Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Oxford Handbooks Online

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Eduardo Salas, Sallie J. Weaver, and Marissa L. Shuffler

The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Psychology, Volume 1
Edited by Steve W. J. Kozlowski

Print Publication Date: Jul 2012

Subject: Psychology, Organizational Psychology, Social Psychology
Online Publication Date: Sep 2012 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199928309.013.0011

Abstract and Keywords

A 2008 Bureau of Labor Statistics report indicates that the youngest of the baby boom
generation (i.e., individuals born between 1957 and 1964) held an average of 10.8
different jobs between the ages of 18 and 42. To remain viable, today's workforce must
continually develop new knowledge, skills, and attitudes in order to adapt to changing
technological and environmental demands. Training is the classic mechanism for such
skill enhancement. This chapter provides an overview of training and other
developmental activities from the organizational science perspective, including mentoring
and coaching. Several classic models of training are reviewed, and an overarching
organizational framework delineating the key variables of the training process is
presented. Several suggestions for furthering our understanding of training and other
forms of development are also offered.

Keywords: Organizational learning, training, training design, training delivery, organizational development,
organizational change

Dramatic changes have shaped a new organizational landscape in the last decade. Rapid
technological evolution and integration, loss of stability in the employment contract
between employers and employees, rapidly flattening hierarchies and omnipresent
restructuring, as well as increasing organizational diversity have greatly impacted the
way that organizations think about learning, training, and career development (Higgins &
Kram, 2001). Globalization has also pushed organizations and the employees comprising
them to be flexible and adaptable at an unparalleled speed. These changes have led to
unprecedented emphasis on the vital role of continuous learning and employee
development in organizational success. Furthermore, employees with cultural,
technological, and interpersonal skills, who are also adaptable and flexible, have become

Page 1 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

a commodity (Manpower, 2008). Therefore, organizations recognize, now more than ever,
the role that continuous learning and development play in competitive advantage.

The American Society for Training and Development's (ASTD) 2008 “State of the
Industry” report, for example, demonstrated that the average dollar amount spent on
employee learning and development increased to $1,103 in 2007, a 6 percent increase
from 2006 (ASTD, 2008). Additionally, winners of ASTD's BEST award, those
organizations demonstrating enterprise-wide success as a result of employee learning
and development, spent an average of $1,451 per employee in 2007. Such spending
increases indicate organizational recognition of training and development as a
competitive advantage in today's globalized economy. Organizations making investments
in their human capital through properly designed training and development systems reap
the rewards of a skilled and prepared workforce—including optimized productivity, better
service quality, fewer errors, and improved safety, as well as higher (p. 331) morale, job
satisfaction, commitment, and teamwork. For example, an analysis of ASTD's training
database confirmed that firms which spent more than average on employee learning and
development have total stockholder returns (change in stock price plus any dividends
issued in a given year) nearly 86% higher compared to firms spending less than average
(Bassi, Ludwig, McMurrer, & Buren, 2002). Training has also been linked with employee
creativity and innovation (Bauernschuster, Falck, & Heblich, 2008); vital components of
organizational competitive advantage (Aghion, Bloom, Blundell, Griffith, & Howitt, 2005).
Conversely, an underdeveloped workforce can negatively impact organizational outcomes,
raising costs due to legal fees (e.g., Goldman, 2000) and errors (e.g., Beaman, Waldmann,
& Krueger, 2005), as well as negatively impacting leadership succession and impeding
the development of intellectual capital (e.g., Mayo, 2000).

While the specific purpose and content of organizational training and development
initiatives vary widely (e.g., error reduction and safety improvement, team training,
leadership development, product quality, innovation, decision making, etc.), the
overarching goal is to create the highest quality workforce possible in order to produce
goods and services valuable to customers. To ensure high quality and effectiveness,
however, the science of training and learning must form the foundation for the design,
development, implementation, and evaluation of such initiatives as noted in previous
reviews (see Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009; Kraiger, 2003; Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001;
Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992). Efforts dedicated to understanding how, when, and why
training is effective have broadened our understanding of workplace learning and
development. No longer is training a place to which employees are “sent” for the day, nor
is it a particular curriculum or particular strategy (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2000). The
increase in our scientific understanding of training developed over the past several
decades has fed a growing evidence base of characteristics, processes, and other factors
underlying training effectiveness.

The purpose of the current chapter is to provide an overview of the science of training
(Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001; Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992) and to present several open
questions to help guide further scientific development. To this end, we first define

Page 2 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

training, provide an overview of several models of training, and present the framework
through which this chapter will be organized. Our purpose is not to present a new
framework or model of training, however. We utilize an updated version of the model of
training effectiveness originally proposed by Tannenbaum and colleagues (1993; Cannon-
Bowers, Salas, Tannenbaum, & Mathieu, 1995) to provide structure to the review and
synthesis of the existent literature. Found in Figure 11.1, each component of this model
will be discussed in greater detail in subsequent sections. It should be noted that each
component of the model is annotated with a number linking it to relevant in-text
discussion. Throughout these sections, relevant research questions will also be posed,
with the hope of continuing to further the science and our understanding.

In addition to covering factors relevant to training planning, design, implementation, and

transfer, we will also discuss several learning and development methodologies above and
beyond traditional training, such as e-learning, coaching, and mentoring. We will then
look at training through the lens of organizational change, specifically defining and
discussing the notion of learning organizations and the role of training and development
in organizational change initiatives and culture change. In closing, we draw conclusions
regarding the current state of training in the organizational literature. We offer open
questions and suggestions designed to feed future research and knowledge development,
thus helping scientists and practitioners to continue to generate and apply scientifically
derived principles, methodologies, and tools to optimize organizational learning, training,
and development.

Definitions: Learning, Training, and

Development
The concepts of learning, training, and development are integrally intertwined. Though
there are many definitions of learning available in the literature, they traditionally center
upon learning as a relatively permanent change in behavior as a result of experience or
practice (e.g., Atkinson, Atkinson, Smith, Bem, & Nolen-Hoeksema, 1996; Myers, 2004). A
separate school of thought, however, contradicts this notion that learning must result in
behavior change. Huber (1991) summarizes this perspective in his stipulation that “an
entity learns, if, through its processing of information, the range of its potential behaviors
is changed” (p. 89).

Page 3 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Supporting this more

recent conceptualization,
available evidence
suggests that a fraction of
knowledge, skills, and
abilities (KSAs) learned in
training actually transfer
to the work environment.
That is, trainees can
declaratively demonstrate
Click to view larger increases in (p. 332) their
Figure 11.1 Organizational Framework for the
knowledge (i.e., tell you,
Chapter, Founded upon the Model of Training for example, what the
Effectiveness Developed by Cannon-Bowers, Salas,
correct strategy for
Tannenbaum, and Mathieu (1995)
handling interpersonal
conflict is); however, they
have a much harder time translating this knowledge into behavior on the job (i.e., they
may not use this strategy in the heat of the moment, when actually dealing with
interpersonal conflict). For example, meta-analyses of various training strategies
continually demonstrate larger effect sizes for learning outcomes compared to behavioral
outcomes (e.g., Arthur, Bennett, Edens, & Bell, 2003; Salas, DiazGranados, et al., 2008;
Salas, Nichols, & Driskell, 2007; Sitzmann, Kraiger, Stewart, & Wisher, 2006).
Furthermore, Alliger and colleagues (1997) found low weighted correlations between .08
and .18 between learning and behavior on the job in their meta-analysis of the
relationship among various training evaluation outcomes. Such results underscore the
importance of the systems view of training suggested by Goldstein (1993; Goldstein &
Ford, 2002), which argues that training alone does not ensure behavior change because it
does not occur in a vacuum. Learning therefore is a process that continues outside the
classroom. As Ruark (2009) notes, “Knowledge continues to expand and alter as we…
make new discoveries, test what we think we know, and learn more about the situational
contexts in which current knowledge is applied” (p. 53). Trainees must actually take the
knowledge, skills, and abilities learned in training and mold them into their own
“working” versions in order to apply them on the job. Therefore, some KSAs may not be
transferred to the actual working environment, especially if this environment is non-
supportive and is racked with barriers, as discussed in greater detail in later sections of
this chapter. Additionally, as indicated by Aguinis and Kraiger (2009) the effects of
training and development initiatives today reach far beyond the individual and even
beyond the organization itself, further expanding the range of this systems viewpoint.

The definition of learning has also been expanded in an attempt to parse apart learning
outcomes from learning processes (see Huber, 1991; Kraiger, Ford, & Salas, 1993;
Lachman, 1997) and the role of the learner in the learning process has become a more
central focus (Bell & Kozlowski, 2008; Simpson & Bourner, 2007). Organizationally

Page 4 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

speaking, learning can occur through multiple vehicles including training and other
developmental interactions such (p. 333) as coaching and mentoring. Specifically, training
is defined as:

…the systematic acquisition of knowledge (i.e., what we need to know), skills (i.e.,
what we need to do), and attitudes (i.e., what we need to feel) (KSAs) that together
lead to improved performance in a particular environment. (Salas, Wilson, Priest,
& Guthrie, 2006, p. 473)

From an organizational perspective, the aim of training may be to achieve cognitive,

behavioral, and/or attitudinal change through concrete understanding and practical
application of job-relevant competencies. Instructional strategies must be aligned with
the specific needs of the organization, its employees, and other key stakeholders to
achieve this aim (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009; Brown & Gerhardt, 2006; Salas & Cannon-
Bowers, 2001). Furthermore, training is not simply a location where people go, a
particular curriculum that is “applied,” or a single day event (Salas & Cannon-Bowers,
2000). Additionally, training is not synonymous with the simulation or other technology
utilized as the delivery vehicle. Effective training allows trainees to learn, practice, and
receive constructive feedback, while also preparing them to encounter and overcome
barriers to applying their training on the job. This means that while technology can form
the basis for effective training, it must be supplemented with theoretically sound
instructional strategies (e.g., diagnostic performance measurement and feedback) in
order to enhance performance.

In addition to training, learning in organizations can occur through other developmentally

focused mechanisms. The term developmental interaction has been utilized to describe
interactions between two or more people with the goal of personal or professional
development (D'Abate, Eddy, & Tannenbaum, 2003). These interactions tend to be long-
term focused and can include a wide range of KSAs. Our goal is not to detail all of the
interactions that fall under this broad umbrella; however, we discuss several, such as
mentoring and coaching, in later sections of this chapter. For a detailed treatment of
these constructs, we refer readers to D'Abate et al. (2003), as well as Eby (chapter 19 of
this handbook), Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, and Lima (2004), and Passmore and Gibbes
(2007).

Since Campbell's (1971) review and indictment of the literature related to training and
organizational learning as “volumous, non-empirical, non- theoretical, poorly written, and
dull” (p. 565), the scientific and theoretical literature on organizational training and
learning has exploded. The good news is that more comprehensive, thorough frameworks
and models have evolved, furthering our understanding of the design, delivery, and
outcomes of organizational training endeavors (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001). In the
subsequent section, we provide a review of several models that have helped to increase
our understanding of the mechanisms of learning, training, and development in
organizations.

Page 5 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

The Science of Learning, Training, and

Development

A Foundation in the Science of Learning

Conceptualizing training and development begins with a foundation in theories of

learning and instructional design. Classic models of learning, such as the three-phase
model proposed by Fitts and Posner (1967), conceptualize learning as a sequential
progression of skill acquisition and refinement. This model postulates that skill
development begins with a cognitive phase, in which the learner identifies the key
components of the skill and forms a mental conceptualization of the skill in action. In the
cognitive phase, the learner knows all of the pieces necessary for the skill, but cannot put
them together. In the subsequent acquisition phase, the learner links the components
together, leveraging practice and feedback to learn the most effective and efficient
combination. Unlike the acquisition phase, in which the learner must actively think about
linking the skill components together, the final autonomous phase is reached when the
learner is able to perform the skill automatically, with little conscious attention. Fitts and
Posner's (1967) work has been extremely influential in work on procedural skill
acquisition and the impact of practice on skill acquisition.

The foundational work of Knowles and colleagues (Knowles, 1973, 1984; Knowles et al.,
2005) on adult learning recognized five significant factors impacting adult learning,
differentiating adults’ learning styles from those of children. Knowles (1984) first
assumption was that adults are autonomous and self-directed, meaning that learning
experiences must actively involve them in the learning process, thus changing the role of
trainers and teachers toward facilitation. Second, adults come into the learning
environment with a reservoir of knowledge and experience. Knowles (1984) argued that
successful adult education makes connections between new material and these previous
experiences. Empirical work on training has demonstrated the effectiveness of this
strategy. For example, in a sample of pilots, Smith-Jentsch, Jentsch, Payne, and Salas
(1996) found that negative pre-training experiences related to training content were
linearly related to performance in a post-training simulation session. Knowles's (1984)
third assumption is related to readiness to learn—specifically, that adults’ readiness to
learn is related to the developmental tasks of their social roles. This means that adults
are goal-oriented, often knowing what they want to attain from the learning experience.
Fourth, adult orientation to learning is problem focused versus subject focused; that is,
adults focus on the relevancy and immediacy with which they can apply the knowledge,
skills, or attitudes targeted in the learning experience. Finally, adult motivation to learn is
assumed to be mainly internally driven. This perspective changed the lens through which

Page 6 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

learning was viewed in models of training and development, opening the black box of
“learning” in such models to uncover some of the key mechanisms and assumptions.

