Improving Training Effectiveness in Work Organizations

J. Kevin Ford

• Publisher: Psychology Press
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781317781219
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychologie
• Subtopic: Geschichte & Theorie in der Psychologie

This compelling volume presents the work of innovative researchers dealing with current issues in training and training effectiveness in work organizations. Each chapter provides an integrative summary of a research area with the goal of developing a specific research agenda that will not only stimulate thinking in the training field but also direct future research. By concentrating on new ideas and critical methodological and measurement issues rather than summarizing existing literature, the volume offers definitive suggestions for advancing the effectiveness of the training field. Its chapters focus on emerging issues in training that have important implications for improving both training design and efficacy. They discuss various levels of analysis-- intra-individual, inter-individual, team, and organizational issues--and the factors relevant to achieving a better understanding of training effectiveness from these different perspectives. This type of coverage provides a theoretically driven scientist/practitioner orientation to the book.

1
Advances in Training Research and Practice: An Historical Perspective

J. Kevin Ford
Michigan State University

Formal literature on applied psychology and workplace training extends back to the turn of the century, with studies and initiatives devoted to safety training in industries such as mining and railroads. Early developments in management theory also featured training components. For example, Taylor’s (1911) development of the scientific principles of management was premised on core assumptions about the ease of training workers to perform effectively by segmenting jobs into simple tasks.

An independent literature on training emerged during the 1920s. Applied psychology textbooks of the period began to cover training as a topic distinct from the more traditional topics of selection, motivation, accident prevention, and fatigue (e.g., see Burtt, 1929; Viteles, 1932). However, this acceptance of training as an independent topic was not universal. Jenkins (1935) dismissed the relevance of industrial training to applied psychology and relegated it to the educational psychology arena. In a footnote in his applied psychology textbook, he stated the following: “Little evidence is available concerning training in industry. For dependable information on training, in general, the reader may turn to any of the better documented textbooks of educational psychology” (p. 129).

An examination of current applied psychological literature on workplace training issues would provide significantly larger amounts of material for Jenkins to consider. In fact, learning and the application of learning to the job has emerged as a key aspect of applied psychological approaches to work. Textbooks in the field devote one or more chapters to training-related issues. The Annual Review of Psychology routinely reviews the issues relevant to workplace training. The key journals in the field, such as the Journal of Applied Psychology and Personnel Psychology, have shown an increase in the number of articles devoted to training issues such as needs assessment, design, methods, and evaluation. In addition, the Training Research Journal was recently introduced with the expressed purpose to encourage multidisciplinary efforts regarding workplace training.

This emerging research interest parallels large increases in the amount and diversity of workplace training initiatives in organizational settings. One estimate suggests that over $210 billion is spent every year in the United States alone on workplace training (Carnevale, Gainer, & Villet, 1990). The pressure for more training has expanded due to the increasingly popular view that people, rather than technology, represent the primary source of enduring competitive advantage. In addition, the increasing scope and complexity of the changes occurring in the workplace, such as team-based work systems, the focus on quality, and reengineering, require a highly trained and knowledgeable workforce.

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a historical lineage of the training field from an applied psychological perspective. Although there are many ways in which such an analysis could be completed, the focus here is on three key reviews of the training literature. These reviews provide a window through which the changes in applied psychological research relevant to training can be viewed. The first comprehensive review was completed by McGehee in 1949. In his review of training in industry, training literature of the pre-World War II era (1934-1938) is compared with the advances made a decade later (1944-1948). The second review was completed by Campbell in 1971. Notably, this review of personnel training and development was the first training chapter to be completed for the Annual Review of Psychology. Campbell’s work reviewed changes and developments in the field during the 1950s and 1960s, and thus serves as a bridge between McGehee’s work and the most current literature review. The third review is the most recent review of training literature in the Annual Review of Psychology, and was completed by Tannenbaum and Yukl in 1992. It provides an examination of more current perspectives in the training field. Together, the three reviews span over 50 years of research on learning and other training-related issues—from its inception to its more mature status as a distinct field of inquiry today. This 50-year time frame allows for the examination of the shifts in training research.

