Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. (2009) 10:445–453 DOI 10.1007/s12564-009-9037-9
The impact of structured on-the-job training (S-OJT) on a trainer’s organizational commitment Daeyeon Cho
Received: 8 April 2008 / Revised: 23 January 2009 / Accepted: 11 February 2009 / Published online: 10 June 2009 Ó Education Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea 2009
Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine the causal relationships between S-OJT trainer preparation, self-efficacy as a trainer, trainers’ delivery of S-OJT, and organizational commitment as a consequence of employing S-OJT. This study proposed a theoretical model from the review of related literature and then empirically investigated the fitness of the proposed model. This study was conducted in a life insurance company in Korea. A questionnaire was distributed to 334 randomly selected S-OJT trainers in Seoul. There were 235 usable questionnaires. structural equation modeling and principal factor analysis were applied to conduct a data analysis. The results showed that the chi-square was significant, along with good model fit indices. As a result, the causal links in the proposed model were established and these results fully supported the study hypotheses. Finally, the study discussed some implications for HRD, focusing on S-OJT. Keywords S-OJT S-OJT trainer Organizational commitment Self-efficacy
In the field of human resource development (HRD), employee development has been used to improve employee competence, allowing them to perform better on the job and in turn enhance organizational performance (Swanson and Holton 2001). Traditionally, most planned employee development in organizations takes place in off-the-job settings (Jacobs 2002). Concurrently, knowledge and understanding can also be further advanced through D. Cho (&) Department of Education, College of Education, Korea University, Anam-Dong, Seongbuk Gu, Seoul, Korea e-mail:
[email protected]
planned ‘‘teaching and learning’’ in the actual work setting (Fuller and Unwin 2002). For those reasons, an efficient on-the-job training (OJT) program is vital for developing the highly skilled employees needed for a business’ success. In this regard, structured on-the-job training (S-OJT), as a form of planned training on the job, has recently received much attention from HRD researchers and practitioners alike (Jacobs 2003). S-OJT has many advantages as a planned training program, such as predictable training outcomes and a manageable process. At the same time, there is an increasing interest among HRD professionals in the integration of learning with working on the job (Ellstrom 2001). Because S-OJT incorporates not only the characteristics of planned training programs, but also learning in the actual work settings, it is evident that S-OJT can enhance organizational performance more effectively than other training programs. Empirically, some researchers (e.g., Bennett and Calvin 2002; Jacobs and Osman-Gani 1999; Stolovitch and NgoaNguele 2001) have reported that S-OJT has helped to make valuable contributions in terms of increasing the productivity of an organization. With this attention to S-OJT, some studies (e.g., Jacobs 1996; Jacobs et al. 1992) have demonstrated the effectiveness and efficiency of S-OJT compared with mainly off-JT and unstructured OJT in terms of its financial benefits, high satisfaction rating, and fewer quality errors. However, relatively limited attention has been given to the S-OJT trainer. Viewing S-OJT as a system, trainers can be regarded as an important component of that system. A system view of S-OJT represents the interaction of several components, such as the training inputs, the training process, the training outputs, and the organizational context (Jacobs 2003). In particular, an experienced employee who
123
446
acts as the trainer is an important component of the S-OJT inputs. Furthermore, the training process focuses on a trainer’s actions. Nevertheless, the training outputs that can be produced from the interactive and iterative combination of the training inputs and the training process have only been highlighted from the aspect of the trainees. In other words, any consequences of S-OJT on the trainer have not yet been empirically reported. In general, experienced employees who serve as trainers tend not to be teaching and learning professionals. Being an S-OJT trainer can be viewed as a challenge that enables experienced employees to dedicate themselves to the development of their fellow employees. Consequently, trainer preparation activities like train-the-trainer courses can assist them to be effective adult educators in the workplace. In addition, the delivery of S-OJT is based on various forms of widely mutual interactions between the trainer and trainee, such as discussions, dialogs, and non-verbal behaviors. Such interactions can be called developmental and learning interactions (D’Abate et al. 2003). By having a social process between the trainer and trainee in S-OJT, development and growth opportunities can be provided to trainers. These opportunities play a significant role as an antecedent of organizational commitment (Cho and Kwon 2005). According to a system view of S-OJT in relation to the trainer, S-OJT trainer preparation through train-the-trainer programs can be viewed as an input. Trainer self-efficacy is regarded as its output. At the same time, these constructs play a role as the S-OJT inputs, and trainers’ delivery of S-OJT is viewed as the training process. Finally, the organizational commitment of trainers can be an output of the dynamic interactions between input and process components. Nevertheless, little is known about this causal relationship. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the causal relationships between S-OJT trainer preparation, self-efficacy as a trainer, trainers’ delivery of S-OJT, and organizational commitment as a consequence of employing S-OJT. Specifically, based on viewing S-OJT as a system, how S-OJT trainer preparation, self-efficacy as a trainer, and trainers’ delivery of S-OJT influence trainers’ organizational commitment was highlighted. In order to address this purpose, this study proposed a theoretical model from the review of related literature and then empirically investigated the fitness of the proposed model regarding the relationships between the main variables.