Other models (e.g., Jarvis, 1987; Kolb, 1984; Kolb, Boyatzis, & Mainemalis, 2001;
Mezirow, 1978, 1981, 2000) also emphasize the impact of experience in the adult learning
process. Mezirow (2000), for example, frames learning as a process of transforming the
learner's frames of references (e.g., mind-sets, meaning perspectives). The specific steps
in this transformative process are outlined in Table 11.1. Additionally, the theory
differentiates between instrumental learning (i.e., task-oriented learning) and
communicative learning (i.e., socially oriented learning) and outlines four specific ways in
which learning occurs: expansion of existing meaning; creation of new meanings that
complement existing frames of reference; transformation of point of view; and
transformation of point of reference. Transformation of point of reference refers to
changes in “other”-related perspectives; point of view transformation refers to changes in
deeper level, usually more “self”-focused perspectives. Critical to Mezirow's (2000)
theory are the concepts of reflection, critique, and analysis of one's cognitive and
affective assumptions, and his conceptualization of discourse—specialized use of dialogue
with the intent of examining supporting/non-supporting evidence and arguments in order
to examine alternative perspectives. While criticisms of Mezirow's (2000) theory posit
that it has an overly individualized focus (e.g., Clark & Wilson, 1991), such theories of
adult learning helped to formulate practical instructional strategies and have helped
drive models of training and training transfer.

Table 11.1 The 10-step Transformative Learning Process Outlined by Mezirow (2000)

Process for Transformative Learning

Experience a disorienting dilemma.

Undergo self examination.
Conduct a deep assessment of personal role assumptions and alienation created by
new roles.
Share and analyze personal discontent and similar experiences with others.
Explore options for new ways of acting.
Build competence and self-confidence in new roles.
Plan a course of action.
Acquire knowledge and skills for action.
Try new roles and assess feedback.
Reintegrate into society with a new perspective.

More focused theories have integrated learning theory with the instructional design
perspective. Elaborating on the idea of the phase learning–based model is Anderson's
(1996) ACT* model, which builds on the work of Fitts and Posner (1967) to view learning
as a series of stages in which different types of learning are important during each stage.
The ACT* model emphasizes three phases of learning: the declarative phase, which

Page 7 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

focuses on gaining factual knowledge about a task, with the emphasis being memory; the
knowledge compilation phase, which focuses on actually knowing how to do a task; and,
lastly, procedural knowledge, or actual acquisition of the skill. Evidence has been found to
support this model, particularly in relation to goal-setting interventions (Kanfer &
Ackerman, 1989).

Self-regulated learning has also been emphasized within the broader context of informal
social learning and has been closely identified with the notion of intrinsically motivated
learning (Kozlowski, Gully, et al., 2001; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2008). Specifically related
to learning, self-regulation theory posits that effective learners engage in meta-cognitive
processes such as goal setting, self-monitoring, and strategy to master these self-imposed
learning objectives (Lajoie, 2008). Couched in the early work on meta-cognition (e.g.,
Flavell, 1976), empirical investigations suggest that the goal-setting and monitoring
components of self-regulation may account for much of its effectiveness (Azevedo, 2005;
Kozlowski, Gully, et al., 2001). Additionally, training or other developmental techniques
can focus on optimizing self-regulation skills themselves in order to facilitate acquisition
of other KSAs at a later point. In this sense, self-regulation can be conceptualized as a
meta-competency, a broad, overarching (p. 335) competency area that facilitates the
acquisition and implementation of other, more specific competencies (Brown, 1993).

Together, these foundational theories underscore that effective, valid training is heavily
front-loaded; that is, several key factors are important to consider before training has
even been developed and conceptualized. In the next section we provide an overview of
these factors and processes and suggest potential areas for future research.

Theoretical Underpinnings of Training: Modeling Training Transfer

The goal of training and development endeavors is to change behavior on the job;
therefore, most models of training effectiveness focus on factors related to training
transfer. Models of training transfer tend to focus on three main categories of variables:
(a) individual difference factors and relevant pre-training experience, which impact the
degree of learning achieved; (b) activities and instructional strategies that occur during
training; and (c) environmental factors that impact transfer of training to the actual job
environment. However, the models vary in scope from narrow to broad conceptualizations
of training and the factors that impact transfer.

Page 8 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Goldstein's (1986)
instructional systems
design (ISD) model of
training, for example,
narrowly focuses on the
steps within the training
process, their outcomes,
and the recursive
relationship in which
training outcomes feed
back into needs analysis.
The ISD model focuses on
Figure 11.2 Goldstein's (1986) Instructional Systems
Design Model of Training
the training program itself,
the actual instructional
process, and validity of the program (see Figure 11.2). Specifically, the model begins with
a training needs analysis (discussed in greater detail in subsequent sections), which
underlies the development of instructional objectives and design decisions. Specific
criteria are then developed to evaluate training outcomes. Most importantly, Goldstein's
(1986) model highlights several components of training-related validity through which
evaluation can occur, including training validity (i.e., do trainees gain knowledge/skills
during training?), transfer validity (i.e., are the KSAs learned in training translated on the
job into enhanced performance?), intraorganizational validity (i.e., does training produce
similar results with new training classes over time?), and interorganizational validity
(p. 336) (i.e., will a training program validated in one organization be successful in

another?).

Incorporating a broader focus, Baldwin and Ford's (1988) classic model considers factors
beyond training design that impact transfer. Utilizing an input-process-output framework
to stipulate the inputs and outputs of training, this model focused heavily on three classes
of training inputs (see Figure 11.3): individual characteristics, training design, and the
work environment. The model stipulates that all three impact the training outcomes of
learning and retention, while individual and environmental factors also directly impact
training transfer.

Further developing this model, Thayer and Teachout (1995; see Figure 11.4) stipulated
seven pre-training variables, supported by the literature, which indirectly influence
transfer through the learning process. Specifically, these variables include: (a) reactions
to previous training, (b) previous knowledge and skills, (c) pre-training self-efficacy, (d)
ability, (e) locus of control, (f) job involvement, and (g) career/job attitudes. Self-efficacy,
for example, is discussed as both an antecedent and outcome of training; that is, pre-
training levels of self-efficacy can enhance (or hinder) learning, and learning, in turn,
affects post-training self-efficacy. The main contribution of this model, however, was its
consideration of specific transfer-enhancing training activities and the integration of the
notion that organizational climate impacts transfer. For example, Thayer and Teachout
(1995) suggest several in-training strategies supported by the training, adult learning,
Page 9 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

and cognitions literatures to enhance learning and transfer including: using distributed
practice high in cognitive fidelity (Brannick, Prince, & Salas, 2005), over-learning
(Rohrer, Taylor, Pasher, Wixted, & Cepeda, 2004), goal setting (Locke &Latham, 2002),
relapse prevention (Burke & Baldwin, 1999), and self-monitoring cues (Gist, Bavetta, &
Stevens, 1990; Gist, Stevens, & Bavetta, 1991). Additionally, their model integrates the
conceptualization of transfer climate developed by Rouiller and Goldstein (1993)—
breaking down organizational climate for transfer into cues related to trained behavior
(e.g., goal cues, social cues) and consequences for using trained behaviors on the job
(e.g., reinforcement, punishment).

Kozlowski and Salas

(1997) expanded to a
multilevel perspective in
their model of training
implementation and
transfer (see Figure 11.5).
Though the overall focus of
this model narrows
generally to the training
process itself, similar to
Goldstein's (1986) ISD
theory, it significantly
broadens our
understanding of the
Figure 11.3 Model of Training Developed by Baldwin process by unpacking the
and Ford (1988)
multilevel factors
impacting training
transfer. By considering
relevant factors at the
individual, team, and
organizational levels, this
model embodies the
systems view of training.
In addition to this
multilevel theme, the
model has two additional
focal themes: content and
Click to view larger
congruence. In terms of
Figure 11.4 Model of Training Transfer Developed
(p. 337) content, Kozlowski
by Thayer and Teachout (1995)
and Salas (1997)
differentiate between techno-structural factors (e.g., individual KSAs, task
interdependence, organizational goals/resources) and enabling processes (e.g., individual
social/interpersonal skills, team coordination, organizational culture/climate). Finally, the
key to the model lies in the theme of congruence. Kozlowski and colleagues (Kozlowski &

Page 10 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Salas, 1997; Kozlowski et al., 2000) argue that alignment of the critical factors and
processes among all three levels is vital for training effectiveness. It is through alignment
both within and between levels that trained knowledge, skills, and attitudes can permeate
to the actual work environment. Overall, this model and corresponding propositions
embodied the shift in the scientific conceptualization of training by addressing the
reciprocal interplay of variables at various levels and the impact of congruence between
these factors.

More recent work has also focused on adaptive transfer, that is, when trainees utilize the
KSAs learned in training to solve a completely novel problem or apply the skills learned in
training to a completely novel situation or task (Ivancic & Hesketh, 2000). For example,
Kozlowski and colleagues (1999; Bell & Kozlowski, 2008; Kozlowski, Toney, et al., 2001)
present a model for integrated-embedded training systems designed to enhance
adaptability. Their model,focuses on training components and strategies that facilitate
self-regulation and, ergo, retention and adaptation. A detailed review of the adaptive
training and transfer literature can be found in Bell and Kozlowski (2009).

While our intention is not

to present a new model of
training, a revised version
of the comprehensive
model of training originally
proposed Tannenbaum and
colleagues (1993; Cannon-
Bowers et al., 1995) is
used as an organizational
framework for the
remainder of this chapter
(see Figure 11.1). This
model integrates the
multilevel perspective and
a unique process-oriented,
Figure 11.5 Multilevel Model of Training Transfer by
Kozlowski and Salas (1997)
longitudinal approach in
the consideration of those
factors important before, during, and after training. Additionally, it integrates
Kirkpatrick's (1976) framework for training evaluation (discussed in greater detail later
in this chapter) and explicitly includes trainee attitudes, motivation, and expectations.
The comprehensive nature of this model lays a foundation for the discussion of the
science of training; therefore, we utilize it as a basis for the organizational framework for
this chapter. We begin with those factors and processes relevant to the planning, design,
and development of training, followed by a discussion of instructional strategies and
other considerations relevant during training itself. Finally, we cover training evaluation
(p. 338) and the feedback loops that exist among evaluation outcomes and initial design

Page 11 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

factors. Each box in the model is annotated with a number linking it to relevant in-text
discussion.

Training Antecedents: Training Needs Analysis

and Consideration of Multilevel Factors
To develop training that addresses important organizational objectives in a strategic and
effective manner, the science of training has demonstrated training needs analysis as a
vital first step in the training process. In this section we begin with a discussion of the
components of training needs analysis, followed by a deeper examination of the state of
science regarding individual, team, and organizational antecedents. Numbers appearing
next to headings in subsequent sections map back to the chapter framework presented in
Figure 11.1.

Training Needs Analysis(1)

A thorough needs analysis includes the answers to three key questions: (a) what training
is needed, (b) where training is needed, and (c) who needs to be trained (Goldstein &
Ford, 2002). In providing this essential targeting information, the needs analysis process
is considered the indispensable starting point for training program development. Nearly
all models of training and instructional design include needs analyses in their first step
(e.g., Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995; Dick & Carey, 1996; Molenda, Pershing, & Reigeluth,
1996).

The purpose of the needs analysis process is to (a) specify specific learning objectives, (b)
provide vital insight regarding how training should be designed and delivered, and (c)
develop training effectiveness criteria (Salas, Wilson, et al., 2006). To achieve these goals,
need analysis is comprised of three subanalyses: organizational analysis, job/task
analysis, and (p. 339) person analysis. The components and steps of each are discussed
next.

Organizational Analysis
Organizational analysis is the first step in conducting a training needs analysis. The goal
of this system-wide analysis is to determine the state of environmental conditions and the
availability of resources that may impact training delivery and transfer of trained skills
into the real job setting (Goldstein, 1993). Even the most well-designed and implemented
training programs may fail due to organizational barriers and constraints; however,
organizational analysis allows such factors to be identified and potentially amended prior
to training. Such analyses must include explicit consideration of organizational goals,
norms, culture and climate, policies, resources available, potential barriers and
constraints, and support for training transfer and their level of congruence with training

Page 12 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

objectives (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001). Cannon-Bowers and colleagues (1995) also
note that organizational factors, such as culture, history, and policies, can have an
indirect impact on training effectiveness by influencing trainee expectations and
motivation.

Organizational analysis is intimately related to training transfer. Models of training

transfer, such as those discussed previously, provide a framework for conducting such
analysis, as they focus on factors generally exterior to the training program itself that
may exert significant impact on the trainees’ abilities to implement and utilize trained
skills in their daily working environment. These models tend to emphasize the role of
organizational culture and climate in transfer; ergo, detailed analyses of these factors are
a vital first step in organizational analysis. For example, Rouiller and Goldstein (1993)
proposed and tested a conceptual framework for measuring transfer climate, breaking
the construct down into two types of workplace cues and eight distinct dimensions.
Situation cues relate to the salience of opportunities to utilize trained skills on the job and
were proposed to include four dimensions: goal cues, social cues, task cues, and self-
control cues. Consequence cues, meanwhile, relate to the ramifications and feedback that
trainees receive when utilizing trained competencies on the job. Again, this cue is also
conceptualized by four dimensions: positive feedback, negative feedback, no feedback,
and punishment.

Overall organizational analysis involves thinking about and examining those pre-, during,
and post-training factors that will enhance or inhibit the attainment of training objectives
and on-the-job use of trained competencies. Analyzing these factors in the beginning
ensures that the strongest foundation possible is laid to support training success.

Job/Task Analysis
Analysis of the job and the actual tasks involved in the job comprise the second step in
training needs analysis. The purpose of this second step is to determine and define the
characteristics of the tasks being trained in order to formulate clear, comprehensive
training objectives. It is vital to note that the end product of a job analysis results is a
description of the job itself, not any individual worker filling the job at any particular time
(Goldstein, 1991). While we provide a general overview in this section, comprehensive
treatments of job/task analysis and its methodologies can be found in both Goldstein
(1991) and Brannick and Levine (2002).

