Employee perceptions and their influence on training effectiveness

Santos, A. & Stuart, M. (2003). Employee perceptions and their influence on training effectiveness. Human Resource Management Journal, 13(1), 27-45.

Adviser: Ming-Puu ChenPresenter: Yu-Ting Tsai 2007.10.09

Introduction

• Economic studies identify training and development investments as key determinants of organizational performance and economic growth. (Mason et al, 1996; Prais, 1995; Romer, 1993)

• The mainstream HR literature has devoted little empirical attention to the issue of how companies evaluate the effectiveness of training investments and, in particular, the way in which employee perceptions, attitudes and experiences might have an impact on training effectiveness.

Introduction

• The article presents evidence from a detailed case study designed to explore the effectiveness of training at the workplace.

• 2 central empirical objectives： First, it aims to evaluate employees' experiences of, and attitudes

towards, training activity and the organization context of training investments.

Secondly, it assesses how these experiences of training shape the 'transfer' of training into the workplace and thus mediate effectiveness.

1.Evaluating training effectivenessLevels of outcomes (1)• The HR and training literatures emphasize the organizational

benefits to be gained from adopting a systematic approach to HRD whereby the ongoing development of employees‘ skills underpins broader business objectives. (Keep, 1989)

• Core elements of a systematic approach to training often include identifying needs, planning, delivery and evaluation. The evaluation stage is arguably the most problematic part of the training process. (Reid and Barrington, 1997)

→ Only 3% of UK establishments undertook any cost-benefit analysis (Deloitte Haskins and Sells, 1989: 46)

1.Evaluating training effectivenessLevels of outcomes (2)Kirkpatrick model ： 4 levels of training outcomes (Kirkpatrick, 1967)

• Level 1 ： reactions (反應 )trainees' reactions to the program content and training process

• Level 2 ： learning (學習 )knowledge or skill acquisition at the end of the program

• Level 3 ： behavior (行為 )behavior change in the job

• Level 4 ： results (結果 )improvements in tangible individual or organizational outcomes such as turnover, accidents or productivity

→ ASTD ： Kirkpatrick model is the most commonly used evaluation framework (Bassi and Cheney, 1997)

→ The model is widely accepted in the field of industrial/organizational psychology (Cascio, 1987)

1.Evaluating training effectivenessLevels of outcomes (3-1)CIRO (Warr et al , 1976)

• Context evaluation(內容 )focuses on factors such as the correct identification of training needs and the setting of objectives in relation to organization culture and climate

• Input evaluation (投入 )concerned with the design and delivery of the training activity

• Reaction evaluation(反應 )looks at gaining and using information about the quality of trainees' experiences

• Outcome evaluation(結果 )focuses on the achievements gained from the activity and is assessed at three levels

1.Evaluating training effectivenessLevels of outcomes (3-2)

attempts to measure changes in knowledge, skills or attitude before a trainee returns to the job

Immediate EvaluationImmediate Evaluation

Intermediate Evaluation

Intermediate Evaluation

Ultimate EvaluationUltimate

Evaluation

refers to the impact of training on job performance and how learning is transferred back into the workplace

attempts to assess the impact of training on departmental or organizational performance in terms of overall results

Kirkpatrick (1994) and Warr et al (1976) recognize, that the cause-effect chain is often difficult to demonstrate, especially with regard to ultimate level evaluations.

1.Evaluating training effectivenessLevels of outcomes (4)CAIPO framework (Easterby Smith, 1986)

• Context evaluationfocuses on factors outside and beyond the training program

• Administration evaluationconcerned with the mechanisms of nomination, selection and briefing before any training starts, and any follow-up activities

• Input evaluationexamines the content and methods of training

• Process evaluationfocus on what actually happens during a training activity and how the participants experience it

• Outcome evaluationconcerned with establishing the outputs or outcomes of employeetraining and development

1.Evaluating training effectivenessEvaluation issues• Many training and development programs are monitored only at the

reactions level (Bramley, 1996) and articles regularly appear lamenting the lack of evaluation efforts (Goldstein, 1993).

→whether the training provided was effective?

1.Evaluating training effectivenessTrainee attitudes, motivation and expectations • Noe and Schmitt (1986) found that trainees with high job

involvement were more motivated to learn and transfer skills to the work setting.

• The effectiveness of a training program can also be influenced by events prior to training (Baldwin and Magjuka, 1991) as well as post-training activities (Baldwin and Ford, 1988).

• Supervisor and peer support, goal setting, feedback mechanisms, the opportunity to use new skills and the availability of resources are all thought to influence the process of transfer (Noe, 1986).

2.Methodology-Case study

Finance Co.

• A financial services organization

• The company was at the frontier of good practice in HRD, moving towards implementing many of the people management processes that Tyson and Doherty (1999) describe as `best practice'.

• A key component of this was an increased emphasis on training and development activities.

2.Methodology-Case study

• A questionnaire ： 3 issues1. employees' experiences of training and development2. employees' perceptions with regard to training outcomes3. work environment factors affecting training transfer

• Target population： 4,055 employees working in the core financial services business (45%head office and 55%branches)

• Questionnaires were posted directly to individuals through the company's internal mail system and a pre-paid envelope was enclosed, addressed to the researcher to guarantee anonymity and confidentiality of responses

• An overall response rate of 47.7 %

3.Employees’ PerceptionsThe training environment

3.Employees’ PerceptionsPerceived outcomes

3.Employees’ Perceptions Transfer of training(1)

3.Employees’ Perceptions Transfer of training(1)

3.Employees’ Perceptions Transfer of training(2)

※A lack of opportunity to use skills!!

3.Employees’ Perceptions Transfer of training(3)

4.Discussion

• Developed an evaluation procedure that focused on individual behavior and the transfer of training rather than on achieving 'ultimate goals‘.

• Managers were highly involved in discussing training needs, setting development goals and reviewing progress and providing coaching and guidance, training was more likely to have a favorable impact on employees' motivation, job satisfaction and personal growth.

• Higher pay or better promotion prospects were significantly more likely to transfer training to the workplace.

→ establishing more explicit links between personal development and career progression and reward.