broad principles regarding the composition and management of teams. First, the overall performance of a team strongly depends on the individual expertise of its members.76 Thus, individual training and development are still important. But individual training is only a partial solution because interactions among team members must also be addressed. This interaction is what makes team training unique—it always uses some form of simulation or real-life practice, and it always focuses on the interaction of team members, equipment, and work procedures.77 For example, Subaru-Isuzu uses a manufacturing simulation in which individuals role-play as team members of a small-parts assembly firm. Jobs are self-assigned within teams, and team members make their own decisions about planning and allocating resources.78
Second, managers of effective work groups tend to monitor the performance of their team members regularly, and they provide frequent feedback to them.79 In fact, as much as 35 percent of the variability in team performance can be explained by the frequency of use of monitors and consequences. Incorporating these findings into the training of team members and their managers should lead to better overall team performance.
New training methods appear every year. While some are well founded in learning theory or models of behavior change (e.g., behavior modeling), others result more from technological than theoretical developments (e.g., presentation software, use of animation and sound, computer-based business simulations).
Training methods can be classified in three ways: information presentation, simulation methods, or on-the-job training.80
· Information presentation techniques include lectures, conferences, correspondence courses, videos/compact disks (CDs), distance learning, interactive multimedia (CDs/DVDs), intranet and Internet, intelligent tutoring,81 and organization development—systematic, long-range programs of organizational improvement.
· Simulation methods include the case method, role playing, behavior modeling, interactive simulations for virtual teams, virtual reality, the in-basket technique, and business simulations.
· On-the-job training methods include orientation training, apprenticeships, on-the-job training, near-the-job training (using identical equipment but away from the job itself), job rotation, committee assignments (or junior executive boards), understudy assignments, on-the-job coaching, and performance management.
In the context of developing interpersonal skills, training methods are typically chosen to achieve one or more of three objectives:
· Promoting self-insight and environmental awareness—that is, an understanding of how a person’s actions affect others and how a person is viewed by others. For example, at Parfums Stern, employees act out customer/salesperson roles to better understand customers’ emotions. Wendy’s International videotapes customers with disabilities; in one video a blind person asks that change be counted out loud. Meridian Bancorp has workers walk with seeds in their shoes to simulate older customers’ corns and calluses.82
· Improving the ability of managers and lower-level employees to make decisions and to solve job-related problems in a constructive fashion.
· Maximizing the desire to perform well.
To choose the training method (or combination of methods) that best fits a given situation, first define carefully what you wish to teach. That is the purpose of the needs assessment phase. Only then can you choose a method that best fits these requirements. To be useful, the method should meet the minimal conditions needed for effective learning to take place; that is, the training method should
· Motivate the trainee to improve his or her performance.
· Clearly illustrate desired skills.
· Allow the trainee to participate actively.
· Provide an opportunity to practice.
· Provide timely feedback on the trainee’s performance.
· Provide some means for reinforcement while the trainee learns.
· Be structured from simple to complex tasks.
· Be adaptable to specific problems.
· Encourage positive transfer from the training to the job.
ETHICAL DILEMMA Diversity Training—Fad or Here to Stay?
Diversity training is flourishing at the highest reaches of U.S. business. American Airlines, Coca-Cola, Procter & Gamble, and The New York Times are all engaged in one form or another. All are built on the assumption that “Understanding breeds better relationships.”83 Fair enough. However, some diversity consultants promise corporations they will increase their profits by “empowering their whole workforce.” How would a company support that claim? To some, the preferred solution to the problems of measurement and description is to declare them irrelevant and proceed on faith alone.84 Is this ethically justifiable in light of the principles of sound training practice—needs assessment, careful specification of objectives, and then evaluation of training in terms of the original objectives?
To evaluate training, you must systematically document the outcomes of the training in terms of how trainees actually behave back on their jobs and the relevance of that behavior to the objectives of the organization.85 To assess the utility or value of training, we seek answers to questions such as the following:
1. Have trainees achieved a specific level of skill, knowledge, or performance?
2. Did change occur?
3. Is the change due to training?
4. Is the change positively related to the achievement of organizational goals?
5. Will similar changes occur with new participants in the same training program?86
In evaluating training programs, it is important to distinguish targets of evaluation (training content and design, changes in learners, and organizational payoffs) from data-collection methods (e.g., with respect to organizational payoffs, cost-benefit analyses, ratings, and surveys). Figure 8-3 presents a model that illustrates these distinctions. Targets and methods are linked through the options available for measurement, that is, its focus (e.g., with respect to changes in learners, the focus might be cognitive, affective, or behavioral changes). Finally, targets, focus, and methods are linked to the purpose of the evaluation—feedback (to trainers or learners), decision making, and marketing.
Figure 8-3 An integrative model of training evaluation.
(Source: Kraiger, K. Decision-based evaluation. In K. Kraiger (ed.), Creating, implementing, and managing effective training and development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, p. 343.)
Consider organizational payoffs, for example. The focus might be on transfer of training (e.g., transfer climate, opportunity to perform, on-the-job behavior change), on results (performance effectiveness or tangible outcomes to a work-group or organization), or on the financial impact of the training (e.g., through measures of return-on-investment or utility analysis).
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS IN MEASURING THE OUTCOMES OF TRAINING
Regardless of the measures used, our goal is to be able to make meaningful inferences and to rule out alternative explanations for results (e.g., lengthened job experience, outside economic events, changes in supervision or performance incentives). To do so, it is important to administer the measures according to some logical plan or procedure (experimental design) (e.g., before and after training as well as to a comparable control group).