Each of the reviews is divided into two sections. The first section describes the scope and direction of applied research on training and development at the time of the review. The second section identifies concerns and cutting-edge issues raised by the reviewers regarding how applied psychology could become more responsive to increasing our understanding of training effectiveness. In this way, an analysis can be made of how well the cutting-edge issues of an earlier review were addressed by subsequent research. Based on this historical analysis, current research “gaps” that are in need of further study are identified. This chapter concludes with a discussion of the theoretical and operational frameworks required to push the frontiers of the training field into the 21st century.

Startup Efforts: In Search of Applied Psychological Research

Prior to the seminal textbook on training (McGehee & Thayer, 1961), in 1949 McGehee provided what could be the first systematic review and analysis of the emerging field of industrial training. For the review, McGehee examined hundreds of articles and chapters on training, and classified their content as well as their focus on research or practice. He provided a wonderful picture of early attempts to integrate applied psychology with organizational training issues.

Scope and Direction of Applied Research on Training

In terms of scope and direction, McGehee (1949) noted that the dictionary definition of training was relatively narrow—applicable only to those processes involved in gaining proficiency in a specific skill or competence. McGehee saw industrial training as much broader in scope with programs also designed to induct the new worker, improve the performance of experienced workers and managers, and to “inform the worker concerning basic economics and to counteract collectivistic ideology” (p. 84).

In regard to trends, McGehee (1949) cited survey results from the 1946 National Industrial Conference Board that the amount of training had increased about threefold since 1938 for supervisors, production workers, and top executives, and had increased 200% for apprentice training. In addition, 29% of the companies who responded to the survey reported that they had a separate training function. Most of the training was conducted by experienced foremen and experienced workers without the assistance of specialized training departments. McGehee’s concern about the quality of training when training responsibility was not specifically delegated is evident in his statement that “too often what is everybody’s business is nobody’s business” (p. 87).

McGehee compared the trends from the 1934 to 1938 sample of articles with those of 1944 to 1948. He found that, from 1934 to 1938, 39 research articles, descriptive (practitioner) papers, or book chapters were written that dealt specifically with training, whereas there were 82 such publications from 1944 to 1948. He also noted that there were over 300 articles on training, most of which were mostly anecdotal and nonpsychological in nature. The increase in applied psychological research was mainly seen in articles on supervisory and management personnel. Although there was an increased interest in training, McGehee noted that there was not an appreciable increase in research studies.

McGehee also categorized the topics covered in the training literature. He showed that the majority of research-based papers focused on learning principies from laboratory studies or from the educational process in public schools. The major innovations during the 1944 to 1948 period were the emphasis on determining the appropriate training content and the importance of and methods to use for training evaluation. McGehee also cited the large amount of military research on training that could be of value to industrial training, such as (a) applying psychological principles of learning to training, (b) evaluating training, (c) standardizing training through job analysis and the development of lesson plans, and (d) designing equipment for the operator.

Cutting-Edge Issues

McGehee (1949) concluded his review with a discussion of persistent problems in training that required the development of new techniques and methods. These problems reflected these basic issues: (a) who to train, (b) what the content of training should be, (c) what methods are to be used in training, (d) who is to do the training, and (e) how the outcomes of training activities are to be evaluated.

McGehee asserted that there was a need for more systematic approaches to assessing the training needs of individual workers, such as “auditing” individuals in the workforce as to needed skills and the projection of potential labor needs in the future. To better determine training content, McGehee stressed the need for more research on the reliability and validity of various job-analysis approaches to training needs assessment, and the need to move to an individualized instruction approach to training tied to the results of the job analysis. He also stressed the need for more research on the proper sequencing of training content, the appropriate use of massed versus spaced practice, and the best approaches for maximizing trainee motivation for transfer. One promising technique he discussed was role playing. He cited the need for greater understanding of the situations or conditions under which this technique was most effective.

The research issue of who was qualified to be a trainer was discussed in terms of selecting individuals in the plant who have the greatest aptitude for instructing others. He cautioned that centralized training should not take over actual training, but rather supervisors and others should be trained to be the trainers—this would allow for these individuals to become partners in the planning of training for the department. In this way, McGehee was an early proponent of the now popular train-the-trainer systems.