Literature review This section provides a review of S-OJT research, including its definition and unique features, S-OJT trainer
123
D. Cho
preparation through train-the-trainer programs, and the delivery of S-OJT. It presents literature related to trainer self-efficacy and organizational commitment, and proposes three research hypotheses based on the relationships among the variables of this study. Definition and features of S-OJT On-the-job training refers to training that takes place at a trainee’s regular workstation. OJT as a form of individualized training can be designed and delivered using two basic approaches: structured OJT and unstructured OJT (Jacobs 2003). S-OJT differs from unstructured OJT in that a systematic planning process is used to design and carry out the training (Stolovitch and Ngoa-Nguele 2001), and work behaviors are separated into manageable units and documented in modules (Jones and Jacobs 1997). Unstructured OJT occurs on the worksite but is not logically sequenced. As such, learners are expected to learn by watching what experienced workers do or by actually doing the work. Unstructured OJT is often ineffective and inefficient as compared with S-OJT (Johnson and Leach 2001). On the other hand, S-OJT is a form of individualized training that allows a novice employee in need of training to receive the necessary knowledge, develop the required skills, and improve his or her performance on the job. The objectives of S-OJT are clearly outlined, the content is precisely described, training processes are intentional, and evaluation is based on performance on the job (Bjorkquist and Murphy 1996). Those functions of S-OJT are closely associated with improving trainees’ performance as an expected outcome of S-OJT. Jacobs (2003, p. 28) defined S-OJT as ‘‘the planned process of developing competence on units of work by having an experienced employee train a novice employee at the work setting or a location that closely resembles the work setting.’’ Consequently, the core elements of S-OJT include a knowledgeable trainer, a prepared trainee, and good documentation. There is an agreement on two distinct features of S-OJT compared with classroom training. First, the amount of time between the instructional events can be reduced. A trainee has an immediate opportunity to use and practice what she or he has learned on the job (DeSimone and Harris 1998). Therefore, a trainer can achieve learning objectives more efficiently. Second, the transfer of learning is enhanced in S-OJT environments, especially in the match between the training setting and work setting (Jacobs 2003). Because the learning environment is the same as the work environment in S-OJT, a trainee is able to use the same equipment and tools that he or she is meant to use to perform his or her actual work. Thus, S-OJT has a
The impact of structured on-the-job training (S-OJT)
greater potential to achieve a transfer of training compared to classroom training. The delivery of S-OJT Training processes are described by trainers’ delivery of SOJT. The determination of what happens in the training process is based on the trainers’ actions. Therefore, the trainers’ various actions to deliver S-OJT should receive much attention. In regard to the delivery of contents, S-OJT focuses on trainers’ actions related to the preparation of the training, the use of a training module, and an evaluation of what the trainee has learned. Based on Jacobs’ work (2003), this study addresses five training events to describe trainers’ actions. 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Prepare the delivery The trainer should decide on the most appropriate time and location to deliver the training. Training resources have to be secured and the S-OJT module should be reviewed. Prepare the trainee The main purpose of this event as a trainer’s first action is to prepare the trainee to learn. The trainer establishes comfort, explains the context, and describes the purpose and rationale of the training. Present the training This event requires the trainer to demonstrate a set of behavioral actions to the trainee. In other words, the trainer should explain and show each step at a time (Johnson and Leach 2001). Require a response The trainee must participate and respond actively. The trainer prompts the trainee to perform. In other words, the trainee needs to be encouraged to try units of work and describe them as the trainer has demonstrated. Provide feedback and evaluate performance Based on the trainee’s responses, the trainer should try to correct errors. The trainer should give appropriate feedback and encouragement with assessing the adequacy of the trainee’s responses. Finally, the S-OJT trainer evaluates whether the trainee has achieved the training objectives.
The delivery of S-OJT is an interactive process based on one-on-one communication between the trainer and trainee (Osman-Gani and Zidan 2001). All events used to deliver S-OJT are based on widely mutual interactions between the trainer and trainee in more meaningful ways, including discussions, dialogs, and performance evaluations (Stein 2001). Although trainees are novice employees who lack the appropriate competence to fully perform their jobs, they have some degree of experience and knowledge derived from their lives. The trainee may often have information that the trainer does not currently know. S-OJT allows the trainer to work with a trainee who has a different background and different personal experience.