To rule out these rival explanations for the changes that occurred, it is essential to design a plan for evaluation that includesbefore and after measurement of the trained group’s performance relative to that of one or more untrained control groups. (However, when it is relatively costly to bring participants to an evaluation and administration costs are particularly high, after-only measurement of trained and untrained groups is best.87) Match members of the untrained control group as closely as possible to those in the trained group. Table 8-1 shows a standard design for such a study. If the outcomes of the training are positive, the untrained control group at time 1 may become the trained group at a later time. It is important to note that the post-training appraisal of performance should not be done sooner than three months (or more) following the training so that the trainees have an opportunity to put into practice what they have learned.
Table 8-1 A Typical Before-After Design for Assessing Training Outcomes
| Trained group | Untrained group | |
| Pre-test | Yes | Yes |
| Training | Yes | No |
| Post-test | Yes | Yes |
Finally, the impact of training on organizational results is the most significant, but most difficult, effect to demonstrate. Measures of results are the bottom line of training success. Exciting developments in this area have come from recent research showing how the general utility equation (Equation 7-1 on page 273) can be modified to reflect the dollar value of improved job performance resulting from training.88 Utility formulas are now available for evaluating the dollar value of a single training program compared to a control group, a training program re-administered periodically (e.g., annually), and a comparison between two or more different training programs.
COMPANY EXAMPLE: EXECUTIVE COACHING
External coaches are often used to help talented executives who are in trouble because of behavioral or style deficiencies, or to help them lead critical transitions, such as having to lead a major change effort.90 The process usually proceeds through several stages: contracting and problem definition, assessment, feedback, action planning, implementation, and follow-up. At any stage in the process, however, new data may result in looping back to an earlier stage.91 Manchester International, a global purveyor of executive-coaching services, recently surveyed its customers on what they had gotten out of Manchester’s programs. Bear in mind that the results came from customers, not the firm itself. The respondents were executives from large (mostly Fortune 1,000) companies who had participated either in “change-oriented” coaching, aimed at improving certain behaviors or skills, or “growth-oriented” coaching, designed to sharpen overall job performance. The programs lasted from six months to a year. About 60 percent of the executives were ages 40 to 49—a prime age bracket for career retooling. Half held positions of vice president or higher, and a third earned $200,000 or more per year.
Does It Pay Off?89
Asked for a conservative estimate of the monetary payoff from the coaching they got, these managers described an average return of more than $100,000, or about six times what the coaching had cost their companies. Almost 3 in 10 (28 percent) claimed that they had learned enough to boost quantifiable job performance—whether in sales, productivity, or profits—by $500,000 to $1 million since they took the training. They also reported better relationships with direct reports (77 percent), bosses (71 percent), peers (63 percent), and clients (37 percent) and cited a marked increase in job satisfaction (61 percent) and “organizational commitment”(44 percent), meaning they were less likely to quit than they were before.
While these payoffs sound wonderful, remember that they are self-reports, not the result of experimental research that used a control group or before-and-after measurement of outcomes. In addition, not all coaches are equally proficient in what they do, and not every executive is equally likely to change from coaching. The effectiveness of executive coaching depends on the right combination of executive, coach, and situation.92
Consider asking questions such as the following of prospective coaches. Experienced coaches should have good answers to each of them:
· Whom have you worked with, and in what types of organizations, jobs, and levels?
· What processes do you build in to ensure that you get results?
· What kind of assessment will we go through to focus on the right things for me?
· What is your approach to help me learn new things?
· How can we know we have achieved what we set out to achieve?
· Who would you turn down, and why?93
An often-neglected part of the training enterprise is the orientation of new employees to the company and its culture. Because most turnover occurs during the first few months on the job (at Marriott, 40 percent of the new employees who leave do so during the first three months94), failure to provide a thorough orientation can be a very expensive mistake.95 Let’s consider what progressive companies are doing in this area.
NEW-EMPLOYEE ORIENTATION: AN OVERVIEW
One definition of orientation is “familiarization with and adaptation to a situation or an environment.” While 8 out of every 10 organizations in the United States that have more than 50 employees provide orientation, the time and effort devoted to its design, conduct, and evaluation are woefully inadequate. In practice, orientation is often just a superficial indoctrination into company philosophy, policies, and rules; sometimes it includes the presentation of an employee handbook and a quick tour of the office or plant. This can be costly. Here is why.
In one way, a displaced worker from the factory who is hired into another environment is similar to a new college graduate. Upon starting a new job, both will face a kind of “culture shock.” As they are exposed for the first time to a new organizational culture, both find that the new job is not quite what they imagined it to be. In fact, coming to work at a new company is not unlike visiting a foreign country. Either you are told about the local customs, or else you learn them on your own by a process of trial and error. An effective orientation program can help lessen the impact of this shock. But there must be more, such as a period ofsocialization, or learning to function as a contributing member of the corporate “family.” New-employee orientation facilitates socialization. The payoff? Higher levels of commitment to the organization, along with a deeper understanding of its goals, values, history, and people.96
The cost of hiring, training, and orienting a new person is far higher than most of us realize. For example, Merck & Co., the pharmaceutical giant, found that, depending on the job, turnover costs are 1.5 to 2.5 times the annual salary paid for the job.97Moreover, because the turnover rate among new college hires can be as great as 50 percent during the first 12 months, such costs can be considerable.
A new employee’s experiences during the initial period with an organization can have a major impact on his or her career. A new hire stands on the “boundary” of the organization—certainly no longer an outsider but not yet embraced by those within. There is great stress. The new hire wants to reduce this stress by becoming incorporated into the “interior” as quickly as possible. Consequently, during this period an employee is more receptive to cues from the organizational environment than she or he is ever likely to be again. Such cues to proper behavior may come from a variety of sources; for example,
· Official literature of the organization.
· Examples set by senior people.
· Formal instructions given by senior people.
· Examples given by peers.
· Rewards and punishments that flow from the employee’s efforts.
· Responses to the employee’s ideas.
· Degree of challenge in the assignments the employee receives.