Generally, a job analysis comprises three main steps. The first entails clarifying the job
description itself. This involves gathering information regarding the relevant work
functions of the job and necessary resources. While behaviorally based methods of task
analysis (e.g., observation of on-the-job behaviors) offer a means to determine overt job-
relevant behavioral tasks, cognitive task analysis (CTA) has been developed as a means to
establish understanding of the cognitive-processing requirements and the required
implicit knowledge of a given job (Hoffman & Militello, 2008; Schraagen, Chipman, &
Shalin, 2000). Various methods are included under the umbrella of CTA, including
structure interviews with both job experts and non-experts, critical incident and critical

Page 13 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

decision techniques, and concept mapping (Crandall, Klein, & Hoffman, 2006; Roth,
2008). A practically based “how-to” overview of CTA can be found in Crandall and
colleagues (2006).

Another resource for developing task statements and determining underlying

competencies and skills is the O*NET online occupational network database
(www.online.onetcenter.org) developed by the U.S. Department of Labor. Each
occupational listing in the O*NET database is accompanied by a list of tasks and work
activities, technologies utilized, relevant KSAs, related work styles and interests, and
wage/employment trends compiled from the U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics. Specifically,
the descriptions in O*NET are organized around the O*NET Content Model (National
Center for O*NET Development, n.d.) which includes six major categories of information
(p. 340) about each occupation: (a) worker characteristics (e.g., occupational interests,

work style), (b) worker requirements (e.g., KSAs), (c) experience requirements (e.g.,
training, licensing), (d) occupation-specific information (e.g., tasks, tools/technology), (e)
workforce characteristics (e.g., labor market, occupational outlook), and (f) occupational
requirements (e.g., work activities, organizational context).

The job description, as well as interviews with incumbents, supervisors, and information
gathered from other sources is then used to specify in detail the actual tasks comprising
the job and the conditions under which these tasks are completed. Specific statements
are generated to describe the details of each task. Though there are several variants on
the “rules” of writing task statements (e.g., Fine & Cronshaw, 1999; Prien, Goldstein, &
Macey, 1987; U.S. Department of Labor, 1972), the literature tends to agree that they
should be formulated in present tense, should be very short, should utilize functional
verbs, and should describe, at the least, the “who, what, and why” of each task. For
example, Fine and Cronshaw (1999) describe the structure of task statements in terms of
answers to the specific set of questions presented in Table 11.2.

Once task statements are developed, they are organized into clusters, as defined by
subject matter experts (SMEs), and/or using statistical techniques such as factor analysis
of SME responses to ratings of the task statements on various dimensions, such as the
dimensions of criticality, frequency, difficulty, and so on, suggested by Gael (1983). The
final phase of job analysis is to determine the competencies (knowledge, skills, and
abilities) associated with each cluster and task. Defining the necessary KSAs and linking
them with tasks can be the most difficult step of job analysis; however, in the context of
training, it is also the most vital step. Not only does this drive the formulation of training
objectives, but during this step trainers can also determine if they will utilize actual job
tasks for training purposes or need to rely on simulation or other proxies during training
(Goldstein, 1991).

Table 11.2 Fine and Cronshaw's (1999) List of Questions Suggested for Writing and
Formatting Task Statements

Page 14 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Question

Who? (subject)
Performs what action? (action verb)
To whom or what? (verb object)
Upon what instructions or sources of information? (phrase)
Using what tools, equipment, or work aids? (phrase)
To produce/achieve what output? (in order to… )

Adapted from Fine & Cronshaw (1999, p. 50).

Person Analysis
The purpose of the final stage of a training needs analysis, the person analysis, is to
determine who needs to be trained and what kind of training and instruction these
specific individuals need (Goldstein, 1991; Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992). Person analysis
ensures that the right people receive the right training, targeting the KSAs they need.

The end product of this needs analysis process should be a set of clearly defined, yet
concise, training objectives (i.e., what are the goals of training?), learning objectives (i.e.,
desired cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes), and enabling objectives (i.e., what
must be done to enable transfer and skill use on the job?). Most importantly, this set of
objectives should also be defined so that they are clearly measurable.

Now that the process of training needs analysis has been described, we delve deeper into
the potential content areas to be considered during such analysis. In terms of our
organizational framework, this includes discussion of individual trainee characteristics,
organizational characteristics, trainee motivation, and expectations.

Individual Trainee Characteristics(2)

Characteristics of individual trainees must be considered during both pre-training

planning and post-training, as they exert significant impact on learning and behavioral
outcomes. Cognitive ability, self-efficacy, goal orientation, locus of control, organizational
commitment, expectations, and motivation have all been conceptualized as important
factors influencing training effectiveness. These factors form the foundation of learning,
upon which an effective training design and transfer environment must be overlaid in
order to facilitate the learning and application of new job skills.

Page 15 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Cognitive Ability
The effects of cognitive ability, known as g or general ability, have been studied in regard
to (p. 341) training through the lens of knowledge acquisition. Early meta-analytic work
by Hunter (1983) demonstrated that cognitive ability exerts causal influence on both
objective work sample performance and supervisory rated job performance via its impact
on job knowledge acquisition. This notion has been supported in other models and
subsequent empirical validation tests (e.g., Borman, 1991; Schmidt, Hunter, &
Outerbridge, 1986). These results have been extended by investigating the impact of g on
training performance. Specific to training, cognitive ability has been found to influence
job knowledge attainment, especially knowledge attained during the early stages of
training. For example, Ree, Carretta, and Teachout (1995) conducted path analysis using
longitudinal data from military pilots completing a 53-week aviation training course.
Their results showed that cognitive ability was most strongly related to job knowledge.

In addition to traditional conceptualizations of cognitive ability, Salas and Cannon-Bowers

(2001) argue that training developers and researchers should also consider the impact of
factors such as practical intelligence, tacit knowledge, and adaptability on both
traditional training and newer forms of training, such as simulations-based training,
computer-based training, and on-the job training. For example, cognitive flexibility
(Cañas, Quesada, Antoli, & Fajardo, 2003), defined as the ability to adapt cognitive
processes and strategies in response to environmental or situational changes, may be an
important predictor to consider, especially in training programs focused on problem
solving, decision making, and creativity. Cognitively flexible individuals are able to
actively break away from entrenched ways of thinking and redefine problems, enabling
them to learn and create new ideas in complex and ill-structured environments (Spiro &
Jehng, 1990). The validity of cognitive ability and related concepts as predictors of
training transfer, however, will vary depending on the nature of the job itself. Many jobs
require competencies beyond such abilities, such as psychomotor demands and
motivational issues.

Attitudes
The attitudes that an individual holds regarding his or her organization and the training
itself can impact motivation, approach, and involvement in training. Attitudes play a role
both as training antecedents and outcomes of training. Two attitudes that have been
examined include job involvement and organizational commitment.

Job involvement is defined as the degree to which one's job is “central to the individual
and their identity” (Blau, 1985, p. 34). Theoretically, individuals who value their job as
part of their personal character and sense of self should value the outcomes related to
participation in training and use of trained KSAs (Colquitt, LePine, & Noe, 2000; Mathieu
& Martineau, 1997; Mathieu, Tannenbaum, & Salas, 1992). Empirically, the literature has
demonstrated mixed results. Clark (1990) found that job involvement impacts training
outcomes through its effects on pre-training motivation, and earlier work by Noe and
Schmitt (1986) also found a significant relationship between job involvement and pre-

Page 16 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

training motivation (r = .25). The path analysis conducted by Noe and Schmitt (1986),
however, did not support the link between job involvement and pre-training motivation
when the hypothesized model was tested. Meta-analytic findings have also not
demonstrated that same support for this link as found in such singular samples. For
example, while Colquitt et al. (2000) found a significant relationship between motivation
to learn and job involvement (corrected r = .20), path analysis results did not support job
involvement as a predictor of motivation to learn (beta = .06). Additionally, their results
did not indicate any significant relationships between job involvement and learning
outcomes.

Another relevant attitude to consider is organizational commitment. Cannon-Bowers and

colleagues (1995) suggest that organization commitment may be related to training
performance because committed individuals may: (a) be more likely to perceive that
training is beneficial, (b) be willing to put forth greater effort to solidify their success in
training, and (c) have a stronger desire to perform well in training in order to solidify
their position within the organization itself. Organizational commitment has shown
significant relationships with motivation to learn during training (r = .53; Tannenbaum,
Mathieu, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 1991) and also to be positively related to training
generalization (Tesluk, Farr, Mathieu, & Vance, 1995).

Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy (SE), or beliefs in one's own abilities (Bandura, 1977; Chen, Gully, & Eden,
2001), is another individual characteristic that has been found to be intimately related to
learning and performance. A topic of extensive empirical investigation throughout the last
decade, the literature generally (p. 342) supports a positive relationship between self-
efficacy, whether developed before or during training, learning, and performance (e.g.,
Gist, Stevens, & Bavetta, 1991; Mathieu, Martineau, & Tannenbaum, 1993; Stajkovic &
Luthans, 1998; Tracey, Hinkin, Tannenbaum, & Mathieu, 2001). Specifically, self-efficacy
has been shown to be positively related to trainee reactions, including their perceptions
of training utility (Guthrie & Schwoerer, 1994; Mathieu et al., 1992), and motivation
(Quiñones, 1995; Switzer, Nagy, & Mullins, 2005; Tannenbaum et al., 1991)

Furthermore, Gist and Mitchell (1992) suggest that that efficacy perceptions are
malleable and that specific strategies related to training can positively impact SE. Early
work by Mathieu and colleagues (1993) found support for this notion by measuring self-
efficacy at multiple times throughout the course of an eight-week long training course.
Specifically, the results of their structural equation model indicated that pre-training SE
level predicted mid-course SE, which, in turn, predicted both trainee performance (β = .
37) and reactions to training (β = .2). In this sense, self-efficacy came to be viewed as
both an input and output of the training process. Moreover, meta-analytic results by
Colquitt et al. (2000) found significant relationships between pre-training SE and
motivation to learn (corrected r = .42), skill acquisition (corrected r = .32), and transfer
(corrected r = .47). However, others have argued for SE as a product of training
compared to an important antecedent. For example, Heggestad and Kanfer (2005) found

Page 17 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

that when past performance during training was considered SE only accounted for 2
percent of the variance in current training performance, thus lending some support to the
view of SE as an output, rather than a strong predictor of training performance.

Page 18 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Goal Orientation
The construct of goal orientation (GO) was developed as a means for accounting for
individual differences in the cognitive, affective, and behavioral reactions of individuals in
achievement settings, such as training. Though various conceptualizations of goal
orientation exist, the definition espoused by Dweck (1986; Dweck & Leggett, 1988)
describes it as “individual differences in goal preferences in achievement situations.”
These early models described two major classes of goal orientations: (a) learning/mastery
goal orientation, and (b) performance goal orientation. The former describes a motivation
to develop competence and skill mastery; the latter describes a motivation to
demonstrate competence in hopes of gaining praise and avoiding negative judgments.
Vandewalle (1997) later parsed performance goal orientation into two sub-components,
prove performance goal orientation and avoid performance goal orientation, resulting in a
tri-dimensional model. Specifically, prove orientations are driven by a desire to prove
one's competence and gain favorable judgments about it. Conversely, avoid orientations
are driven to avoid the disproving of competence, in order to avoid negative judgments.
Importantly, these orientations are not viewed as orthogonal (i.e., mutually exclusive) and
are generally thought to be a product of both individual and situational factors.
Additionally, meta-analytic results by Day, Yeo, and Radosevich (2003) supported this
three-factor model, demonstrating that this model explained 7 percent more variance in
academic performance then the traditional two-factor model.

Most recently, a four-factor model has also been suggested by Elliot and McGregor
(2001), which breaks down learning goal orientation into mastery approach goal
orientation and mastery avoid orientation. From a mastery approach orientation,
competence is defined in absolute/interpersonal terms and is positively valenced. While
mastery avoid orientation still defines competence in terms of absolute/interpersonal
terms, competence is negatively valenced and more salient. Elliot and McGregor (2001)
give the example of perfectionists who strive to make no mistakes.

While much of the study of the effects of GO in achievement situations has focused on the
primary and secondary educational settings, research has implicated GO in
organizational training transfer. For example, Chiaburu and Marinova (2005) investigated
the relationship with skill transfer in a sample of 186 U.S. employees. Structural equation
modeling analysis indicated that mastery approach orientation was significantly related
to skill transfer to the job environment through the mechanism of pre-training motivation.
Experimental results also support these findings. Kozlowski, Gully, et al. (2001)
manipulated state goal orientation, inducing either a learning or performance goal
orientation. Their results indicated that learning orientation was significantly related to
post-training self-efficacy which, in turn, was related to adaptive post-training
performance. Meta-analytic results (e.g., Payne, Youngcourt, & Beaubien, 2007) have
supported generally positive relationships between learning GO and important outcomes
such as feedback seeking, learning strategies, actual learning, and performance.
Conversely, avoid performance (p. 343) GO has been negatively related, and relationships
with prove GO have been mixed. Additionally, trait GO, conceptualized as a more

Page 19 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

longitudinally stable individual difference, has demonstrated less strong effects compared
to experimentally induced state GO. From a training perspective, such results suggest
that inducing a trainee learning orientation may increase learning outcomes.