447
The trainer uses discussions to show how tasks could be done or what she or he would like the trainee to do. These discussions offer opportunities for both the trainer and trainee to explore alternative ways of tackling parts of a job (Harris et al. 2000). As such, trainers also have opportunities to acquire new knowledge and skills through interactions with the trainee during the delivery of S-OJT. For example, Fuller and Unwin (2002) found that experienced and inexperienced employees taught a wide range of knowledge and skills to each other. Consequently, the delivery steps of S-OJT are something greater than just describing trainers’ actions to deliver the training module. S-OJT trainer preparation and self-efficacy as a trainer As the use of S-OJT is increasing in industry, there is a greater need for effective S-OJT trainers. At the same time, the use of experienced employees as S-OJT trainers tends to be increased (Williams 2001). However, we cannot be expected to have expert workers possessing higher levels of expertise to perform the job and the competencies required to effectively share their knowledge with others (Walter 1998; Williams 2001). Because of this, recently, many organizations have come to recognize the importance of any training program to prepare effective S-OJT trainers (Jacobs 2003). Prospective S-OJT trainers need to complete train-thetrainer courses to understand good training techniques and how to best facilitate learning. In other words, prospective trainers are expected to develop training-related skills and instructor-related skills through a train-the-trainer course (Johnson and Leach 2001). It is evident that the basics of design and delivery, such as conducting needs assessment, developing objectives, creating an agenda, developing instructional events, and evaluating learning outcomes, still need to be included as core components of any train-thetrainer program (Meyer and Marsick 2003). Through an empirical study, Burkett (2002) demonstrated the effect of train-the-trainer programs: participants indicated their enhanced confidence and competence after the train-the-trainer program. More specifically, there are intangible benefits received by participants from train-thetrainer programs, including increased productivity, increased morale, and improved training quality. Through train-the-trainer programs, trainers absorb adult learning theory and training techniques to adequately train others. Without those knowledge and skills, trainers will have difficulty maximizing the effectiveness of training delivery. Viewing S-OJT as a system, the trainer is a critical input component. The S-OJT process can be described by trainers’ actions along with the instructional events. For SOJT to be more effective, trainers should be well prepared to obtain appropriate competencies. As such, their
123
448
preparation to serve as S-OJT trainers affects their various actions in delivering S-OJT. Swanson and Falkman (1997) surveyed 371 novice trainers and asked them to recall training delivery problems they had experienced. Their study found that fear from a lack of confidence, feeling anxious, and a lack of personal experiences as a trainer were the most common difficulties for novice trainers. Therefore, programs used to train SOJT trainers make it possible for S-OJT trainers to reduce such common fears and anxieties. Through these programs, S-OJT trainers often have higher expectations to be successful trainers. This study focused on S-OJT trainers’ self-efficacy as a consequence of train-the-trainer courses. The concept of self-efficacy contains an individual’s belief of what she or he can do. This study defined self-efficacy as an individual’s judgment of the likelihood that they have the capacity to successfully perform their tasks as an S-OJT trainer. Some empirical studies have revealed that there is a positive relationship between training or learning activities and self-efficacy. Self-efficacy can be increased as a result of learning and feedback (Washington 2002). For example, Prieto and Meyers (1999) tested the effect of a formal training program for graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) on self-efficacy toward teaching and found that GTAs receiving training possessed a greater sense of self- efficacy. Orpen (1999) also indicated that financial service employees who received more formal training had higher levels of self-efficacy in their ability to do their jobs. Before delivering S-OJT, trainers have various learning opportunities, which can be from train-the-trainer courses. Based on these experiences, S-OJT trainers should be able to explain and demonstrate perfectly, in front of a trainee, the work content that they have done for many years. Therefore, such positive experiences enable S-OJT trainers to feel that they have much higher capacities to perform their jobs as trainers. Hypothesis 1 S-OJT trainer preparation through trainthe-trainer programs has a positive impact on a trainer’s delivery of S-OJT and self-efficacy as a trainer. Hypothesis 2 Self-efficacy as a trainer has a positive influence on a trainer’s delivery of S-OJT. Organizational commitment According to Bartlett (2001, p. 336), ‘‘organizational commitment can be thought of as the level of attachment felt toward the organization in which one is employed.’’ In general, organizational commitment refers to an individual’s feelings about the organization as a whole (Ensher et al. 2001). Of all the forms of organizational commitment, affective commitment has shown the strongest
123
D. Cho