Special problems may arise for a new employee whose young life has been spent mainly in an educational setting. As she approaches her first job, the recent graduate may feel motivated entirely by personal creativity. She is information-rich but experience-poor, eager to apply her knowledge to new processes and problems. Unfortunately, there are conditions that may stifle this creative urge. During her undergraduate days, the new employee exercised direct control over her work. But now she faces regular hours, greater restrictions, possibly a less pleasant environment, and a need to work through other people—often finding that most of the work is mundane and unchallenging. In short, three typical problems face the new employee:
1. Problems in entering a group. The new employee asks herself whether she will (a) be acceptable to the other group members, (b) be liked, and (c) be safe—that is, free from physical and psychological harm. These issues must be resolved before she can feel comfortable and productive in the new situation.
2. Naive expectations. Organizations find it much easier to communicate factual information about pay and benefits, vacations, and company policies than information about employee norms (rules or guides to acceptable behavior), company attitudes, or “what it really takes to get ahead around here.” Simple fairness suggests that employees ought to be told about these intangibles. The bonus is that being up front and honest with job candidates produces positive results. As we saw in Chapter 6, the research on realistic job previews (RJPs) indicates that job acceptance rates will likely be lower for those who receive an RJP, but job survival rates will be higher.98
3. First-job environment. Does the new environment help or hinder the new employee trying to climb aboard? Can peers be counted on to socialize the new employee to desired job standards? How and why was the first job assignment chosen? Is it clear to the new employee what she or he can expect to get out of it?
To appreciate the kinds of problems a new employee faces, consider how Dave Savchetz, plant manager of Ford Motor Company’s Kansas City, Missouri, factory, describes his first day on the job 20 years ago:99
It was a shock. To be honest, it was pretty traumatic. You got hired in this group of 30 people you’ve never met, and you sign a form, and the foreman comes in, and you walk out into this factory. And it’s just the first time, you know? Things are moving, and you just look around, and you go, “What’s going on here?” Quite frankly, the first day I got lost.
In fact, the first year with an organization is the critical period during which an employee will or will not learn to become a high performer. The careful matching of company and employee expectations during this period can result in positive job attitudes and high standards, which then can be reinforced in new and more demanding jobs.
PLANNING, PACKAGING, AND EVALUATING AN ORIENTATION PROGRAM
Typically some time will elapse between the acceptance of a job and the actual start date. Some companies use this time to begin the orientation process. Latitude Communications actually sends out business cards to potential employees prior to their acceptance.100 One West Coast company mails correspondence to the new employee’s home, indicating how happy it is that the new employee will be joining the company’s team. It also sends the employee handbook, along with information about the geographical area, as well as major, ongoing projects in the department where the new employee will be working. The company then follows up with a personal phone call to answer any new or outstanding questions that the new employee may have. Lastly, it calls the new employee the day before he or she is scheduled to begin work. This all occurs before the employee actually reports!101 By this time, the new employee probably feels extremely welcome and will be quite comfortable during the first day on the job.
At a broad level, new employees need specific information in three major areas:
· Company standards, expectations, norms, traditions, and policies.
· Social behavior, such as approved conduct, the work climate, and getting to know fellow workers and supervisors.
· Technical aspects of the job.
Keep in mind that the most common reasons for firing new hires are absenteeism and failure to adapt to the work environment. Fewer than 10 percent of employees are dismissed because of difficulties in learning how to perform their jobs.102 These results suggest two levels of orientation: company and departmental. There will be some matters of general interest and importance to all new employees, regardless of department, and there will also be matters relevant only to each department. The HR department should have overall responsibility for program planning and follow-up (subject to top-management review and approval), but the specific responsibilities of the HR department and the immediate supervisor should be made very clear to avoid duplication or omission of important information.
Be sure to avoid these approaches to orientation:103
· An emphasis on paperwork. After completing forms required by the HR department, the new employee is given a cursory welcome. Then the employee is directed to his or her immediate supervisor. The likely result: The employee does not feel like part of the company. In contrast, Hewlett-Packard sends out company forms to be completed prior to the first day on the job. That way the new employee can spend the first day meeting people and adjusting to the company’s culture and work environment.104
· A sketchy overview of the basics. A quick, superficial orientation, and the new employee is immediately put to work—sink or swim.
· Mickey Mouse assignments. The new employee’s first tasks are insignificant duties, supposedly intended to teach the job “from the ground up.”
· Suffocation. Giving too much information too fast is a well-intentioned but disastrous approach, causing the new employee to feel overwhelmed and “suffocated.”
We know from other companies’ mistakes what works and what does not. For example, consider how The Container Store handles new employee orientation.
COMPANY EXAMPLE: THE CONTAINER STORE
Listen as Barbara Anderson, of Dallas-based The Container Store, a perennial member of Fortune magazine’s “100 Best Companies to Work for in America,” describes Foundation Week: “Our orientation begins with the interview process. Full-time employees will have a minimum of three interviews with three different people, which is very unusual for retail,” says Anderson. “But we want the right fit. We have a quirky culture, and spend a lot of time talking about how and why we do business the way we do.”
Anderson says that her company went from doing absolutely nothing for orientation when the company started in 1978, to the structured Foundation Week that has been in place since 1996. “We started years ago with two hours of orientation, and then four, after which employees were given an apron and told to go to work,” she says. “We lost a lot of good people that way—they couldn’t learn by osmosis.”
Foundation Week105
The Container Store today has a formatted approach to orientation that Anderson says layers information. “Each layer goes back to reinforce what the employee learned the day before. By the end of the week, the new employee has heard the most important things five different times from five different people.”
Day One of Foundation Week begins with philosophy and time with the store manager. “This day usually blows people away—the fact that the manager spends most of the day talking to them,” says Anderson. “Right away, they know they’re in a different culture.