Previous Experience
Theories of learning underscore that adults enter training—and any other learning/
development experience—not as blank slates, but rather as banks of previous
experiences. This previous experience is important to consider, as it has been found to
impact training transfer, though results have been mixed. In general, studies that
operationalized experience in terms of tenure find little to no relationship between
experience and training outcomes (e.g., Gordon, Cofer, & McCullough, 1986); rather, the
type of experience seems to matter. Specifically, negative pre-training experiences related
to training objectives have been shown to impact training outcomes. Smith-Jentsch and
colleagues (1996), for example, examined the impact of previous negative experiences in
a sample of pilots undergoing assertiveness training. Negative events were coded into
three categories directly related to training objectives regarding the use of assertiveness
in the cockpit: (a) life-threatening events, (b) events involving flying with a captain using
unsafe procedures, and (c) events in which the trainee felt pressured to take flight
despite mechanical or environmental concerns. Their results demonstrated a linear
relationship between the number of negative events experiences pre-training and
performance in a behavioral exercise carried out one week after training. Though
mediational analysis was not possible, it is suggested that these effects may be mediated
by trainee motivation; that is, trainees with more negative pre-training experiences may
be more motivated to attend and learn from training and, ergo, achieve greater transfer
and outcomes. In support of this hypothesis, Holt and Crocker (2000) found that negative
experiences moderated the impact of achievement motivation on exam performance in a
sample of trainees participating in computer-use training, though the effect size was
small in both models tested (ΔR2 = .009, p 〈 .10 and ΔR2 = .012, p 〈 .05).

Organizational Characteristics(3)

The pre-training organizational environment also indirectly affects training outcomes by

impacting trainee expectations about training, motivation, and individual trainee
characteristics. In addition to shaping several of the individual characteristics mentioned
above (e.g., self-efficacy), organizational characteristics embody the environment into
which newly acquired KSAs will need to be applied. Thus, they can moderate the transfer
of learned skills on the job. The next section summarizes several of these relevant factors.

Organizational Culture/Climate
Organizational culture pervades every aspect of organizational operations—from how
employees interact with one another, as well as with clients and customers, to the task
strategies used to accomplish the work itself. Though there is no single uniformly

Page 20 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

accepted definition of organizational culture (e.g., Cooper, 2000; Denison, 1996;

Guldenmund, 1998; Schein, 1990), the definition presented by Uttal (1983) captures the
fundamental nature of the domain:

…shared values (what is important) and beliefs (how things work) that interact
with a company's people, organizational structures and control systems to
produce behavioral norms (the way we do things around here). (p. 68)

Specifically, culture has been conceptualized as employee behavior, attitudes, cognitions,

interactions, norms, and values. Culture facilitates shared understanding of situations
among organization members, making coordination and cooperation possible (Alvesson,
2002). Additionally, there are multiple aspects of an organization's culture (Guion, 1973).
Furthermore, culture has been argued to impact all organizational outcomes, including
training and development outcomes.

Similarly, organizational climate is defined as employee perceptions of organizational

culture (Choudhry, Fang, & Mohamed, 2007). In the strict sense, the literature has
dictated that using questionnaires to measure employee perceptions of culture falls under
the category of climate because it lacks the ability to measure all aspects of culture, such
as actual behavior, rules, and norms (Cooper, 2000).

As noted by Tannenbaum and colleagues (1993), trainees look for cues in the
organizational culture regarding the degree to which training is important and valued,
whether training/development is considered a punishment or reward, and whether others
who are successful in the organization have attended similar training/development
opportunities. In addition to peers, supervisors (p. 344) and leadership play key roles in
the formation and transmission of culture (Burke, 1997). The literature has repeatedly
demonstrated the impact of supervisory support both pre- and post-training on training
outcomes. Trainees with supportive supervisors report putting more effort toward
transferring KSAs that they had learned to the workplace (Cohen, 1990; Huczynski &
Lewis, 1980). Additionally, such support has been linked with pre-training motivation
(Facteau, Dobbins, Russell, Ladd, & Kudisch, 1995) and post-training simulation
performance (Smith-Jentsch, Salas, & Brannick, 2001).

Post-training transfer climate has been found to have a strong impact upon the degree to
which employee training is transferred to the job (Kraiger, 2003). Transfer climate has
been found to influence trainees’ ability to generalize skills acquired in training, post-
training self-efficacy, and motivation to transfer (Cheng & Hampson, 2008; Rouiller &
Goldstein, 1993; Tracey et al., 1995; Tziner, Haccoun, & Kadish, 1991; Xiao, 1996). Other
studies have found connections between social, peer, subordinate, and supervisor support
and transfer, such that the level of support predicts training transfer (Burke & Baldwin,
1999; Facteau et al., 1995; Seyler, Holton, Bates, Burnett, & Carvalho, 1998). Overall,
these results imply a strong connection between the post-training environment,
particularly in terms of climate, and training transfer. Organizations must therefore be

Page 21 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

aware of this fact throughout the training process and must ensure that the environment
provides opportunities to apply skills and knowledge developed through training on the
job.

Policies and Procedures

Organizational policies and procedures are two factors central to organizational culture
and climate. Formal organizational policies are broad requirements set forth by
management embodying expectations for various aspects of organizational membership,
including job performance, dress, and on-the-job behavior (Degani & Wiener, 1997).
Procedures establish the means through which employees are to adhere to the policies.
For example, to adhere to regulatory guidelines, accredited U.S. hospitals have a policy
requiring their surgical teams to complete a time-out—a brief review of the patient,
procedure, and site of the upcoming surgical procedure—to help ensure that the correct
procedure will be performed on the correct body part of the correct patient. To achieve
this, many have adopted pre-surgical procedures involving a checklist listing each
element to be discussed. Even if a well-designed training program was utilized to teach
employees about the policy and provide them with opportunities to practice using the
checklist, issues arise when informal social elements of the organizational culture or
other organizational goals run counter to either component, as has been underscored in
the literature on workplace safety (e.g., Hofmann & Stetzer, 1996; Mullen, 2004). For
example, subjective social norms, time pressures, or competing goals, may subversively
encourage employees to deviate from formal policies or procedures. Formal policies and
procedures can also be incomplete or it may be unclear when certain formal procedures
are appropriate. Additionally, if employees perceive that leaders place total emphasis on
organizational goals related to productivity or efficiency, they may perceive training to be
related to skills less important for desirable workplace outcomes, such as promotion.
Therefore, motivation to attend, learn, and transfer trained KSAs may suffer when
organizational policies and procedures do not explicitly demonstrate the value of training
or reinforce the use of newly learned material on the job.

Trainee Selection/Notification
The methods in which trainees are selected and notified of training have also been found
to be important factors in training effectiveness. Focal issues include voluntary
participation, how training is framed, and the information that trainees receive prior to
training. These issues are summarized by Quiñones and Ehrenstein (1997), who assert
that trainee motivation to learn is affected by the degree to which decisions to participate
in training are perceived as being fair, whether trainees have control over the decision to
participate in training, and whether training is framed positively. Traditional motivational
theories emphasizing the role of controllability (e.g., Pritchard & Ashwood, 2008) support
the link between trainee control over their decision to participate in training and
motivation to learn. Additionally, empirical work has demonstrated that trainees given a
choice regarding participation report higher motivation and pre-training self-efficacy,
more positive reactions to training, and demonstrate a higher degree of learning (e.g.,

Page 22 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Baldwin & Magjuka, 1997; Baldwin, Magjuka, & Loher, 1991; Hicks & Klimoski, 1987;
Mathieu et al., 1993)

The way in which training is framed is another important factor. As indicated by Baldwin
and Ford (1988), training can be portrayed as “punishment for past sins” (p. 119) or as an
opportunity for advancing one's career. The opportunity frame has (p. 345) been found to
be positively related to trainee efficacy and learning outcomes, and negatively related to
anxiety (Martocchio, 1992). Drawing from the literature on social justice (e.g., Gamliel &
Peer, 2006), framing may also impact trainee perceptions of justice in training selection
and may, in turn, potentially affect pre-training motivation.

Tied to the way in which training is framed, the amount and type of information provided
to employees also has been suggested as a key pre-training factor. Existing evidence
suggests that simply providing positive information about training is not enough. Realistic
previews of training that, include information regarding the difficulty, rigor, and time
commitment to the program, have been more consistently linked with trainee motivation
to learn (Hicks & Klimoski, 1987; Martocchio, 1992; Russ-Eft, 2002; Webster &
Martocchio, 1995).

Situational Constraints
Several situational constraints have also been argued to impact training effectiveness,
including resource availability (e.g., necessary equipment, supplies, and information),
workload, and opportunities to use newly learned KSAs. Goldstein (1993) emphasized
that trainee perceptions of the work environment and availability of resources impact
motivation to learn and the degree to which trainees are actively able to transfer new
competencies. Mathieu and colleagues (1992) also found that trainee perceptions of
situational constraints in the transfer environment have negatively impacted motivation
to learn. Without the tools, equipment, or resources necessary to utilize new
competencies on the job, transfer and generalization become impossible.

In addition to physical and informational resources, learning and transfer also require
time and energy. Therefore, an individual's (or team's) workload can help or hinder
motivation to learn and transfer (Russ-Eft, 2002). Several studies have found negative
relationships between workload, stress, and on-the-job skill use (Decker & Nathan, 1985).
Rooney (1985), for example, examined training transfer in a sample of social
caseworkers. Results implicated high caseload volume and time constraints in the failure
of certain components of training to transfer into the actual work environment.

Related to the impact of workload, opportunities to use trained competencies on the job
play a key role in training transfer and effectiveness (Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992). In a
study of computer skills training, Pentland (1989) found that long-term retention was
related to the degree to which trainees applied new skills immediately after training.
Similar conclusions have been drawn by Seyler and colleagues (1998) and Clarke (2002).
Ford, Quiñones, Sego, and Sorra (1992) found that supervisor support for training played
a significant role in the provision of opportunities to perform trained competencies in a

Page 23 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

military sample. In essence, such opportunities provide vital practice needed to retain
and generalize newly learned skills (Ghodsian, Bjork, & Benjamin, 1997; Schmidt & Bjork,
1992). Additionally, opportunities to apply training in varied situations lead to the
generation of usable knowledge structures (i.e., mental models), which enhance
performance (Satish & Streufert, 2002; Shih & Alessi, 1994).

Trainee Motivation and Expectations(6)

Individual characteristics and organizational characteristics shape trainee expectations

prior to training. These pre-formed “first impressions” can exert a strong influence on
training motivation. Furthermore, the degree to which these expectations are met (or
unmet) has been argued as a key factor in training transfer (Feldman, 1989; Hicks &
Klimoski, 1987; ; Hoiberg & Berry, 1978; Holton, 1996; Tannenbaum et al., 1991). Holton
(1996) coined the term intervention fulfillment to describe the degree to which trainee
expectations about training are met. Tannenbaum and colleagues (1991) took a unique
perspective on the fulfillment of trainee expectations. They conceptualized fulfillment in a
way that accounted for individual differences in valence (desirability) of various training
experiences, giving the example that all trainees may expect the training to be rigorous;
however, some may desire such a challenge, whereas others may not. Their results
indicated that fulfillment of training expectations was related to attitudes targeted during
military recruit socialization training (e.g., organizational commitment, self-efficacy) and
training motivation.

Motivation to Learn
Training motivation is defined in terms of the intensity, direction, and persistence of
effort that trainees apply to learning activities before, during, and after training (Kanfer,
1991; Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2000). As discussed in the previous section, trainee
motivation to attend and learn from training is directly impacted by both individual
characteristics (e.g., self-efficacy, cognitive ability, personality) and organizational factors
(e.g., organizational culture/climate, feedback). Meta-analytic results by (p. 346) Colquitt
et al. (2000) also support training motivation as a multifaceted construct impacted by
these factors. Furthermore, Latham (1989) stipulates that motivation should be
considered as both an input and output of training.

In most models of training, motivation is the key mechanism through which these factors
impact training outcomes, as well as the driver of training effectiveness. This theoretical
foundation is supported empirically by results demonstrating that motivation is related to
learning during training, completion of the training program, retention of KSAs after
training, and trainee willingness to transfer skills to the actual workplace (e.g.,
Martocchio, 1992; Mathieu et al., 1992; Quiñones, 1995).

Transfer occurs over an extended period of time; therefore maintenance of motivation to

transfer and maintenance of trained skills is important for training effectiveness.
Empirical evidence shows that training motivation decreases over time (Tannenbaum et

Page 24 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

al., 1991). It has been argued, however, that a critical period for transfer occurs
immediately following training (e.g., Baldwin & Ford, 1988). As pointed out by Marx
(1982), this period is when errors in use of new KSAs may occur; therefore opportunities
to practice with feedback and reinforcement by management during this time play vital
roles in prolonged skill use. Axtell, Maitlis, and Yearta (1997) found motivation to transfer
related to trainee ratings of transfer at both one month and one year after a training
course. In recognition that motivation wanes over time, methods have been developed to
enhance post-training motivation and to prolong transfer. These are discussed in greater
detail in the later section on maintenance interventions.

During Training: Instructional Strategies and Design(5)

The information yielded in training needs analysis plays a vital role in training and
learning for organizations, but the process does not simply stop at this point. Moving
from training antecedents into training design, there are many elements that are key to
the successful development of instructional systems. In the following section, we review
training content, strategies, and principles that may impact training design and learning
in organizations, as modeled in Figure 11.1. Furthermore, we will highlight both
individual and organizational characteristics that may impact training design. Finally, we
will address future needs that must be addressed to ensure the development of successful
instructional strategies and design.

Training Content: Developing Training

Objectives and Determining Targeted
Competencies

Page 25 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

The development of training objectives ends the needs assessment phase and moves into
the training design phase of work instructional systems. Training objectives are defined
as precise statements which detail a desired behavioral expectation that is conducted to a
particular performance standard under certain conditions (Goldstein & Ford, 2002).
These objectives reflect training needs and a standard of performance that makes it clear
when and how learning can be demonstrated. According to Noe (2008), training
objectives have three components: (a) a statement of what the employee is expected to
do, (b) a statement of the acceptable quality or level of performance, and (c) a statement
of the conditions under which the trainee is expected to perform the desired outcome.