The final issue to be considered was the evaluation of training. McGehee (1949) cited that the main reasons for the lack of training evaluation were the lack of statistical skills and research techniques by training personnel and the lack of support by top management for controlled studies that interfered with daily work routines. He noted that industry cannot expect decisive aid from applied psychology in improving training effectiveness unless there was movement away from the immediate solutions for immediate problems mentality to a broader perspective that addressed the more fundamental issues of effectiveness, in which the immediate issues were rooted.

Growth and Expansion: In Search of Order and Direction

In contrast to the McGehee (1949) review, in 1971 Campbell noted that the field of personnel training and development had become so diverse it was difficult to know where to draw the boundaries. The interest in issues of learning and organizational effectiveness had led to extremes ranging from basic research on learning simple tasks (nonsense words) to complex, large-scale organizational development activities. His overall goal for the review was to focus on the middle ground between the two extremes, and to describe the state of the art in training especially as it was relevant to applied psychological issues.

Scope and Direction of Applied Research on Training

Many of the cutting-edge issues identified by McGehee (1949) were becoming a reality in the training field. For example, McGehee and Thayer (1961) provided the training field with a systematic approach to training needs assessment and methodologies for determining who and what to train. The instructional psychology and military literatures were developing and using the instructional systems design model for linking training needs assessment to training objectives, design, and evaluation.

Campbell (1971) also noted that, during the 1950s the field of psychology was fertile ground for continued studies aimed at more micro, individual-level learning processes—largely conducted in laboratory settings. For example, early studies examined the factors influencing the learning of psychomotor tasks and transfer of learning to different tasks. This research by experimental psychologists surfaced principles of learning that could be applied to improve training design. One principle stated the importance of an identical match between elements of training and expected practices in the transfer setting. However, the generalizability of these studies was limited because they focused on simple tasks in isolated settings.

Campbell stressed that a critical advance in the field was due to the work of Gagne (1962). Gagne applied a number of learning principles developed from laboratory research to ongoing military operations. He found that these principies were a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for learning. Instead, research highlighted the need to conduct a thorough needs analysis and to properly sequence the learning events to guide the learner toward greater skill acquisition and retention. This work is consistent with the call by McGehee (1949) to attend to issues of sequencing and design.

In terms of training methods and techniques, the emphasis in the literature at that time was heavily weighted toward managerial development. For example, the 1950s and 1960s saw the development and expansion of the National Training Laboratory in Bethel, Maine, and the advancement of the concept of an unstructured group laboratory approach to learning interpersonal attitudes and skills. Campbell (1971) also described other training methods, such as computer-based instruction, the managerial grid, cross-cultural training, and training for the hard-core unemployed. In fact, the number of different training methods and techniques greatly expanded from those levels cited by McGehee (1949). Although this proliferation of programs and techniques provided trainers with many choices, Campbell noted that firms were, on the whole, not pleased with the quality of the training offered.

Cutting-Edge Issues

Upon reviewing the training literature, Campbell (1971) concluded that, “by and large, the training and development literature is voluminous, nonempirical, nontheoretical, poorly written, and dull” (p. 565). He also decried the lack of maturity and faddish nature of the training enterprise. Fads are based on moving from one training method to another without much thought as to answering the more important question of what is to be learned.

To counteract these problems with the training field, Campbell discussed a number of important cutting-edge directions for future research. First, he stressed the need for applied psychology to move away from a focus on hardware and training techniques and return to the key process issue of “what is to be learned.” As an example, he noted the need to take a more programmed instruction approach to all training efforts (i.e., specifying terminal behaviors, decomposing learning tasks into its structural components, and seeking an optimal sequencing of these components in a rational way). He also cited the historic theoretical foundation of training around learning principles, but, similar to McGehee (1949), pointed to the need to give more serious attention to needs assessment, the identification of training content (what to learn), and the sequencing of that content.

Second, he cited the lack of theoretical models. He noted that although education, training, and development may be key’s to success for many of our national problems, few efforts were being made to systematically address these issues from a more scientific perspective. He stressed the need to develop theoretical models to predict when and why certain types of training activities would lead to greater skill acquisition, retention, and transfe...