“Many companies spend the first day on where to park and benefits—boring!” says Anderson, who intersperses this kind of information in a crossword puzzle format. “Employees have a handbook and an assignment before they start, and we tell them to come prepared for discussion.”
Day Two progresses to visual information. “This is very important,” says Anderson. “We show them how we get the product into the store, how we put it on the shelves, how we make signs.” Anderson says that during Foundation Week, new hires actually work as full-fledged store employees—without the apron. But because of the training they receive during this week, she says, “when they do put on their aprons and go out on the floor, right away they can be productive and have something to do.”
On Day Three, employees spend time with salespeople learning the different sections of the store and the various selling techniques for each section. Day Four teaches the employee different roles like that of host (greeter) and cashier, and how to provide customer service in these roles. The employee learns about inventory and back-room operations on Day Five, and gets a recap with the manager.
“Then we have a ceremony that cheers on the new employees,” says Anderson. “And that is when they get their apron. The psychological effect of having to wait for that apron is incredible.”
Although it’s difficult to attribute retention to a single factor like a good orientation program, Anderson believes that starting employees out right certainly helps with her company’s low turnover. According to the Washington, D.C.-based National Retail Federation, turnover rates for store managers, fulltime employees, and part-time employees are 33.6, 73.6, and 124.3 percent, respectively. In comparison, Anderson says that The Container Store’s turnover rate, which includes part-time and seasonal employees, is 25 to 30 percent.
Anderson believes the time in Foundation Week is well spent. “We have a productive employee much more quickly, rather than a warm body trying to sell.” In the past, when The Container Store didn’t do orientation this way, employees did not have the same self-confidence. She says: “Whenever we short this, we set the employee back about three months.”
The worst mistake a company can make is to ignore the new employee after orientation. Almost as bad is an informal open-door policy: “Come see me sometime if you have any questions.” Many new employees are simply not assertive enough to seek out the supervisor or HR representative—more than likely, they fear looking “dumb.” What is needed is formal and systematic orientation follow-up; for example, National Semiconductor uses focus groups of randomly-selected new employees to find out what they like and don’t like.106 It found that many of the topics covered during orientation need to be explained briefly again—once the employee has had the opportunity to experience them firsthand. This is natural and understandable in view of the blizzard of information that often is communicated during orientation. In completing the orientation follow-up, review a checklist of items covered with each new employee or small group of employees to ensure that all items were in fact covered. Then make sure that the completed checklist is signed by the supervisor, the HR representative, and the new employee.
Evaluation of the Orientation Program
At least once a year, review the orientation program to determine if it is meeting its objectives and to identify future improvements. To improve orientation, you need candid, comprehensive feedback from everyone involved in the program. There are several ways to provide this kind of feedback: through roundtable discussions with new employees after their first year on the job, through in-depth interviews with randomly selected employees and supervisors, and through questionnaires for mass coverage of all recent hires. Now let’s consider one company’s approach to the overall orientation process.
As a result of The Container Store’s experience, and the recent experiences of many other companies, we offer the following considerations to guide the process of orienting new employees. They apply to any type of organization, large or small, and to any function or level of job:107
1. The impressions formed by new employees within their first 60 to 90 days on a job are lasting.
2. Day 1 is crucial—new employees remember it for years. It must be managed well.
3. New employees are interested in learning about the total organization—and how they and their unit fit into the “big picture.” This is just as important as is specific information about the new employee’s own job and department. For example, new employees at Corning go through an intranet scavenger hunt that requires them to use information learned during orientation and to demonstrate that they are comfortable with using the company’s intranet system.
4. Give new employees major responsibility for their own orientation, through guided self-learning, but with direction and support. For example, AT&T has its orientation program on CD-ROM so that employees can self-pace their learning.108
5. Avoid information overload—provide it in reasonable amounts.
6. Recognize that community, social, and family adjustment is a critical aspect of orientation for new employees.
7. Make the immediate supervisor ultimately responsible for the success of the orientation process.
8. Thorough orientation is a “must” for productivity improvement. It is a vital part of the total management system—and therefore the foundation of any effort to improve employee productivity.
IMPACT OF TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT ON PRODUCTIVITY, QUALITY OF WORK LIFE, AND THE BOTTOM LINE
Does training “work”? One investigation reported the following returns on investment (ROI) for various types of training: 5:1 (behavior modification), 4.8:1 (customer service), 13.7:1 (team training), 15:1 (role of the manager), and 21:1 (sales training).109 At a more general level, the literature on training evaluation shows that while the potential returns from well-conducted training programs can be substantial, there is often considerable variability in the effectiveness with which any given training method or content area is implemented.110 As we have seen, considerable planning (through needs analysis) and follow-up program evaluation efforts are necessary in order to realize these returns. Given the pace of change in modern society and technology, retraining is imperative to enable individuals to compete for or retain their jobs and to enable organizations to compete in the marketplace. In recruiting and retaining a diverse workforce, for example, a recent http://www.WetFeet.com study reported that “opportunities for training and career development” was the number 1 feature that candidates demand.111Continual investments in training and learning are therefore essential, as they have such direct impacts on the productivity of organizations and on the quality of work life of those who work in them.
These lessons are exciting and provocative. They suggest that we should be at least as concerned with preparing the new employee for the social context of his or her job and for coping with the insecurities and frustrations of a new learning situation as with the development of the technical skills necessary for job performance.
E-LEARNING HELPS SMALL ORGANIZATIONS ACT LIKE BIG ONES
Human Resource Management in Action: Conclusion
Technical as well as personal concerns may limit the growth of e-learning. Perhaps the biggest technical obstacle to more widespread use is bandwidth. High-speed, dedicated Internet connections are still a luxury for many people. When employees are parked in front of a standard dial-up connection, downloading a course’s sound, video, and detailed color photographs takes way too long. Under those circumstances, interest wanes, along with motivation.