correlation with desirable outcomes; hence, organizations typically strive to foster this type of commitment among their employees (Meyer and Allen 1997). Affective commitment refers to ‘‘the employee’s emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization’’ (Meyer and Allen 1991, p. 67). If employees have a strong affective commitment, they will stay in an organization because they want to do so. Researchers have theoretically and empirically posited the relationship between organizational commitment and its antecedents. Some studies have focused on its relationship to workplace learning (Cho and Kwon 2005). Consistently, findings have shown that participation in training programs provided by an organization enhances participants’ organizational commitment. Employees’ perception of learning and growth opportunities in the workplace plays a significant role in enhancing organizational commitment. In S-OJT cases, as trainers are deeply and sincerely engaged in the train-the-trainer program, they themselves have the opportunity to acquire new knowledge and skills that enable them to be effective S-OJT trainers. In addition, since the social processes between the trainer and trainee are distinctive features of S-OJT, mutual learning and development interactions between them are more likely to occur. In other words, S-OJT is based on social processes and close contact between the trainer and trainee. Therefore, there are a variety of opportunities for SOJT trainers to acquire or update their knowledge and skills. Black et al. (1996) also indicated that one of the strengths of S-OJT is that there are a great number of developmental opportunities for S-OJT trainers. Consequently, both the delivery of S-OJT and trainer preparation focusing train-the-trainer courses can be viewed as learning and developmental opportunities for trainers themselves and play a role as an antecedent of S-OJT trainers’ organizational commitment. Organizational commitment can be developed through a social exchange mechanism as a result of positive work experiences (Meyer and Allen 1991; Bartlett 2001). For instance, if organizations provide employees with useful opportunities to improve their capabilities and meet their individual needs, the employees in turn are more likely to feel a stronger organizational commitment. Such an opportunity may be seen as a reward for and recognition of their effort (Unwin and Fuller 2003). Being an S-OJT trainer means that an organization acknowledges the trainer’s level of competence. In addition, S-OJT enables trainers to develop their reputation as a leader and an expert with knowledge and wisdom to share. Consequently, such positive opportunities given from organizations are valued by trainers. In turn, they can be committed to the organization that provided these experiences.
The impact of structured on-the-job training (S-OJT)
Hypothesis 3 Both trainers’ delivery of S-OJT and SOJT trainer preparation has a positive impact on trainers’ organizational commitment.
449
d.f. = 232, p [ .05) and self-efficacy (t = .813, d.f. = 229, p [ .05). Measures
Methods This study was conducted in a life insurance company in Korea where S-OJT is being implemented to provide technical training for new employees. In this company, new financial consultants (FCs) receive 40 days of field training with experienced FCs. An experienced FC conducts S-OJT for the new FC. The length of each S-OJT session is approximately 8 h. During the field-training period, new FCs should complete at least 10 S-OJT sessions. Sample The population consisted of all S-OJT trainers who were working in Seoul, Korea. The total population trainers in Seoul are 2498. According to the table for determining sample size from a given population (Krejcie and Morgan 1970, p. 608), the appropriate sample size for this study is 334 trainers. A questionnaire was distributed to 334 randomly selected S-OJT trainers from 20 divisional offices of the company in Seoul. Finally, 246 questionnaires were returned. Among them, 11 questionnaires were returned uncompleted or nearly uncompleted. These 11 were eliminated from further analyses. As a result, there were 235 usable questionnaires, yielding a response rate of 70.35%. A check was made to identify any out-of-range values by examining stem and leaf diagrams and frequency tables. All of the items did not have any extreme outliers. Demographic information was collected on the respondents’ age, education level, and length of service as a FC at the organization. The population of this study consists solely of females, because in Korea FC is a strictly female occupation as a long-term career. Thus, gender was controlled in this study. The average age of the respondents is 42.29 years (SD = 5.08). The average length of service as a FC in the organization is 7.44 (SD = 3.37). Of the respondents, 68.5% have completed high school, 13.2% have a 2-year college degree, 14.4% have a 4-year college degree. Nearly 4% did not provide information about their education level. As suggested by Miller and Smith (1983), respondents were divided into two groups to control non-response error. Early respondents were those who responded to the first mailing. Late respondents were defined as those who responded to the second mailing. The two groups were compared with a couple of variables. t-tests indicated no statistical difference between early respondents and late respondents on organizational commitment (t = -.597,