Training objectives are the result of identifying tasks and their necessary KSAs, identified
during needs analysis (Goldstein & Ford, 2002). Given a particular task that requires a
specific set of KSAs, objectives should identify the behaviors required in order to
successfully accomplish this task. Furthermore, the objective should identify any
necessary resources needed to complete the specific behaviors. Training objectives
should also identify any conditions under which the behavior is expected to occur,
including conditions of the physical work setting, mental stresses, or equipment failures
(Noe, 2002). Additionally, objectives may also identify ineffective behaviors that do not
lead to successful task completion.

Within a training program, there are typically different types of objectives (Noe, 2002).
These objectives include program objectives, which are broad statements that summarize
the general purpose of the training. Course (or lesson) objectives are a second type of
objective identified, and are related to the goals of a specific course or lesson within a
program of training. Once these objectives are developed, they must be assigned a
sequence in the instructional design such that prerequisite knowledge is acquired before
more complex information is introduced (Gagne, Briggs, & Wager, 1992). No matter what
type of objective is developed, it should provide a clear understanding as to what is
expected of trainees at the end of training. Objectives should not simply aid in informing
training design, but should also be utilized to measure training outcomes (Noe, 2002).
Measures of performance should be designed around the (p. 347) objectives of a training
program, as will be discussed further in this chapter.

Instructional Strategies and Principles

With the development and sequencing of learning objectives, instructional design

development begins (Goldstein & Ford, 2002). Given that the goal of training is to ensure
that trainees are learning material and are transferring it back to the workplace,
understanding the learning process plays an important role in determining appropriate
instructional strategies (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001). According to Salas and Cannon-
Bowers (1997), instructional strategies are tools, methods, and content, combined to
create an instructional approach. Selecting the appropriate instructional strategy based
upon clearly defined learning objectives is key to the success of any training program, as
inappropriate strategies will prevent the effective transfer of training to practice. For

Page 26 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

example, common mismatches include objectives that require trainees to demonstrate

specific behaviors matched with instructional strategies that do not provide adequate
opportunity to practice targeted behaviors. Evolving conceptualizations of instructional
design directly incorporate learning theory, such as active learning approaches (e.g., Bell
& Kozlowski, 2008, 2009; Kozlowski, Toney, et al., 2001). In this section, we will highlight
several strategies commonly used in training design development. We will then present
instructional principles that should be considered when utilizing these strategies.

Types of Strategies
First, it is necessary to present the different types of strategies used in training design.
The most common strategies utilized in training today tend to fall into three categories:
information-based, demonstration-based, and practice-based strategies (Salas & Cannon-
Bowers, 1997). While the goal of each of these strategies is to successfully present
learning objectives, each takes a slightly different approach in the methods utilized to
present the information.

Information-based strategies are grounded in providing information to trainees, primarily

through methods such as lectures, presentations, or web-based instruction. These are the
most widely used methods for training, as they are easy to implement and are cost
effective, particularly when large numbers of individuals need training. However, these
methods do not allow for individuals to interact with the material being presented, as
they are a passive means of learning.

In order to promote more interactivity with the training material, two additional
strategies are often used. First, demonstration-based strategies are focused primarily on
providing opportunities for trainees to observe required behaviors and actions. These
methods are often used when complex information is to be learned, as they allow for
multiple learning objectives to be embedded in one demonstration. However, trainees are
simply observers and are unable to actually interact with practicing the task itself.

The final instructional strategy, practice, engages learners in active use of targeted
knowledge, skills, or attitudes during learning sessions. Practice alone, as will be
discussed later in this chapter, is not sufficient in itself for learning, but with the
appropriate structuring can be a very useful tool. Practice utilizes cueing, coaching, and
feedback in order to support the development, transfer, and generalization of targeted
KSAs. Practice can involve role playing, behavioral modeling, computer-based simulation,
and guided practice (Salas et al., 2006). Although practice can be a beneficial
instructional strategy, it is often misused and is not well understood (Salas & Cannon-
Bowers, 1997). Therefore, it is important that with this strategy—as well as all of the
others—training designers carefully consider the principles of effective information
sharing, demonstration, and deliberate practice.

Instructional Principles for Training Design

Page 27 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Each of the aforementioned strategies can be useful in a variety of training designs.

However, without applying sound instructional principles during the implementation of
these strategies, none will be successful. There are numerous instructional principles that
can be applied to instructional design, including providing feedback, using cognitive and
behavioral modeling, allowing for meaningful practice, and breaking down complex
objectives into manageable pieces. While models of adult learning were discussed in
previous sections, the following section highlights several basic learning principles such
as these that are critical to the success of training design.

Learning is not a one-time event, but instead occurs and evolves over time, so the
proceduralization of knowledge should be a key aspect of any instructional design.
Essentially, an effective training design will promote the proceduralization of knowledge,
which will in turn lead to expertise (Ford & Kraiger, 1995). This expertise can only be
developed, however, by training systems that have a strong theoretical foundation.
Although training design may (p. 348) take a variety of formats, depending on the
knowledge acquired through the needs assessment and the type of information that is to
be taught, if it does not incorporate basic learning principles, it can lead to poor learning
outcomes (Campbell, 1988; Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001). The following section
discusses in further detail current learning and cognition theories and how they can be
successfully incorporated into training design to maximize knowledge acquisition as well
as ensure successful transfer.

Gagne et al. (1992) emphasize a set of categories of learning outcomes that organize
human performance into intellectual skills, cognitive strategies, verbal information,
attitudes, and motor skills. Intellectual skills focus primarily upon procedural knowledge,
while cognitive strategies involve a type of strategic knowledge that requires problem-
solving practice. Gagne and colleagues (1992) theorized that tasks and behaviors should
be categorized into one of these outcomes in order to match them to the appropriate
learning conditions. Therefore, it is important that learning outcomes are taken into
consideration not only for training design, but also in analyzing the needs of an
organization (Goldstein & Ford, 2002).

Adult learning is another concept that must be taken into consideration during training,
particularly in training design. Realizing that adult learning is different from adolescent
learning is a critical step in designing an effective training program, as there are basic
assumptions about adult learners that must be considered. As noted in the earlier section
on models of adult learning, adults tend to want to know why they are learning
something, need to be self-directed, bring more experience, enter with a problem-
centered approach to learning, and are motivated to learn for both extrinsic and intrinsic
reasons (London & Mone, 1999). Understanding how adults learn can affect the entire
instructional system, as it will impact how they perceive the suggestion for training, the
actual training design itself, and how well the information transfers to the workplace.
Clearly, learning processes play a large role in instructional systems, whether it involves

Page 28 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

taking learning principles into account during needs assessment or utilizing appropriate
learning outcomes in the evaluation of a training design.

Cognition must also be a consideration in instructional design, as training is a behavioral/

cognitive/affective event (Kraiger et al., 1993). Training should tie cognitive events to
design principles in order to enforce the acquisition of expertise. One of the primary
considerations related to cognition is the idea of expertise versus novice understanding of
a task (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001). Experts have an automaticity of knowledge that is
not present in a novice, which allows them to establish effective mental models of
information. Gitomer (1988) studied the development of mental models in experts and
novices, and found expert mental models much more developed and organized than those
of novices, allowing experts to complete tasks in a more efficient manner.

Smith and colleagues note the importance of building adaptive expertise as environments
constantly change (Smith, Ford, & Kozlowski, 1997). Developing expertise is therefore an
essential cognitive process that must be considered in instructional systems, particularly
training design. Another implication would be during the development of KSA-task
clusters in the needs assessment process. Ford and Kraiger (1995) argue that KSA-task
clusters do not get at the depth of knowledge that experts tend to have, especially in
relation to mental models. They present cognitive task analysis as an alternative that can
target not only surface skills and tasks, but a deeper understanding of how tasks are
accomplished. By developing this deeper understanding, a better training program can be
developed, which should ensure more successful transfer via more precise learning
objectives.

Individual and Organizational Characteristics Influencing Training

Design

There are several areas within training design in which organizational and individual
characteristics variables must be considered. As previously discussed, individual
characteristics such as attitudes, abilities, and self-efficacy can influence training
motivation and expectations about training. Furthermore, organizational factors such as
organizational climate and opportunities to practice have been linked to successful
training outcomes. Therefore, it is important that organizations consider both types of
factors when developing training design. In the following section, we will discuss areas in
which organizational and individual characteristics come into play during training design.
These include determining whether training should be individual or team based, allowing
opportunities for practice, and providing feedback.

Teams versus Individuals

An important facet of training that must be considered in training design is whether
individuals will be trained by themselves or with team members. (p. 349) Training teams
has become a major issue in recent years, as there has been an increase in the use of
teams in organizations (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001). Team training involves the

Page 29 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

development of instructional strategies that can be utilized to influence team processes

(Salas, Cannon-Bowers, & Smith-Jentsch, 2006). Team training has two primary facets:
training team members together to complete a task, or training team members separately
to work interdependently (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001). Which method to utilize
depends on the nature of the task and the longevity of the team. Organizations must
therefore carefully analyze this information during training design in order to ensure that
the most beneficial method of training is selected.

Several factors have been identified as critical to effectively determining whether to train
as individuals or to train teams. Most importantly, training should be viewed from an
organizational systems perspective, as this enables organizations to see training as more
than just an individual-level intervention, but instead as a means to invoke organizational
change at multiple levels (Kozlowski & Salas, 1997; Kozlowski, Toney, et al., 2001).
According to Kozlowski and Salas (1997), there are three dimensions that factor into
decisions regarding where training should be targeted: levels, content, and congruence.

First, there is a need for organizations to identify the level of analysis required to achieve
training- induced change, as this aids in driving what the focal unit of training will be and
how this unit can be targeted in order to ensure the upward transfer of training.
Furthermore, identifying the focal content provides further information regarding where
to target training, as it operationalizes the constructs of interest for a given training
situation. Finally, congruence involves ensuring contextual consistency across levels and
content areas. By considering each of these three facets, organizations can weigh the
organizational factors and processes that impact training success and transfer. In doing
so, the most appropriate level of analysis for targeting training can be successfully
identified to ensure maximal gain from such training interventions.

If conducted correctly, team training can lead to highly successful teams that are better
prepared than individuals to tackle highly integrated and interdependent tasks.
Leadership can also play a role in team training, as effective leaders can help teams
develop by selecting which issues need more focus (Kozlowski, Gully, Salas, & Cannon-
Bowers, 1996). While team training can be a great advantage for interdependent tasks, it
can be very time and resource consuming, particularly training in teams. Also, since the
focus is both task and team development, team training can be very challenging
(Goldstein & Ford, 2002).

Practice Opportunities
Practice is an important element in the training process, as it allows trainees an
opportunity to utilize the skills they have learned in an environment that is safe for
mistakes and errors (Ericsson & Charness, 1994; Goldstein & Ford, 2002). Practice
involves reducing errors in enactment of the targeted training ability by having the
trainee repeat the task. There are two primary ways to approach practice: massed and
spaced. Massed practice involves practicing with few intervals within practice sessions,

Page 30 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

whereas spaced practice involves spreading out training with rest intervals (Goldstein &
Ford, 2002).

In general, practice is necessary for successful training transfer and heightened

performance. In a multilevel analysis, Yeo and Neal (2004) found that the relationship
between effort and performance was heightened by practice. Differing effects have been
found for spaced and massed practice, with certain variables affecting the relationship of
practice and performance (Goldstein & Ford, 2002). According to DeCecco (1968), spaced
practice appears to be more effective for motor skill tasks. Donovan and Radosevich
(1999) found in their meta-analysis that the nature of the task, the intertrial time period,
and the interaction of task and time moderated the relationship between practice
conditions and performance, although massed practice was generally found to be less
effective that spaced practice. The primary drawback to practice is the amount of time
needed to effectively practice tasks to expertise, especially if spaced practice is involved.
Organizations that want to encourage successful training transfer to on-the-job behaviors
must therefore allow time for practice. Furthermore, the organization's climate must
promote an acceptance of practice and a culture of learning if transfer is to occur. The
implications of organizational culture and climate on training will be discussed later in
the chapter.

Feedback
Incorporating feedback into training design is also a crucial step to promote successful
training transfer (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Yeo & Neal, 2004). Feedback has numerous
functions, including the evaluation of performance and practice, as well as cuing what a
trainee is doing correctly or incorrectly. Another function of feedback is the type of
(p. 350) information provided, whether it is process or outcome. Process feedback

provides information about how successfully processes to accomplish a task were

performed, and provides a trainee with direct information about where changes can be
made, building better mental models and promoting a more successful reception of
feedback. Outcome feedback focuses solely on the performance outcomes, whether or not
they were successful. This type of feedback can be less useful, as it does not tell the
trainee what specific changes need to be made.

Feedback is a focal point of training design considerations, as it was one of the first
variables found to support learning (Goldstein & Ford, 2002). Numerous studies have
been conducted in order to better understand how feedback impacts performance and
learning, with varying results. Feedback has been recognized by some as essential for
organizational effectiveness; without it, anxiety, inaccurate self-evaluations, and a
diversion of effort toward feedback-gathering activities will occur (Taylor, Fisher, & Ilgen,
1984). Other research has illustrated links between feedback and employees’ job
motivation, satisfaction, absenteeism, and turnover (Fried & Ferris, 1987).

However, the connections between feedback and performance outcomes are not always
positive. Kluger and DeNisi (1996) noted that while feedback has often been viewed as
beneficial to performance, studies to determine its impacts have in fact found

Page 31 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

contradictory and often negative effects. Their meta-analysis revealed that while
feedback interventions improved performance on average, over a third of interventions
actually led to decreases in performance. The resulting feedback intervention theory
(FIT) was proposed in order to account for these differences. This theory explains the
differences in feedback interventions as a result of changes in the locus of attention
among three levels of control: task learning, task motivation, and meta-tasks (including
self-related). As the focus of attention moves up the hierarchy and closer to the self,
feedback interventions decrease in effectiveness.