Personal concerns are another potential obstacle. Following classroom training, it is not unusual for employees to state emphatically that the best part of the learning experience was the network of personal relationships they developed in the course of their training. That kind of camaraderie doesn’t form as easily with e-learning. Moreover, unless firms reserve time for learning on company time, employees have to find time on their own. While some people may relish the opportunity to squeeze in a little training via a computer or CD at home, on a plane, or in a hotel room, others may regard after-hours training as an unwarranted intrusion on their personal time. This raises an interesting question. If a company does not provide time for training during regular working hours, is it arbitrarily extending the work-day? Some firms, such as GlaxoSmithKline, urge managers to provide time for training during the work day. Other employers provide tools to help employees carve training time out of their work days. Cisco Systems gives employees police tape to stretch across their cubicle doors. Others hand out signs saying “learning in progress.” As learning becomes more a part of every job, and of day-to-day life—more companies will develop policies on these issues.
Suppose you are considering offering an e-learning course to your employees. Experts say that it is critical to test drive each potential course from the vendor. Experience the course. See how easy it is to navigate the site, how fast it loads, and if it provides quality take-home information. Are all elements of the course integrated? Is technical support available 24/7? An online course won’t be of much use if employees can’t access it or can’t get help with it anytime they want. Inadequate support equals frustrated learners.
IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
One of the greatest fears of managers and lower-level employees is obsolescence. Perhaps the Paul principleexpresses this phenomenon most aptly: Over time, people become uneducated, and therefore incompetent, to perform at a level they once performed at adequately.112 Training is an important antidote to obsolescence, but it is important to be realistic about what training can and cannot accomplish.
1. Training cannot solve all kinds of performance problems. In some cases, transfer, job redesign, changes in selection or reward systems, or discipline may be more appropriate.
2. Because productivity (the value of outputs per unit of labor) is a characteristic of a system, such as a firm or an industry, and not of an individual, changes in individual or team performance are only one possible cause of changes in productivity.113
3. As a manager, you need to ask yourself three key questions:
. “Do we have an actual or a potential performance problem for which training is the answer?”
. “Have we defined what is to be learned and what the content of training should be before we choose a particular training method or technique?”
. “What kind of evaluation procedure will we use to determine if the benefits of the training outweigh its costs?”
Start with a pilot group and test out the product. If your firm has limited funds, ask for a free tryout. Train several people for free before investing further. Solicit feedback, and then entice other employees to try it out. How? By promoting it in new employee orientation programs or encouraging managers to list it as a goal in performance reviews.
A final issue is this. Who profits most from e-learning? A recent study found considerable variability in the amount of time participants spent on each module and the time they spent practicing what was taught. Not surprisingly, employees who learned most from this type of learning environment were those who completed more of the practice opportunities made available and took more time to complete the experience.
The pace of change in our society is forcing both employed and displaced workers continually to acquire new knowledge and skills. In most organizations, therefore, lifelong training is essential. To be maximally effective, training programs should follow a three-phase sequence: needs assessment, implementation, and evaluation. First define clearly what is to be learned before choosing a particular method or technique. To define what is to be learned, a continuous cycle of organization analysis, demographic analysis, operations analysis, and analysis of the training needs of employees is necessary.
Then relate training needs to the achievement of broader organizational goals and ensure that they are consistent with management’s perceptions of strategy and tactics. Beyond these fundamental concerns, principles of learning—goal setting, behavior modeling, meaningfulness of material, practice, feedback, and transfer of training—are essential considerations in the design of any training program. Choose a particular technique according to the degree to which it fits identified needs and incorporates the learning principles.
In evaluating training programs, it is important to distinguish targets of evaluation (training content and design, changes in learners, and organizational payoffs) from data-collection methods (e.g., with respect to organizational payoffs, cost-benefit analyses, ratings, and surveys). However, measures of the impact of training on organizational results are the bottom line of training success. Fortunately, advances in utility analysis now make evaluations possible in terms of economic benefits and economic costs.
One of the most neglected areas of training is new-employee orientation. Clearly, a new employee’s initial experience with a firm can have a major effect on his or her later career. To maximize the impact of orientation, it is important to recognize that new employees need specific information in three major areas: (1) company standards, traditions, and policies; (2) social behavior; and (3) technical aspects of the job. This suggests two levels of orientation: company, conducted by an HR representative, and departmental, conducted by the immediate supervisor. An orientation follow-up is essential (e.g., after one week by the supervisor and after one month by an HR representative) to ensure proper quality control plus continual improvement.
· training paradox
· assessment phase
· training and development phase
· evaluation phase
· organization analysis
· demographic analysis
· operations analysis
· individual analysis
· pre-employment training programs
· goal theory
· Pygmalion effect
· behavior modeling
· meaningfulness (of material)
· overlearning
· distributed practice
· massed practice
· feedback
· transfer of training
· action learning
· team
· team-coordination training
· cross-training
· guided team self-correction
· organization development
· orientation
· socialization
· Paul principle
| 8-1 | Would you be able to recognize a sound training program if you saw one? What features would you look for? |
| 8-2 | How does goal setting affect trainee learning and motivation? |
| 8-3 | Outline an evaluation procedure for a training program designed to teach sales principles and strategies. |
| 8-4 | Why do organizations so frequently overlook new-employee orientation? |
| 8-5 | Think back to your first day on the most recent job you have held. What could the organization have done to hasten your socialization and your adjustment to the job? |
Case 8-1: Evaluating Training at Hutchinson Inc.
Hutchinson Inc. is a large insurance brokerage firm operating out of Seattle, Washington. The company was founded in 1922 by John Hutchinson, Sr., great-grandfather of the current president. Hutchinson offers a complete line of insurance services for both individuals and business firms. As is true with other insurance companies, Hutchinson emphasizes sales. In fact, more than half of all corporate employees are involved in sales to some degree.