The instrument was developed based on either established construct scales (for example, organizational commitment and self-efficacy) or new construct scales. This study developed new construct scales after an extensive review of the related literature. In addition, the existing scales were revised to fit into the context of this study. For example, to measure self-efficacy as a trainer, this study used the teacher efficacy short form scale developed by Hoy and Woolfolk (1990). The researcher modified some wordings. After developing the instrument, it was reviewed for content validity by a panel of seven experts. Also, the instrument was field tested with a group of S-OJT trainers. During the field test, suitability and face validity were established. All items were linked to a six-point Likert scale ranging from 6 = ‘‘strongly agree (or always)’’ to 1 = ‘‘strongly disagree (or never)’’ with the exceptions of trainers’ participation in training and learning activities and previous experience as an S-OJT trainer. S-OJT trainer preparation This construct was measured by the trainer’s perception about the extent to which knowledge and skills that are learned in the train-the-trainer program were useful to their current S-OJT practice. S-OJT trainer preparation through the train-the-trainer program was evaluated using an average score comprised five related items, including understanding the importance of S-OJT, use of appropriate instruction events, trainees’ learning evaluation and so on. S-OJT trainer’s delivery of S-OJT This latent construct consisted of six variables. Jacobs (2003) identified the three basic actions of trainers to prepare to deliver S-OJT, along with five instructional events and the 17 actions to deliver S-OJT. A 20-item scale was developed to identify trainers’ actions to deliver S-OJT. Self-efficacy as an S-OJT trainer This variable represented the respondent’s belief about whether she/he can successfully deliver S-OJT by using her/his skills and knowledge. This study employed a scale used by Hoy and Woolfolk (1990). According to them, self-efficacy as a trainer represented an independent factor from other similar self-efficacy scales. The alpha coefficient of reliability was .84 in their study. Also this instrument was translated into Korean. In order to validate the
123
450
D. Cho
translation, a consensus Korean-translated version was developed with four panel members who are fluent in both Korean and English and have enough experience in translating English documents and books. Then, the backward translation was conducted with a Korean bilingual proficient in both languages. Although some wordings were not equivalent, the comparison showed both versions had the same meaning. Affective organizational commitment This variable refers to the respondent’s emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization. This study used the eight-item Korean version of the Affective Commitment Scale (Cho and Kwon 2005). Meyer and Allen’s model includes three components: affective, normative, and continuous domain. In terms of construct validity issues, however, affective commitment is the most widely studied, as it has consistent relationships with organizational outcomes such as performance, attendance, and retention (Meyer and Allen 1997). In particular, the reliability estimate was found to be remarkably similar to those of studies that were using the Korean version of the Affective Commitment Scale: Cronbach’s alpha = .87 (Cho and Kwon 2005), .84 (Lee et al. 2001), and .86 (Jung 2000), respectively. Analysis Following the data collection, structural equation modeling (SEM) was applied to conduct a data analysis. This study Table 1 Result of principal factor analysis
Item number
Require a response
d1
-.02
.19
.83
.10
-.00
d2
.16
.23
.80
.12
.12
d4
.26
.54
.25
.11
.19
d5
.18
.75
.21
.05
.04
d6
.18
.66
.24
.07
.09
d7
-.04
.68
-.03
.45
.15
d9
.32
.23
.02
.72
-.08
d10
.13
.14
.28
.73
.20
d12
.79
.28
-.03
-.03
.06
d13
.79
-.05
.06
.29
.15
d14 d15
.74 .71
.07 .29
.13 .11
.40 .02
.14 .14
d17
.12
-.05
.37
.32
.64
Prepare the trainee
Prepare the delivery
Present the training
Provide feedback & evaluation
d19
.10
.50
-.09
.11
.63
d20
.19
.16
.01
-.06
.80
5.05
1.66
1.27
1.09
1.01
.82
.72
.71
.61
.62
Eigenvalues Cronbach’s alpha
123
followed a two-step procedure proposed by Hair et al. (1995): conducting confirmatory factor analysis and then analyzing the structural model. SPSS and AMOS were adopted as the tools for analyzing the data. In order to handle missing values, this study used the most common imputation technique, which is the replacement of missing values with the variable mean that was computed using the complete case. This procedure replaced missing values with the variable means. In terms of validity, principal factor analysis using SPSS was employed to test whether the participants in this study made distinctions among six domains of the delivery of SOJT. Along with varimax as the rotation method, five factors were identified, unlike the expected number of factors proposed by Jacobs (2003). Through repeated factor analyses, five items were excluded from the original scales because their factor loading was under .5. In general, this criterion (factor loading = .5 above) can be used to make a strict interpretation regarding relationships between items and a factor (Hair et al. 1995). As a result, the five factors were extracted. These five factors explained 66.93% of the total variance in trainers’ delivery of S-OJT. These validity statistic results are provided in Table 1. Following the principal factor analysis, this study conducted a confirmatory factor analysis using the structural equation model (SEM) on five factors. The model showed a reasonable fit to the data for sample, v2 (80, N = 235) = 176.222, p \ .001; CFI = .907; IFI = .909; GFI = .906; RMSEA = .073. In addition, validity issues on self-efficacy as an S-OJT trainer and affective organizational commitment employed results manifested by the
The impact of structured on-the-job training (S-OJT)
451
Table 2 Cronbach’s alpha coefficients
Self-Efficacy
Variable
Cronbach’s alpha
S-OJT trainer preparation
.93
The delivery of S-OJT
.85
Organizational commitment
.90
Self-efficacy as an S-OJT trainer
.86
.44
.28
Trainer Delivery Actions
.22
S-OJT trainer preparation
.34
previous research (Hoy and Woolfolk 1990; Cho and Kwon 2005, respectively). In terms of internal consistency, this study calculated Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the delivery of S-OJT scale, usefulness of the train-the-trainer program scale, affective organizational commitment scale, and self-efficacy as an S-OJT trainer scale in Table 2. All reliability coefficients were quite high and reflected the internal consistency of each instrument.