While not all interventions are successful, some methods of providing feedback have been
found to be more beneficial than others. In particular, feedback from multiple sources has
been found to be especially useful in terms of enhancing performance, as noted by
Smither and colleagues (2005) in their meta-analysis. Their results found that
multisource feedback was linked to leadership effectiveness and performance.
Additionally, their findings revealed that improvement is most likely to occur when
feedback indicates that change is necessary, recipients have a positive feedback
orientation, identify a need to alter their behavior, believe change is possible, set
appropriate goals, and take actions leading to skill and performance improvement.

One of the primary limitations of feedback is the fact that individual differences can play
a large role in giving and receiving feedback. Some people take cuing feedback very
negatively and see it as an overall evaluation of performance. Therefore, it is critical that
feedback is provided in an effective manner that is most applicable to the individuals
being trained. Salas and colleagues (2002) provide several guidelines for the successful
delivery of feedback. These include providing feedback in a timely manner so that
knowledge can be adjusted before incorrect behaviors become habitual. Additionally,
giving both types of feedback (both process and outcome) that is clear, concise, and
constructive will allow a more comprehensive understanding of correct and incorrect
behaviors. Salas and colleagues also recommend that feedback be based on training
objectives, as well as being linked to specific skill performance. These recommendations
are designed to ensure that feedback is focused on the task and not the person, as this
type of feedback is most optimal in reducing the potentially negative views of feedback.

Continuing to Build the Science of Training Strategies and Design

While many advances in the way in which we develop instructional programs have paved
the way for present training design practices, it is important to look to the future in
regard to advances in training strategies and design. With the advance of technology,
training design strategies have begun to incorporate more advanced methods of training,
including e-learning, distance learning, and simulation-based training (Salas, Wilson, et
al., 2006). These environments provide intensely rich environments in which trainees
cannot actively take all of it in or process all information during the training. Debriefings
and reviews may need to be incorporated into these types of training so that trainees
have an opportunity to reflect and receive feedback in order to promote retention and

Page 32 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

transfer of training. Therefore, further research is needed to understand successful

strategies that can aid in the regulation of feedback and information following training
sessions.

Another relevant issue that must be considered in the development of training design
pertains to (p. 351) the interaction of team and individual training. As previously
discussed, training can be received either at the individual level or at the team level, with
differential advantages to each strategy. Aguinis and Kraiger (2009) suggest that at
times, instruction at one level may be beneficial to the other. For example, individuals
receiving training on how to work in multicultural environments may find that these skills
impact team-level performance. Future research is needed to more fully understand how
instructional programs can be designed to facilitate this type of cross-transfer,
particularly for skills that expand beyond just the individual level and into organizational
and societal outcomes.

After Training: Transfer, Generalization, and

Evaluation
If training is successful, learning does not simply cease at the completion of training.
Instead, it is transferred over and utilized on the job. However, the success or failure of
training transfer is highly dependent upon both organizational and individual factors.
Furthermore, once training is completed, an evaluation is necessary in order to
determine exactly why success or failure occurred, and to make necessary changes for
future training designs. In this section, we will discuss elements of both training
evaluation and transfer to the job environment, including training results, trainee
learning, and trainee reactions. Relevant to each topic, we will synthesize the current
literature and best practices.

Training Transfer

A training program is only as good as its ability to promote transfer of training into on-
the-job performance (Machin, 2002). Certainly, the billions of dollars spent on formal
training programs must be justified with some type of return on investment for
organizations (Baldwin & Ford, 1988). Unfortunately, some reports indicate that as little
as 10% of what is learned in training actually gets applied on the job (Fitzpatrick, 2001).
Saks and Belcourt (2006) acknowledge that there has historically been a lack of
application of what we know about transfer to the improvement of training design. It is
therefore critical that we not simply address what impacts training transfer, but also how
transfer can be improved. In the following sections, we will define what is meant by

Page 33 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

transfer, as well as highlight aspects of the post-training environment, job aids, and re-
training that can be utilized to positively impact the transfer of training.

Page 34 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

The Mechanisms of Transfer

If training is not transferred successfully to the job, it will be perceived as a waste of time
and resources by both organizations and individuals alike (Machin, 2002). Training
transfer is defined as “the effective and continuing application, by trainees on their jobs,
of the knowledge and skills gained in training—both on and off the job” (Broad &
Newstrom, 1992, p. 6). Transfer refers to both the generalization of learning materials to
the job as well as the continuous maintaining of trained skills over time (Baldwin & Ford,
1988). Transfer is traditionally assessed using the comparison of a control group to an
experimental group that has received training (Goldstein & Ford, 2002). If the
experimental group's performance after training is significantly higher than that of the
control group, positive transfer is said to have occurred. However, if the control group
performs higher than the experimental group, negative transfer has occurred. Finally,
when no difference occurs between the two groups, zero transfer has been recorded.

While this method provides for a relatively accurate understanding of the level of
transfer, it is not always possible to conduct such testing in real world settings. Control
groups are not always possible, and even if they are available, outside variables can have
an influence on training transfer. Because of this, researchers have begun to focus upon
the transfer process in terms of what it is influenced by and methods in which it can be
improved (Cheng & Hampson, 2008).

Numerous models of the transfer of training have been developed in order to explain
exactly how information is transferred from training programs into practice, many of
which were sparked by Baldwin and Ford's (1988) review of the transfer literature.

This review provided a critique of existing transfer research, pointing out the idea that
training transfer is learning extended outside training. They also proposed that training
transfer failures were the result of not just poor training design but also individual and
organizational characteristics. Baldwin and Ford (1988) additionally highlighted future
research needs, including the need to test training design operationalizations that have
been posited to have a relationship with transfer, as well as the need to develop a
research framework that addresses the effects of trainee characteristics on transfer.

Based on this review, several new models of transfer emerged, including those by Broad
and Newstrom (1992), Foxon (1993, 1994), Thayer and Teachout (1995), Kozlowski and
Salas (1997), and (p. 352) Machin (2002). Cheng and Hampson (2008) provide a
comprehensive review of these models and others designed to assess transfer. Their
review found that while these models do provide insight into the transfer process, there is
a great deal of unexpected and inconsistent findings that prevent an adequate
understanding of transfer. Some of these inconsistencies include Colquitt and
colleagues’ (2000) meta-analysis of training motivation models, in which many proposed
relationships were significant but in the opposite direction of that hypothesized (e.g.,
locus of control and age were negatively related to post-training self-efficacy, whereas
conscientiousness negatively impacted skill acquisition). Further, Cheng and Hampson's
Page 35 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

(2008) review found counterintuitive results for variables such as transfer climate, social
support, and opportunity to transfer. Based on these findings, they propose that planned
behavior theory may be a more effective perspective upon which to assess training
transfer. This theory provides a focus upon the trainee's intentions to transfer behavior,
and is hypothesized to reduce some of the inconsistencies found in prior models of
training transfer.

Research on training transfer continues to grow and explore new issues. Hurtz and
Williams (2009) have utilized the theory of planned behavior to explain the factors that
influence ongoing participation in development activities for employees. In their
empirical study across four organizations, they found that while attitudinal and
motivational antecedents such as personal control and higher levels of voluntariness were
negatively associated with participation, intentions to participate and the availability of
high-quality opportunities were the strongest predictors of higher participation rates.
Even more recently, Kozlowski and colleagues (2009) have brought the multilevel nature
of organizations to the forefront when considering transfer of training. Expanding upon
previous work addressing the need to emphasize organizations as multilevel systems
when developing training (Kozlowski & Salas, 1997), Kozlowski and colleagues address
transfer as being both horizontal and vertical (Kozlowski et al., 2000). While traditional
training literature has focused primarily upon horizontal training transfer, in which skills
are transferred from a training setting to the workplace, vertical training is focused upon
accounting for the fact that training can be transferred upward within an organization.
This underexplored facet of training effectiveness merits future attention, as it challenges
organizations to think of transfer as not simply something that impacts an individual or
team. Instead, organizations must consider the multilevel impacts of training, and
account for transfer as a way to enhance individual, team, and organizational learning as
a system. Certainly, there is much still to be uncovered in terms of our understanding of
the transfer of training.

Training Evaluation

As previously mentioned, the most critical aspect of any instructional system is whether
or not the information presented is transferred to the workplace (Goldstein & Ford,
2002). In order to determine if training is effective and if transfer has occurred,
numerous methods of evaluation have been developed, with some being more effective
than others (Arthur et al., 2003). While some methods tend to reach only surface
information, such as “smile” sheets (Brown, 2005), other methods look at training
transfer in a more rigorous manner that parallels experimental design (Goldstein & Ford,
2002). In the following section, we will highlight the differences between evaluation and
effectiveness, examine classic and more recent methods of evaluation, and discuss design
issues and barriers that may negatively impact training evaluation.

Distinction Between Training Evaluation and Effectiveness

Page 36 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Although training evaluation and effectiveness are often considered to be one and the
same, they are in fact two different concepts. According to Alvarez, Salas, and Garofano
(2004), training effectiveness is the theoretical approach utilized to understand learning
outcomes, whereas training evaluation is focused upon the methodologies designed to
measure such outcomes. Training evaluation can be viewed as serving three purposes:
decision making, feedback, and marketing (Kraiger, 2002). Evaluations provide
information regarding the usefulness and appropriateness of a program, as well as
identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the program so that improvements can be
made (Noe, 2002). Furthermore, evaluation results can be utilized in marketing in order
to sell the program to potential trainees or other organizations (Kraiger, 2002). As such,
training evaluation can be seen as primarily focused upon the learning outcomes and how
their measurement can be used to benefit the organization, providing more of a
microview for the results of training (Alvarez et al., 2004). Kirkpatrick's (1976) classic
typology of training evaluation, described in further detail below, is perhaps the most
common evaluation technique and provides an example as to how evaluations have this
(p. 353) more microlevel focus on the measurement of reactions to training, learning,

behaviors, and results.

In contrast to evaluation of training, Alvarez and colleagues (2004) propose that training
effectiveness is centered upon the factors that can influence training outcomes at
different stages of the training process. These factors can be individual, training, or
organizational characteristics, and can either enhance or detract from learning outcomes.
Individual characteristics include facets of the trainee brought to the situation, such as
personality traits or attitudes. Training characteristics involve factors of the training
program itself, such as practice and feedback. Organizational characteristics refer to the
context upon which training is designed, and include factors such as organizational
climate and policies. These characteristics play an important role in understanding
training effectiveness, as they contribute to our understanding of what affects the success
of a training program, and how this success can change, depending upon variability in
these characteristics. This broader, more macroview of training results also benefits the
organization, but does so by focusing on why outcomes occurred the way they did, thus
providing information regarding how training can be improved.

Several models have been developed in order to address the variables involved in
determining training effectiveness, primarily focusing upon the relationship between
learning and transfer (Salas, Burgess, & Cannon-Bowers, 1995). Baldwin and Ford's
(1988) model of training effectiveness proposed that individual and organizational
characteristics have a direct relationship with both learning and transfer performance.
They further suggest that individual and organizational characteristics as well as training
characteristics impact transfer indirectly through learning. An extension by Holton and
Baldwin (2003) of this model provided more detail regarding the specific characteristics
that impact learning and transfer, particularly ability, motivation, individual differences,

Page 37 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

prior experience with the transfer system, learner and organizational interventions, and
training content and design.

Alvarez and colleagues (2004) present a model of training evaluation and effectiveness,
described in more detail in the following sections, integrating aspects of all of these
models, as well as common models of training evaluation, in order to provide a more
comprehensive perspective. While training evaluation and effectiveness do have
similarities, it is important to highlight the fact that these are indeed two separate
constructs, for which each should receive attention in order to maximize the benefits of
training.

Kirkpatrick's Classic Typology

As previously mentioned, Kirkpatrick's (1976) typology is the most often cited method of
training evaluation. Kirkpatrick identified four levels of training criteria that increase in
complexity: reaction data, learning, behavior, and results. This typology resulted from a
series of articles published by Kirkpatrick (1959a, 1959b, 1960a, 1960b) that were
originally designed to be primarily general guidelines for practitioners. However, these
guidelines met a need in organizations for some type of training evaluation criteria and
were quickly accepted by the industrial/organizational psychology field (Alliger & Janak,
1989; Cascio, 1987).

Trainee Reactions(7)
In the first level of the model, reactions of trainees to the training program are assessed
in order to ensure that trainees are in fact motivated and interested in what they are
learning (Kirkpatrick, 1976). Reactions are essentially measures of the trainee's feelings
about the training program and are typically collected via self-report measures (Klein,
Sims, & Salas, 2006). Reaction measures can include measures related to the instructor,
course materials, structure, and management of the program, as well as trainee opinions
on the usability and viability of the training content. While most training evaluations tap
trainee reactions, valid evaluation goes beyond the collection of reactionary data.

Trainee Learning(8)
The second level of the model centers on learning, in which acquired knowledge, skill
improvement, and changed attitudes are measured in order to assess learning. Learning
is typically the most commonly assessed factor for organizations (Klein, Sims, & Salas,
2006). Kraiger et al. (1993) stipulate a three-dimensional framework for classifying
learning outcomes: cognitive outcomes (i.e., changes in verbal knowledge, knowledge
organization, or cognitive strategies), skill-based outcomes (i.e., proceduralization and
automaticity), and affective outcomes (i.e., changes in attitudes and/or motivation). It is
important to capture those learning outcomes targeted by training objectives in order to
evaluate training in a valid manner.