Because the sales activity is so important to Hutchinson, the company spends a considerable amount of time, effort, and money in sales training. Its training director, Tom Jordan, is constantly on the lookout for new training techniques that can improve sales and profits. He recently uncovered one that he had never heard of before, but which seemed to have some promise. He immediately scheduled a meeting with his boss, Cathy Archer, vice president for human resources at Hutchinson, to discuss the possibility of sending some salespeople to this new training course.
Questions
1. What is meant by the statement that training is extremely “faddish”?
2. How can Hutchinson Inc. avoid becoming a victim of the faddishness of the training business?
3. Develop a detailed training evaluation strategy that Tom can present to Cathy, which would provide evidence of the effectiveness of a particular training technique.
1Kraiger, K. (2003). Perspectives on training and development. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (eds.), Handbook of psychology, (vol. 12), Industrial and organizational psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp. 171-192.
2Steele-Johnson, D., & Hyde, B. G. (1997). Advanced technologies in training: Intelligent tutoring systems and virtual reality. In M. A. Quinones & A. Ehrenstein (eds.), Training for a rapidly changing workplace. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 225-248.
3Cascio, W. F. (2002). Responsible restructuring: Creative and profitable alternatives to layoffs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
4See, for example, Golden, D., & Rose, M. (2003, Nov. 7). Cash course: Kaplan transforms into big operator of trade schools. The Wall Street Journal, pp. A1, A8.
5Stewart, T. A. (2001, Apr. 2). Mystified by training? Here are some clues. Fortune, p. 184.
6Cascio, W. F. (2003). Changes in workers, work, and organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (eds.), Handbook of psychology. (vol. 12), Industrial and organizational psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp. 401-422.
7U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment projections, 1998-2008. See also http://www.state.bls.gov.
8Developing business leaders for 2010. (2003). New York: The Conference Board; Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2000). The knowing-doing gap: How smart companies turn knowledge into action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press; Tannenbaum, S. (2002). A strategic view of organizational training and learning. In K. Kraiger (ed.), Creating, implementing, and managing effective training and development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 10-52; Noe, R. A. (2002). Employee training and development (2nd ed.). Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
9U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Projections, 2002-2012. See http://www.stats.bls.gov.
10Salas, E., Burke, C. S., & Cannon-Bowers, J. B. (2002). What we know about designing and delivering team training: Tips and guidelines. In K. Kraiger (ed.), Creating, implementing, and managing effective training and development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 234-259.
11Stewart, op. cit.
12Levering, R., & Moskowitz, M. (2003, Jan. 20). 100 best companies to work for. Fortune, pp. 127-152.
13Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First break all the rules: What the world’s greatest managers do differently. New York: Simon & Schuster.
14Brody, M. (1987, June 8). Helping workers to work smarter. Fortune, pp. 86-88.
16Robinson, M., quoted in Stuller, J. (1993, June). Why not ‘inplacement’? Training, p. 40.
15Cascio, W. F. (1995, May). Guide to responsible restructuring. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the American Workplace.
17Cascio, W. F. (1993, Nov.). Public investments in training: Perspectives on macro-level structural issues and micro-level delivery systems. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, National Center on the Educational Quality of the Workforce.
18Overman, S. (2001, May). PET projects: Train before you hire. HRMagazine, pp. 66-74. See also Gerbman, R. V. (2000, Feb.). Corporate universities 101. HRMagazine, pp. 101-106; Rouzer, P. A. (2000, June). May I help you? A more complex customer service relationship demands superior training. HRMagazine, pp. 140-146; The new factory worker. (1996, Sept. 30). BusinesWeek, pp. 59-68.
19Hodson, R., Hooks, G., & Rieble, S. (1992). Customized training in the workplace. Work and Occupations, 19 (3), 272-292.
20Gerbman, op. cit. See also Motorola: Training for the millenium. (1994, Mar. 28). BusinessWeek, pp. 158-162.
212001 AMA survey on workplace testing: Basic skills, job skills, psychological measurement. NY: American Management Association.
22Salwen, K. G. (1993, Apr. 19). The cutting edge: German-owned maker of power tools finds job training pays off. The Wall Street Journal, pp. A1, A7.
23Toker, G., quoted in Motorola: Training for the millenium, p. 158.
24Backlash: Behind the anxiety over globalization. (2000, Apr. 24). BusinessWeek, pp. 38-43, 202. See also Risen, J. (1994, Mar. 17). Nations struggle to retrain workers as times change. Los Angeles Times, p. A9.
25Low-wage lessons. (1996, Nov. 11). BusinessWeek, pp. 108-116.
26Overman, op. cit. See also Your local campus: Training ground zero. (1996, Sept. 30). BusinessWeek, p. 68.
28Low-wage lessons, op. cit.
27Apprenticeship training and college combine for success in Germany. (1996, Mar.). Manpower Argus, 330, p. 8.
29Developing business leaders, op. cit. See also Sirota, Alper, & Pfau Inc. (1989). Report to respondents: Survey of views toward corporate education and training practices. New York: Author.
30Davis, quoted in Filipczak, B. (1995, Jan.). You’re on your own: Training, employability, and the new employment contract. Training, pp. 29-36.
31General Manager, Marks & Spencer. (2000, Mar.). London Business School, Career Creativity conference. London.
32Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage. New York: Free Press. See also the DVD, HR in alignment: The link to business results. (2004). Society for Human Resource Management Foundation, Alexandria, VA.
33Motorola: Training for the millenium, op. cit.
34Noe, R. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2002). Planning for training impact: Principles of training effectiveness. In K. Kraiger (ed.), Creating, implementing, and managing effective training and development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 53-79. See also Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,678-707.
35Quinones, M. A. (1997). Contextual influences on training effectiveness. In M. A. Quinones & A. Ehrenstein (eds.), Training for a rapidly changing workplace. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 177-200.