Results Table 3 shows the correlation matrix among the variables. The results indicated that all of the variables were weakly or moderately correlated with each other. Also, no negatively correlated variables existed. The model to confirm the relationships between latent constructs and factors was tested using SEM with the AMOS program. In order to evaluate the adequacy of the fit of the proposed model to the data, a combination of fit indices was examined. The results for the proposed model showed that the chi-square was significant, v2 (33, N = 235) = 40.060; p = .002, along with good CFI = .94; IFI = .94; GFI = .96, AGFI = .93, RMSEA = .07) indices. Figure 1 Table 3 Correlation matrix among variables b
c
d
e
f
g
a. S-OJT trainer preparation d. Self-efficacy
.28**
c. Prepare the delivery
.27** .25**
d. Prepare the training
.24** .32** .42**
e. Present the training
.13*
f. Require a response
.29** .36** .24** .42** .47**
g. Feedback & Evaluation
.13*
h. Organizational commitment
.32** .37** .26** .30** .24** .21** .18**
* p \ .05, ** p \ .01
Prepare the trainee
.52 .73
.20
a
Prepare the delivery
.28** .33** .46**
.28** .28** .46** .32** .39**
Organizational Commitment
.63
Present the training
.63 .57
Require a response
Feedback & Evaluation
Fig. 1 The proposed model
presents the standardized solution for the structural model. All the hypothesized coefficients and factor loadings are significant (CR [ 1.96). More specifically, the causal effect of self-efficacy as an S-OJT trainer on trainers’ delivery of S-OJT was relatively high (b = .44), followed by the relationship between trainers’ delivery of S-OJT and organizational commitment (b = .34). S-OJT trainer preparation also predicted self-efficacy as an S-OJT trainer (b = .28), trainers’ delivery of S-OJT (b = .22), and organizational commitment (b = .20). As shown above, the causal links in the proposed model were established. The results indicated that S-OJT trainers who held positive experiences of being an S-OJT trainer through the train-the-trainer program felt a stronger belief that they could be a successful S-OJT trainer, delivered more thoroughly work contents based on five instructional events compared to trainers who did not, and felt stronger organizational commitment. In this model, self-efficacy served as a significant mediator: self-efficacy mediated the relationship between S-OJT trainer preparation through the train-the-trainer program and trainers’ delivery of S-OJT. In particular, S-OJT trainer preparation through train-thetrainer programs was more important in terms of predicting self-efficacy than predicting trainers’ delivery of S-OJT. Self-efficacy as an S-OJT trainer mediated between S-OJT trainer preparation and trainers’ delivery of S-OJT. However, the causal influence of S-OJT trainer preparation through train-the-trainer programs is relatively high for self-efficacy as an S-OJT trainer compared to trainers’ delivery of S-OJT and organizational commitment. The results show that S-OJT trainers who perform their delivery of S-OJT according to five instructional events and who learn knowledge and skills that are needed to be S-OJT trainer were more organizationally committed. Also, trainers’ delivery of S-OJT mediated between trainer preparation and organizational commitment and between self-efficacy and organizational commitment. Consequently, these results fully supported the study hypotheses.