Behavior on the Job(9)

Page 38 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

The third level measures behavior by assessing the transfer of training. This level is
designed to address the increases in KSAs that a trainee achieves from a training
program that are actually carried (p. 354) over to the job. An important aspect of this
level is that changes in behavior are actually reflective of training transfer and not other
factors.

Results(10)
Finally, the fourth level of Kirkpatrick's (1976) model measures the results of training,
related primarily to tangible outcomes such as the number of sales, productivity, profits,
and employee turnover. This level is focused upon the gains that the organization receives
due to individual training.

The first and second levels of Kirkpatrick's (1976) model are internal criteria collected
immediately following training, before trainees return to their jobs, whereas the third and
fourth levels are external criteria measured after the trainee returns to the job (Noe,
2002). Although many changes have occurred in training design over the past four
decades, Kirkpatrick's (1976) model of training evaluation has remained relatively
constant in terms of its use as an evaluation method. However, research is beginning to
recognize that new models of evaluation should be implemented, as Kirkpatrick's (1976)
model is not necessarily the most effective.

Page 39 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Beyond Kirkpatrick's Typology

While Kirkpatrick's (1976) typology of training evaluation remains the standard practice,
researchers have begun to move beyond Kirkpatrick's (1976) typology in order to address
some of the limitations of the approach. Kraiger (2003) summarized several criticisms
that have been posed in the last decade. First, Kirkpatrick's (1976) approach can be
viewed as atheoretical and based primarily in a behavioral perspective that does not
address cognitive-based theories of learning that have since emerged. Second, this
approach to evaluation is relatively simplistic and therefore unable to capture the
multidimensionality of constructs such as trainee reactions and learning. Third,
assumptions regarding the positive relationships between training outcomes identified by
Kirkpatrick (1976) have not been empirically supported. For example, Alliger and
colleagues (1997) found in their meta-analysis of studies utilizing Kirkpatrick's (1976)
model that utility-type reaction measures had a stronger relationship with learning and
transfer than affective-type reaction measures. Finally, according to Kraiger (2003),
Kirkpatrick's (1976) approach does not necessarily account for the purpose of
evaluations; instead of simply moving from one step of the evaluation process to another,
evaluations should be centered around the intended purpose of the data collection.

These concerns for Kirkpatrick's (1976) model have driven research in training evaluation
to begin to look past Kirkpatrick (1976) to other models that are more successful in their
ability to capture the evaluation of training effectively. Goldsmith and Kraiger's (1996)
method of structural assessment of a learner's domain-specific knowledge and skills has
been employed with success in several domains (Kraiger et al., 1993; Stout, Salas, &
Fowlkes, 1997). Kraiger (2002) has provided an updated taxonomy based on the work of
Jonassen and Tessmer (1996–1997), which links training purposes to outcomes and
provides measures for each of five outcomes. This connection of training purposes to
suggested learning measures is relatively straightforward, yet it is also comprehensive in
its approach.

Kraiger et al. (1993) take Kirkpatrick's (1976) levels a step further by exploring the
outcomes (skill-based, cognitive, affective) that must be evaluated after training. This
model takes a multidimensional approach to training evaluation that can be utilized in
more completely assessing and learning outcomes. They argue that this method gets at a
deeper level of training evaluation that matches outcomes to what is being learned. Ford,
Kraiger, and Merritt (2009) have provided an update of the Kraiger et al. (1993) model of
training evaluation, reviewing the literature on evaluation since 1993 that incorporated
the Kraiger et al (1993) model, and identifying new evaluation methodologies since that
time as well. Their review produced the addition of two cognitive outcomes (mental
models and meta-cognition) and two affective outcomes (goal orientation and attitude
strengths) as facets that should be considered in the evaluation process.

To provide a more holistic understanding of evaluation and effectiveness, Alvarez et al.

(2004) developed an integrated model of training evaluation and effectiveness that
incorporates four prior evaluation models. This incorporation of models found 10 training
effectiveness variables that consistently influenced training outcomes. Furthermore, it
Page 40 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

identified cognitive learning, training performance, and transfer performance as the

evaluation measures most related to post-training attitudes. While this model is an
excellent start to better understanding the training evaluation process, this type of
integration of research must continue in order to further the advancement of training
evaluation processes.

Evaluation Design Issues and Barriers

Although advancements in training evaluation methods have aided in reducing the

barriers to (p. 355) adequate evaluations, issues still exist that must be addressed. Salas
and Cannon-Bowers (2001) note that while evaluation is necessary, it is also a labor
intensive, costly, and often political process. Furthermore, evaluation faces the important
challenge of determining whether or not observed changes in behavior are actually the
result of training, or if other factors are playing a role (Klein et al., 2006). Fortunately,
researchers have begun to recognize these issues and have worked to develop methods
that can be used in order to overcome these barriers.

Goldstein and Ford (2002) identify several issues that could result in barriers to effective
evaluation. First, threats to internal validity, or variables other than the instructional
system that can impact outcomes, can be problematic in determining whether or not
improvements in performance are actually the result of training. These threats including
history, or specific events occurring during training that can provide alternate
explanations for performance. Pre- and post-testing issues can also be problematic, as
improved performance may simply be a result of the sensitization to the material
presented in the pre-test. Changes in measurement instruments are another potential
barrier, as they may capture information differently or inaccurately.

There are also several barriers recognized by Goldstein and Ford (2002) as being directly
related to the participants within a training program. Methods used to select participants
for training may impact their transfer and subsequent performance; specifically, if
random or matched selection is not used in selecting comparison groups, training
evaluation may not be accurate. Further, participants may be selected using extreme
scores so that they are very high or very low in terms of abilities before entering training.
Finally, attrition of participants from training can impact the ability to effectively evaluate
a design, particularly if matching was used to select control groups.

Goldstein and Ford (2002) also acknowledge intervention threats that may impact
evaluation, including compensatory equalization of treatment, compensatory rivalry
between respondents receiving less desirable treatments, and resentful demoralization of
respondents receiving less desirable treatments. External validity is also problematic, as
there may be reactive effects in terms of pre-testing, the group actually receiving
training, and the experimental setting.

Page 41 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Given these barriers to effective evaluation designs, researchers must employ the design
that is the most practical and feasible given the training content, as well as the design
that minimizes the potential validity threats (Klein et al., 2006). For example, although a
formal experimental design is often viewed as the best method for evaluating training,
Sackett and Mullen (1993) propose other alternatives, such as post-testing only and
having no control group, that are driven by the purpose of the evaluation. As collecting
the data necessary to perform Level 3 and 4 evaluations recommended by Kirkpatrick
(1976), simpler strategies such as Haccoun and Hamtiaux's (1994) internal referencing
strategy can be utilized to more easily assess training transfer. This strategy, based on the
idea that training-relevant content should show more change after training than training-
irrelevant content, has been empirically shown to mirror results similar to those in more
complex experimental designs. Certainly, reaching beyond traditional methods of
evaluation design may aid in overcoming many of the design issues and barriers common
to training evaluation.

Beyond Training: Alternative Forms of

Learning and Development
In addressing the increasingly complex learning and development needs demanded by
today's global economy, organizations have reached beyond traditional training.
Development and learning now also take the form of computer-based and e-learning,
simulation, mentoring, coaching, expertise, and various combinations (e.g., online
mentoring).

E-learning, Simulations, and Gaming

As technology has increased in prevalence, its incorporation into training has become
inevitable. While traditional methods such as classroom-based training and lectures are
still prevalent, technologically advanced methods such as web-based e-learning,
simulations, and games have become prominent supplements to these more traditional
strategies. E-learning allows for instruction to be conducted from any location and at any
time, which can be very advantageous for organizations needing to train a large number
of individuals on a variety of topics (Mayer, 2009; Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 1997).
Simulation-based training (SBT) is another new technology that can be leveraged to
enhance learning and development. According to Salas, Wildman, & Piccolo (2009), SBT
is any practice environment that is synthetically created to impart knowledge, attitudes,
concepts, skills, or rules. Such training simulations and games are becoming increasingly
popular, as they utilize both demonstration-based and practice-based (p. 356) strategies
that can emulate realistic environments and situations without the risks and costs of
putting trainees into the real environments unprepared (Cannon-Bowers & Bowers, 2009;
Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992). While the use of such strategies have become dominant in

Page 42 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

the past several decades, further research is needed in order to clarify when they are
most effective and how they can best be utilized by organizations (see Cannon-Bowers &
Bowers, 2009, for a more in-depth review).

Mentoring

Mentors have typically been defined as individuals with more advanced organizational
knowledge and experience who advise, guide, and support more junior individuals, known
as protégés (Allen et al., 2004; Kram, 1985). Specifically, the mentoring process has been
conceptualized by Kram (1985) in terms of two categories of support: (a) career support
(e.g., sponsorship, coaching, etc.), and (b) psychosocial support (e.g., enhancing the
protégé’s sense of personal identity and competence). Meta-analytic and empirical
evidence suggests mentoring as a successful means for increasing both objective protégé
outcomes (e.g., compensation, promotion) and subjective outcomes (e.g., career
satisfaction, job satisfaction, self-efficacy) (Allen et al., 2004; Smith-Jentsch, Scielzo,
Yarbrough, & Rosopa, 2008; Tonidandel, Avery, & Phillips, 2007). However, the
relationship between mentoring and learning outcomes remains unclear. More detailed
treatment of the role of mentoring can be found by Eby (chapter 19 of this handbook).

Coaching

Executive coaching is another alternative to more traditional formulations of training that

has exploded in recent years as a means for employee development, especially for middle
and upper level managers (Conference Board, 2008). While there is no singularly agreed
upon definition of executive coaching, the various conceptualizations found in the still
developing literature (e.g., Garman, Whiston, Zlatoper, 2000; Kampa-Kokesch &
Anderson, 2001; Kilburg, 1996; Stern, 2004) share several commonalities summarized by
Gregory and colleagues (2000): coaching is a one-on-one, collaborative relationship
focused on optimizing performance through the collection of data, goal setting, and
feedback. With roots in both the counseling and management perspectives, coaching
shares features with other forms of development, such as mentoring. In an effort to
provide construct clarity, D'Abate et al. (2003) compared and contrasted coaching,
mentoring, and 11 other related terms utilized in the literature across a broad range of
categories, including participant demographics, interaction characteristics,
organizational distance, and so forth. Compared to mentors, executive coaches are, by
definition, individuals external to the organization. Unlike mentors, it is not vital for
coaches to have expertise in the industry/arena in which the coachee works, as coaches
tend to focus more on developing broader skill sets related to communication and
leadership. A comprehensive overview of the coaching literature is available from
Feldman and Lankau (2005), and Joo (2005) offers a conceptual framework of coaching.

Page 43 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Expertise

In order to achieve global, long-term competitiveness, organizations must orient

themselves to develop more than just high performers; they must strive to develop and
maintain expertise. Experts hold a deep, conceptual understanding of their domain based
on high levels of detailed domain-specific knowledge, which they combine with skilled
memory, thus allowing them to develop and leverage complex domain knowledge
structures (Charness & Tuffiash, 2008). These advanced knowledge structures (e.g.,
mental models) allow experts to recognize cues and patterns quickly and effectively in
order to make inferences, make decisions, and take action (Hoffman, 2007). In addition to
simply holding greater domain-relevant knowledge and engaging in meaningful pattern
recognition, experts also engage in meta-cognitive processes and self-regulation
(Feltovich, Prietula, & Ericsson, 2006).

The traditional expertise literature suggests that expertise is a product of deliberate

practice over a prolonged period of time. Specifically, Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986) specify
a five-stage model of expertise development. In the first stage, novices focus on applying
explicit, context-free rules to clearly defined situations. By gaining experience applying
these rules in a wide variety of real-world situations, the novice moves on to the second
stage, advanced beginner. Advanced beginners start to recognize and encode situational
factors and thus use reason and logic in order to apply more complex rules. By engaging
in a wide range of experiences and situations, the advanced beginner is able to broaden
his or her cue library and domain knowledge and thus progresses into the third stage of
expertise, competence. The competent stage of expertise is characterized by an ability to
manage complex situational (p. 357) cues in reference to relevant goals. Once individuals
start to combine cues into patterns and cognitively represent situations as complex
wholes (versus simply sums of their parts), then they have achieved the fourth stage of
expertise, proficient performer. By building complex mental models, proficient performers
are able to rapidly identify relevant cues in order to gain situational understanding.
However, they must still allocate cognitive resources to active reasoning regarding the
most appropriate course of action. Individuals finally achieve the last stage, expertise,
when they are able to efficiently and relatively effortlessly assess the situation and
engage in rapid decision making based upon the pattern of cues they have observed.

More recent conceptualizations have further built upon this developmental framework,
suggesting a differentiation between expertise and adaptive expertise (Hatano & Inagaki,
1986, 1992). While traditional experts “do what normally works” (Dreyfus & Dreyfus,
1986, p. 31), adaptive experts focus on innovation, inventing new approaches,
procedures, and decisions based on their expert knowledge. From this perspective,
adaptive expertise has been conceptualized in terms of both efficiency and innovation,
meaning that these experts are able to rapidly retrieve situationally relevant KSAs,
reorganize or revise their mental models, and suspend heuristically based reactions that
go beyond functionally fixed behavior (Schwartz, Bransford, & Sears, 2005).