36Noe, op. cit. See also Goldstein, I. L., & Ford, J. K. (2002). Training in organizations: Needs assessment, development, and evaluation (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
37Moore, M. L., & Dutton, P. (1978). Training needs analysis: Review and critique. Academy of Management Review, 3, 532-454.
38Overman, op. cit.
39Ford, J. K., & Noe, R. A. (1987). Self-assessed training needs: The effects of attitudes toward training, managerial level, and function. Personnel Psychology, 40, 39-53.
40Kraiger, K. (2003). Perspectives on training and development. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimosky (eds.) Handbook of psychology, vol. 12, Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp 171-192). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
41Goldstein & Ford, op. cit.
42Hilton, M. (1987). Union and management: A strong case for cooperation. Training and Development Journal, 41 (1), 54-55.
43Wexley, K. N., & Latham, G. P. (2000). Developing and training human resources in organizations (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
44Colquitt, LePine, & Noe, op. cit.
45Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. American Psychologist,57, 705-717. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
46Wood, R. E., Mento, A. J., & Locke, E. A. (1987). Task complexity as a moderator of goal effects: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 416-425.
47Locke, E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 157-189.
48Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Alge, B. J. (1999). Goal commitment and the goal-setting process: Conceptual clarification and empirical synthesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 885-896. See also Locke, E. A., Latham, G. P., & Erez, M. (1988). The determinants of goal commitment. Academy of Management Review,13, 23-39.
51Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
52Hogan, P. M., Hakel, M. D., & Decker, P. J. (1986). Effects of trainee-generated versus trainer-provided rule codes on generalization in behavior-modeling training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 469-473.
53Goldstein, A. P., & Sorcher, M. (1974). Changing supervisor behavior. New York: Pergamon Press. See also Latham, G. P., & Saari, L. M. (1979). The application of social learning theory to training supervisors through behavior modeling. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 239-246.
49Eden, D., & Shani, A. B. (1982). Pygmalion goes to boot camp: Expectancy, leadership, and trainee performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 194-199.
50Begley, S. (2003, Nov. 7). Expectations may alter outcomes far more than we realize. The Wall Street Journal, p. B1.
54May, G. L., & Kahnweiler, W. M. (2000). The effect of a mastery practice design on learning and transfer in behavior modeling training. Personnel Psychology, 53, 353-373. See also Baldwin, T. T. (1992). Effects of alternative modeling strategies on outcomes of interpersonal-skills training.Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 147-154.
55Simon, S. J., & Werner, J. M. (1996). Computer training through behavior modeling, self-paced, and instructional approaches: A field experiment.Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 648-659.
56Wexley & Latham, op. cit.
57Low-wage lessons, op. cit. See also Gray, I., & Borecki, T. B. (1970). Training programs for the hard-core: What the trainer has to learn.Personnel, 47, 23-29.
58Gist, M. E. (1997). Training design and pedagogy: Implications for skill acquisition, maintenance, and generalization. In M. A. Quinones & A. Ehrenstein, (eds.), Training for a rapidly changing workplace. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 201-222. See also Gagné, R. M. (1977). The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
59Ehrenstein, A., Walker, B. N., Czerwinski, M., & Feldman, E. M. (1997). Some fundamentals of training and transfer: Practice benefits are not automatic. In M. A. Quinones, & A. Ehrenstein (eds.), Training for a rapidly changing workplace. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 119-147.
60Driskell, J. E., Willis, R. P., & Copper, C. (1992). Effect of overlearning on retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 615-622.
61Goldstein & Ford, op. cit. See also Tyler, K. (2000, May). Hold on to what you’ve learned. HRMagazine, pp. 94-102.
62Donovan, J. J., & Radosevich, D. J. (1999). A meta-analytic review of the distribution of practice effect: Now you see it, now you don’t. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 795-805.
63Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (2003). Behavioral management and task performance in organizations: Conceptual background, meta-analysis, and test of alternative models. Personnel Psychology, 56, 155-194. See also Martocchio, J. J., & Webster, J. (1992). Effects of feedback and cognitive playfulness on performance in microcomputer software training. Personnel Psychology, 45, 553-578.
64Pritchard, R. D., Jones, S. D., Roth, P. L., Steubing, K. K., & Ekeberg, S. E. (1988). Effects of group feedback, goal setting, and incentives on organizational productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 337-358.
65Florin-Thuma, B. C., & Boudreau, J. W. (1987). Performance feedback utility in a small organization: Effects on organizational outcomes and managerial decision processes. Personnel Psychology, 40, 693-713.
66Brown, K. G., & Ford, J. K. (2002). Using computer technology in training: Building an infrastructure for active learning. In K. Kraiger (ed.),Creating, implementing, and managing effective training and development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 192-233.
67Machin, M. A. (2002). Planning, managing, and optimizing transfer of training. In K. Kraiger (ed.), Creating, implementing, and managing effective training and development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 263-301.
68Ford, J. K., & Weissbein, D. A. (1997). Transfer of training: An updated review and analysis. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 10 (2), 22-41.
69Magjuka, R. J., & Baldwin, T. T. (1991). Team-based employee involvement programs: Effects of design and administration. Personnel Psychology, 44, 793-812.
70Tannenbaum, op. cit. See also Tracey, J. B., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Kavanagh, M. J. (1995). Applying trained skills on the job: The importance of the work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 239-252.
71Stewart, op. cit.
72Houston, W. (2000, April). The impact of executive education on Vulcan’s culture. In W. F. Cascio (Chair), Executive education as a vehicle for organizational change. Symposium presented at the annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.
73Houston, op. cit. See also Seitchik, M. (2000, Apr.). A practitioner’s model for using executive education as a change intervention. In W. F. Cascio (Chair), Executive education as a vehicle for organizational change. Symposium presented at the annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.