123
452
Conclusions and implications A model was postulated suggesting that causal relationships exist between S-OJT trainer preparation through the train-the-trainer program, trainers’ delivery of S-OJT, selfefficacy as an S-OJT trainer, and organizational commitment. Findings confirm the study’s conceptual model and support all the hypotheses. The model provides a good fit to the data. The results of the study further showed the understanding of how mutual interaction between the trainer and trainee allows S-OJT trainers to learn and develop their professional competences and in turn produces unintended consequences, such as trainers’ organizational commitment. Also, this study reveals that S-OJT trainer preparation through train-the-trainer programs can directly influence self-efficacy as an S-OJT trainer. At the same time, these variables are directly and indirectly able to affect the actions performed by trainers to deliver S-OJT. In other words, when S-OJT trainers are well prepared through the train-the-trainer program, S-OJT trainers are more likely to feel stronger self-belief that they can perform well as an S-OJT trainer and to utilize essential actions to deliver S-OJT along with the instructional events. Previous research pointed mainly to the effectiveness of S-OJT on trainees and empirically showed a separate link between ‘‘input’’ and ‘‘output’’ or ‘‘process’’ and ‘‘output’’ based on a system view of S-OJT. This study provides a possible research issue by proposing a path model underlying a systematic link, including input (S-OJT trainer preparation and self-efficacy as a trainer), process (trainers’ delivery of S-OJT), and output (organizational commitment of trainers) simultaneously in the S-OJT system. In addition to offering a path model, the results of this study may also contribute to the conceptualization of SOJT trainers’ delivery of S-OJT. What happens in the training process totally depends on the trainer’s delivery of S-OJT. Nevertheless, trainers’ delivery of S-OJT has received relatively little attention by researchers in general. This study highlights this notion and its five instructional events: prepare the delivery, prepare the trainee, present the training, require a response, and provide feedback and evaluation. Furthermore, this study examines the construct validity of trainers’ delivery of S-OJT by using confirmatory factor analysis. The results support five distinct factors composed of a total of 15 items. The fit of the five factor model is good. Consequently, the scale proposed in this study can be used to measure the extent to which an S-OJT trainer successfully delivers work contents along with 15 essential actions. The study outcomes, then, have some implications for HRD, focusing on S-OJT. First, it seems critical that
123
D. Cho
organizations continuously examine the effectiveness of their train-the-trainer program. From the results of this study, if trainers perceive that train-the-trainer programs are helpful to their current S-OJT practice, trainers’ selfbelief that they can perform S-OJT by using their skills and knowledge are more likely to be increased. At the same time, trainers tend to engage in the essential instructional events required for effective training. Also, S-OJT trainer preparation through the train-the-trainer program can play an important role in increasing trainers’ organizational commitment. Second, it seems critical that how trainers deliver S-OJT needs to be regularly checked. In order to do this, Jacobs (2003) suggested that some consistent and standardized forms to measure trainers’ delivery of S-OJT should be developed. When trainers are fully engaged in the instructional events required for effective training, they may have more opportunities to obtain unintended consequences, beyond a stronger organizational commitment. Although some implications can be expected to impact S-OJT practice in the field of HRD, care must be taken when generalizing the findings into other populations. This study examines one company in a Korean context. Future research needs to examine the research issues proposed from this study in more diverse settings.
References Bartlett, K. R. (2001). The relationship between training and organizational commitment: A study in the health care field. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(4), 335–352. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1001. Bennett, T. L., & Calvin, J. (2002). Structured on-the-job training of field service engineers: Liebert global services. In R. L. Jacobs (Ed.), Implementing structured on-the-job learning (pp. 131– 142). Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development. Bjorkquist, D. C., & Murphy, B. P. (1996). Structured on-the-job training: Pitfalls and payoffs. In C. P. Campbell (Ed.), Education and training for work: Volume 1. Planning programs. Lancaster, PN: TECHNOMIC Publication. Black, J. A., Zenner, F. J., & Ezell, E. (1996). A case study of the development and implementation of a structured on-the-job (SOJT) training program in the coil processing industry. In E. F. Holton (ed.), Proceedings of the 1996 academy of human resource development conference. Minneapolis, MN: Academy of Human Resource Development. Burkett, H. (2002). Leveraging employee know-how through structured OJT. In R. L. Jacobs (Ed.), Implementing on-the-job learning: Thirteen case studies from the real world of training. Alexandria, VA: ASTD. Cho, D., & Kwon, D. (2005). Self-directed learning readiness as an antecedent of organizational commitment: A Korean study. International Journal of Training and Development, 9(2), 140– 152. D’Abate, C. P., Eddy, E. R., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (2003). What’s in a name? A literature-based approach to understanding mentoring,