74Salas, E., Burke, C. S., & Cannon-Bowers, J. B. (2002). What we know about designing and delivering team training: Tips and guidelines. In K. Kraiger (ed.), Creating, implementing, and managing effective training and development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 234-259. See also Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. B. (2000). Designing training systems systematically. In E. A. Locke (ed.), The Blackwell handbook of principles of organizational behavior (pp. 43-59). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
75Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E., & Volpe, C. E. (1995). Defining competencies and establishing team training requirements. In R. A. Guzzo & E. Salas (eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 333-380.
76Ganster, D. C., Williams, S., & Poppler, P. (1991). Does training in problem solving improve the quality of group decisions? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 479-483.
77Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2000. op. cit. See also Bass, B. M. (1980). Team productivity and individual member competence. Small Group Behavior, 11, 431-504.
78Wellins, R. S., Byham, W. C., & Wilson, J. M. (1991). Empowered teams. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
79Jose, J. R. (2001). Evaluating team performance. In M. J. Fleming and J. B. Wilson (eds.), Effective HR measurement techniques. Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management, pp. 107-112. See also Komaki, J. L., Desselles, J. L., & Bowman, E. D. (1989). Definitely not a breeze: Extending an operant model of supervision to teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 522-529.
80Campbell, J. P., Dunnette, M. D., Lawler, E. E., & Weick, K. E. (1970). Managerial behavior, performance, and effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
81Steele-Johnson, D., & Hyde, B. G. (1997). Advanced technologies in training: Intelligent tutoring systems and virtual reality. In M. A. Quinones & A. Ehrenstein (eds.), Training for a rapidly changing workplace. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 225-248.
82Labor letter (1990, May 8). The Wall Street Journal, p. A1.
83Lee, M. (1993, Sept. 2). Diversity training grows at small firms. The Wall Street Journal, p. B2.
84MacDonald, H. (1993, July 5). The diversity industry. The New Republic, pp. 22-25.
85Noe, op. cit. See also Kraiger, K. (2002). Decision-based evaluation. In K. Kraiger (ed.), Creating, implementing, and managing effective training and development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 331-375.
86Sackett, P. R., & Mullen, E. J. (1993). Beyond formal experimental design: Towards an expanded view of the training evaluation process.Personnel Psychology, 46, 613-627. See also Goldstein & Ford (2002), op. cit.
87Arvey, R. D., Maxwell, S. E, Cascio, W. F., & Salas, E. (1992). The relative power of training evaluation designs under different cost configurations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 155-160.
88Cascio, W. F. (2000). Costing human resources: The financial impact of behavior in organizations (4th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western. See also Cascio, W. F. (1989). Using utility analysis to assess training outcomes. In I. L. Goldstein (ed.), Training and development in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 63-88.
90Graddick, M. M., & Lane, P. (1998). Evaluating executive performance. In J. W. Smither (ed.), Performance appraisal: State of the art in practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 370-403.
91Hollenbeck, G. P. (2002). Coaching executives: Individual leader development. In R. Silzer (ed.), The 21st century executive. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 137-167.
89Fisher, A. (2001, Feb. 19). Executive coaching—with returns a CFO could love. Fortune, p. 250.
92Ibid.
93Tyler, K. (2000, June). Scoring big in the workplace. HRMagazine, pp. 96-106.
94Henkoff, R. (1994, Oct. 3). Finding, training, and keeping the best service workers. Fortune, pp. 110-122.
95Garvey, C. (2001, June). The whirlwind of a new job. HRMagazine, pp. 111-118.
96Klein, H. J., & Weaver, N. A. (2000). The effectiveness of an organizational-level orientation training program in the socialization of new hires.Personnel Psychology, 53, 47-66.
97Solomon, J. (1988, Dec. 29). Companies try measuring cost savings from new types of corporate benefits. The Wall Street Journal, p. B1.
98Phillips, J. M. (1998). Effects of realistic job previews on multiple organizational outcomes: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 41,673-690.
99Savchetz, D., quoted in David, G. (2004, Apr. 5). One truck a minute. Fortune, p. 258.
100Ballon, M. (1998). Roll out the red carpet for new hires. Inc., 20 (8), 105.
101Lindo, D. K. (1999, Aug.). New employee orientation is your job! Supervision, 60 (8), 6-10.
102Cappelli, P. (1995). Is the “skills gap” really about attitudes? California Management Review, 37, 108-124.
103St. John, W. D. (1980, May). The complete employee orientation program. Personnel Journal, pp. 373-378.
104Garvey, op. cit.
105Joinson, C. (2001, Winter). Hit the floor running, start the cart … and other new ways to train new employees. Employment Management Today,6(1), downloaded from http://www.shrm.org on Sept. 8, 2004.
106Starcke, A. M. (1996). Building a better orientation program. HRMagazine, 41 (11), 108-114.
107Ibid. See also Joinson, op. cit.; Garvey, op. cit.; Starcke, op. cit.
108Finney, M. I. (1996, Oct.). Employee orientation programs can help introduce success. HR News, p. 2.
109Philips, J. J. (1996, Feb.). ROI: The search for best practices. Training and Development, p. 45.
110Kraiger, K. (2003), op. cit.
111Thaler-Carter, R. E. (2001, June). Diversify your recruitment advertising. HRMagazine, pp. 92-100.
112Armer, P. (1970). The individual: His privacy, self-image, and obsolescence. Proceedings of the meeting of the panel on science and technology, 11th “Science and Astronautics.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
113Campbell, J. P. (1988). Training design for performance improvement. In J. P. Campbell & R. J. Campbell (eds.), Productivity in organizations.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 177-215.
Managing Human Resources
Workplace Training
ISBN: 9780072987324 Author: Wayne F. Cascio
Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies (2005)
Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? Order now!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!