The impact of structured on-the-job training (S-OJT) coaching, and other constructs that describe developmental interactions. Human Resource Development Review, 2(4), 360– 384. doi:10.1177/1534484303255033. DeSimone, R. L., & Harris, D. M. (1998). Human resource development. NY: The Dryden Press. Ellstrom, P. E. (2001). Integrating learning and work: Problems and prospects. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(4), 421– 436. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1006. Ensher, E. A., Grant-Valone, E. J., & Donaldson, S. I. (2001). Effects of perceived discrimination on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and grievances. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(1), 53–72. doi:10.1002/1532-1096(200101/02)12:1\53::AID-HRDQ5[3.0. CO;2-G. Fuller, A., & Unwin, L. (2002). Developing pedagogies for the contemporary workplace. In K. Evans, P. Hodkinson, & L. Unwin (Eds.), Working to learning: Transforming learning in the workplace (pp. 95–111). London: Kogan Page. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis with readings (4th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Harris, R., Simons, M., & Bone, J. (2000). More than meets the eyes? Rethinking the role of workplace trainer. Australia: NCVER. Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1990). Socialization of student teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 27(2), 279– 300. Jacobs, R. L. (1996). Unstructured versus structured on-the-job training. In J. Phillips (Ed.), Measuring return on investment (Vol. 1, pp. 123–132). Alexandra, VA: American Society for Training and Development. Jacobs, R. L. (2002). Implementing structured on-the-job learning. In R. L. Jacobs (Ed.), Implementing on-the-job learning. Alexandra, VA: American Society for Training and Development. Jacobs, R. L. (2003). Structured on-the-job training: Unleashing employee expertise in the workplace (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publications, Inc. Jacobs, R. L., Jones, M. J., & Neil, S. (1992). A case study in forecasting the financial benefits of unstructured on-the-job training. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 3(2), 133– 139. doi:10.1002/hrdq.3920030205. Jacobs, R. L., & Osman-Gani, A. M. (1999). Status, impact, and implementation issues of structured on-the-job training: A study of Singapore-based companies. Human Resource Development International, 2(1), 17–24. doi:10.1080/13678869900000005. Johnson, S. D., & Leach, J. A. (2001). Using expert employees to train on the job. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 3(4), 425–434. doi:10.1177/15234220122238481. Jones, M. J., & Jacobs, R. L. (1997). Developing frontline employees: A new challenge for achieving organizational effectiveness. In R. Kaufman, S. Thiagarajan, & P. MacGinnis (Eds.), The guidebook for performance improvement: Working with individuals and organizations. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. Jung, J. (2000). Reexamination of the three-component model of organizational commitment in South Korea. Unpublished Dissertation, Kent State University. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607–610.
453 Lee, K., Allen, N. J., Meyer, J. P., & Rhee, K. (2001). The threecomponent model of organizational commitment: An application to South Korea. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(4), 596–614. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89. doi:10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Meyer, S. R., & Marsick, V. J. (2003). Professional development in corporate training. In K. P. King & P. A. Lawler (Eds.), New perspectives on designing and implementing professional development of teachers of adults (Vol. 98). New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Miller, L. E., & Smith, K. L. (1983). Handling non-response issues. Journal of Extension, 21(5), 45–50. Orpen, C. (1999). The impact of self-efficacy on the effectiveness of employee training. Journal of Workplace Learning, 11(4), 119– 122. doi:10.1108/13665629910276034. Osman-Gani, A. M., & Zidan, S. S. (2001). Cross-cultural implications of planned on-the-job training. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 3(4), 442–460. doi:10.1177/152342201222 38517. Prieto, L. R., & Meyers, S. A. (1999). Effects of training and supervision on the self-efficacy of psychology graduate teaching assistants. Teaching of Psychology, 26(4), 264–266. doi:10.1207/ S15328023TOP260404. Stein, D. S. (2001). Situated learning and planned training on the job. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 3(4), 415–442. doi:10.1177/15234220122238472. Stolovitch, H. D., & Ngoa-Nguele, D. (2001). Structured on-the-job training in developing nations. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 3(4), 461–470. doi:10.1177/15234220122238526. Swanson, R. A., & Falkman, S. K. (1997). Training delivery problems and solutions: Identification of novice trainer problems and expert trainer solutions. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 8(4), 305–314. doi:10.1002/hrdq.3920080406. Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F., III. (2001). Foundation of human resource development. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Unwin, L., & Fuller, A. (2003). Expanding learning in the workplace: Making more of individual and organizational potential. A NIACE Policy Discussion Paper. England: National Institute of Adult Continuing Education. Walter, D. (1998). Training and certifying on-the-job trainers. Technical Training, March/April, 32–35. Washington, C. L. (2002). The relationships among learning transfer climate, transfer self-efficacy, goal commitment, and sales performance in an organization undergoing planned change. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The Ohio State University. Williams, S. W. (2001). The effectiveness of subject matter experts as technical trainers. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(1), 91–97. doi:10.1002/1532-1096(200101/02)12:1\91::AIDHRDQ7[3.0.CO;2-0.
123