Page 44 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

So what can organizations do to develop and maintain expertise? Salas and Rosen (2009)
draw from the scientific literature on training and development, adult learning, cognition,
and expertise to provide 17 principles for developing expertise in organizations. These
principles are organized according to four main mechanisms of development (see Table
41.5 in Salas, Rosen, & DiazGranados, chapter 41 of this handbook, for a complete
description of the mechanisms and principles). The first mechanism of development is
deliberate and guided practice. Expertise is developed by engaging in repetitive
performance of similar tasks that incorporate minor variations and that build on
preexisting knowledge (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Römer, 1993). Additionally, this
performance must be followed by immediate constructive feedback, and the individual
must be motivated to expend the effort necessary to engage in the practice activities.
Thus, the second mechanism of expertise development is motivation to learn. This
motivation to learn drives the desire to engage in deliberate practice and continual
learning. Specifically, motivation to learn has been linked with individual self-efficacy
(Zimmerman, 2006), goal orientation (Seijts & Latham, 2005), valence of the task, and
ultimate learning outcomes.

Related to motivation is the third mechanism of development, as described by Salas and

Rosen (2009), long-term goals. Expertise takes time to develop; therefore, individuals
must maintain learning goals over a prolonged period of time. These individuals must
have a long-term desire to make small strides toward their ultimate goal. These small
strides toward improvement are related to the final mechanism of development, feedback
seeking. In order to self-regulate, self-correct, and continually improve performance,
individuals must proactively seek feedback on their own performance. They must actively
seek to determine the root causes of performance errors and learn how to mitigate and
manage performance better in the future.

While expertise has a long history in the cognitive and human factors psychology
traditions, practical implications on how to develop expertise in organizational settings
remains a blossoming area.

Learning, Training, Development, and

Organizational Change
Globalization, technology, and the contraction of the skilled workforce pool have led to an
unprecedented need for organizational adaptability and flexibility through the mechanism
of continuous learning. The concept of the “learning organization” (Gephart, Marsick, Van
Buren, & Spiro, 1996; Jones & Hendry, 1994; Kozlowski et al., 2009; Senge, 2006) has
been developed within recent literature and practice as framework for understanding
how organizations and individuals successfully transform in light of dynamic internal and
external pressures. The notion of organizational learning has been conceptualized as both
an organizational process and outcome, with multilevel impact (Kozlowski et al., 2009).

Page 45 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Rooted in early notions of organizational action-learning, learning organizations have

been defined as those which foster the continuous development of organizational
competence through a non-threatening, empowering culture that focuses on collective
learning, fosters the ability of the workforce to expand their KSAs to reach their desired
results, and nurtures new patterns of thinking (Senge, 2006; USACE Learning
Organization Doctrine, 2003), however, a singularly agreed upon definition is lacking in
the literature. In essence, this definition of learning organizations defines them in terms
of their culture—that is, the degree to which (p. 358) learning is valued and incorporated
into organizational norms, symbols, artifacts, and rituals. Most importantly,
organizational learning goes beyond the notion of individual-level learning to encompass
group and team learning, noting that combining information from multiple sources leads
to both new information and new understanding (Huber, 1991). Additionally, it
emphasizes that learning occurs outside traditional training and development initiatives
in the form of experiential, experimental, vicarious, and on-the-job learning (Huber, 1991;
Jones & Hendry, 1994).

The learning organization perspective emphasizes that learning and development are the
gateways to organizational adaptability and change. Though these notions date back to
early organizational science, and a great deal has been written from a practical
perspective, much empirical works remains to be done. For example, it is not yet clear
which dimensions of an organizational learning culture are most predictive of workforce
learning and organizational performance. Marsick and Watkins's (2003) learning
organization model integrated over a decade of literature and case studies in order to
specify the dimensions of learning culture and, in turn, develop a diagnostic
questionnaire with practical implications for guiding change. However, empirical reports
utilizing such measurement tools to actively assess culture and the impact of attempts to
affect it are scare in current scientific literature. Additionally, like a tree with many roots,
the learning organization concept has grown out of a multidisciplinary perspective.
Maintaining this perspective in empirical investigations by incorporating views from the
educational, sociological, anthropological, and broader organizational science
communities will ensure that we are fully tapping into the power of learning as an engine
for organizational adaptability and competitive advantage.

Conclusions and the Road Ahead

Overall, a well-developed science of training has arisen in the last several decades. We
have comprehensive models underlying our understanding of factors impacting training
transfer and effectiveness, processes for identifying who, what, and where training and
development is needed, training strategies mapped to models of learning, and
methodologies for evaluating these efforts. Table 11.3 (adapted from Salas & Stagl, 2009)
provides a practically based summary of the science of training in terms of principles and
guidelines based upon the reviewed literature and the authors’ personal experiences

Page 46 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

facilitating learning in various organizations. Specifically, it addresses training in terms of

four broad phases: determining training needs through need analysis, developing training
content, implementation, and evaluation. The table demonstrates that our current
understanding of the training process is characterized by both breadth and depth;
however, open questions remain on the road ahead. Table 11.4 provides a summary of the
future research needs, which are further discussed below.

Despite models of transfer and multilevel evaluation frameworks, we still lack a clear
indication of the extent to which learned material is actually transferred back into the
work environment. While the estimates that only 10–20% of material learned in training
actually transfer are common, and estimates of training impact on performance found in
popular outlets are even lower (e.g., Broad & Newstrom, 2001; Cross, 2006), they are not
supported by the little existing evidence. For example, in a survey of 150 training and
development professionals, Saks and Belcourt (2006) concluded that approximately 38%
of training initially fails to transfer. As noted earlier, meta-analytic results of various
training strategies also demonstrate a greater impact on learning outcomes compared to
behavioral and performance outcomes (e.g., Arther et al., 2002) and learning outcomes
have demonstrated minimal relationships with behavioral and transfer criteria (Alliger et
al., 1997). To move forward, we must make concerted efforts to establish our true impact,
that is, to clarify the linkages between learning, transfer, and performance. This includes
consideration of how trainees adapt what is learned in training during transfer and
generalization (e.g., Bell & Kozlowski, 2009). Without a clear conceptualization of how
trainees apply trained KSAs on the job and adapt them to work within the actual work
environment, our models and understanding of the training process remain incomplete.

Along similar lines, we must further develop our understanding of new and informalized
forms of training and learning, such as simulation-based training, on-the-job training, and
just-in-time training. Our science up to this point is vastly skewed and is based, for the
most part, on traditional forms of training. The current reality is that, in many aspects,
practice is moving faster than our scientific understanding in this arena. For example,
several hospitals have begun to explore just-in-time simulation training, allowing
residents to practice a procedure via simulation immediately before walking into the
operating room to perform the same (p. 359) (p. 360) (p. 361) (p. 362) (p. 363) (p. 364)
procedure. Similarly, incoming Harvard medical students have been equipped with iPods
loaded with vast amounts of training materials, which they can reference at the touch of a
button. Most recently, Salas et al. (2009) have provided researchers and practitioners
with some initial guidelines regarding the design, development, delivery, and evaluation
of simulation-based training; yet more of this type of guidance is needed for organizations
to successfully implement such systems. Future research should take a long-term
perspective, looking over the horizon, anticipating and exploring what is to come so that
such new developments have a base of scientific evidence from which to draw.

Table 11.3 Summary of Training Phases, Principles, and Guidelines

Page 47 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

TRAINING GUIDING TRAINING GUIDELINES

PHASE PRINCIPLE

Analyze Conduct Due Describe an organization's mission,

Training Needs Diligence strategy, structure, context and desired
outcomes

Articulate the benefits for individuals,

teams and higher-level units (division,
organization, society)

Link solutions to specific organizational

outcomes (performance, effectiveness,
profitability)

Consider the impact on organizational

performance-related factors (satisfaction,
reputation, social capital)

Frame cross-level effects of contextual

factors on motivation, learning, and
transfer

Specify how individual results emerge to

impact unit- or organization-level
outcomes (vertical transfer)

Conduct a stakeholder analysis to identify

and understand parties advocating for and
against training

Estimate the expected net present value of

proposed training solutions

Define Performance Leverage established theories of

Requirements performance and taxonomies of processes
to guide criteria specification

Disaggregate dependent variables to

illuminate the specific aspects of
performance targeted by training

Page 48 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Use task inventories, cognitive task

analysis, and critical incident interviews to
nuance key factors

Conduct probed protocol analysis to elicit

the stimuli, goals, and actions of experts
in natural situations

Map the trajectory of change from novice

to expert performance

Describe the relative importance of

taskwork and teamwork processes during
performance episodes

Define Cognitive Frame individual-level cognitive (mental

and Affective States models, situation awareness) and affective
(self-efficacy) states

Describe the types of mental models

(equipment, task, team) targeted for
development

Use event-based knowledge-elicitation

techniques with subject matter experts to
describe shared states

Model the compositional or compilational

emergence of cognitive and affective
states

Determine the relative importance of

sharedness and accuracy of cognitive and
affective states

Define KSA Specify the direct determinants of the

Attributes processes and emergent states comprising
effective performance

Leverage knowledge and skill inventories,

skill repositories, and performance
records

Page 49 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Describe the declarative, procedural, and

strategic knowledge applied to enact
performance processes

Describe the attitudes that can be

changed as a result of the learning
process

Identify short-, mid-, and long-term

competency requirements given
alternative performance requirements

Delineate Learning Translate training needs into training

Objectives objectives, learning objectives, and
enabling objectives

Contextualize task statements by

describing appropriate performance
standards

Delineate behavior-, cognitive-, and

affective-based learning objectives

Ensure learning objectives are clear,

concise, and link to measurable learning
outcomes

Develop Design Learning Develop an intelligent scenario

Training Architecture management system that allows
Content instructors and users to author content

Design a dashboard interface that can be

used to control training content,
sequence, and pace

Program systems to provide tailored

training features based on aptitude-
treatment interactions

Design the capacity to manipulate action

tempo and compress the arrival time of
events

Page 50 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Design the capacity to vary the

predictability and difficulty of contexts,
tasks, events, and situations

Program intelligent tutors to dynamically

monitor, assess, diagnose, intervene, and
remediate performance

Create the capacity to compile

performance records and for an on-
demand lesson learned repository

Forge Instructional Develop an instructional management

Experiences plan, instructor guides, and scripts

Map the branching paths learners can

take and forecast where trainees are likely
to encounter difficulties

Construct a chronological timeline of

training events

Craft instructional content that has

psychological fidelity as well as physical
fidelity

Include opportunities for trainees to

discover knowledge and relationships for
themselves

Develop lectures, exercises, games,

reading lists, and illustrative case studies

Leverage role plays, motion pictures,

closed-circuit television, and interactive
multimedia to display models

Increase stimulus variability by

manipulating the character and
competence of models

Page 51 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Ramp practice difficulty by including

multiple levels and increasingly
incongruent environments

Incorporate routine obstacles, emergency

situations, and crisis events trainees must
navigate

Develop Assessment Develop tools to assess multiple

Tools dimensions of trainee learning and
performance

Construct multiple-choice and situational

judgment tests to assess knowledge and
skill

Develop concept maps, card sorts, and

pair-wise comparison ratings to illuminate
knowledge structures

Assess the fragmentation, structure, and

accessibility of knowledge chunks

Triangulate measurement by leveraging

multiple elicitation and representation
techniques

Create tools to dynamically capture

trainee key strokes, communication, and
perceptual movements

Implement Set the Stage for Provide trainers with frame of reference
Training Learning and rater error training if ratings are used
to evaluate trainees

Measure and take steps to increase

motivation to learn

Prepare trainees to engage in meta-

cognitive and self-regulatory processes

Page 52 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Provide advanced organizers of learning

points

Prompt trainees to explore, experiment,

and actively construct explanations in
their training environment

Frame errors as a natural part of training

that contribute to learning

Ask trainees to reflect over the

informative aspects of errors when they
occur

Deliver Blended Use information presentation techniques

Solution such as reading assignments, lectures,
and discussions

Prompt learners to generate knowledge

and skills that are targeted for acquisition

Require trainees to integrate and

associate various facts and actions into
coherent mental models

Pose difficult and structured reflection

questions after case studies

Ask trainees to integrate information and

discern common themes provided in
contrasting cases

Explore the lessons learned from case

studies of effective and ineffective
performance

Guide trainees through deliberate practice

by asking them to repeat similar tasks
with gradual modifications

Encourage trainees to persist in practice

to the point of overlearning/automaticity

Page 53 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Support Transfer Conduct training debriefings organized

and Maintenance around key events and learning objectives

Guide self-correction by keeping the

debriefing discussion focused and
modeling effective feedback skills

Reserve instructor input for times when

trainees cannot generate input or when
clarifications are required

Indentify lessons learned and areas for

continued improvement to guide self-
development efforts

Prompt trainees to set proximal and distal

goals for applying new capabilities

Indentify and implement solutions to

accelerate the cycle time required to
realize training benefits

Schedule shorter booster sessions after

the main training initiative is complete

Evaluate Execute Evaluation Determine the purposes, needs, and

Training Plan sophistication of the consumers of training
evaluation findings

Identify an appropriate experimental,

quasi-experimental, or passive-
observational training design

Consider alternatives when rigorous

experimental designs are not feasible in a
given setting

Review controls for factors that affected

the inferences drawn from training
evaluation

Page 54 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Compile subjective evaluations and

objective indices of multiple training
criteria

Ensure consistency between the level of

focal variables, contextual factors, design,
aggregation, and analysis

Consider the relative efficacy of various

approaches to measuring longitudinal
change

Gauge Trainee Measure the extent to which trainees'

Learning expectations were fulfilled as proximal
indicators of reactions and learning

Differentiate between affective and utility

reactions

Assess learning in terms of affective,

behavioral, and cognitive outcomes

Measure short-term retention immediately

after training and longterm retention

Gauge transfer by examining

generalization to the job context and
maintenance of learning over time

Plot a maintenance curve and determine

reasons for any decrements in
maintenance over time

Consider the interactions of work

characteristics and time on the application
of skills in the workplace

Gauge Team Model unit-level outcomes as the mean of

Learning individual-level change when vertical
transfer is compositional

Page 55 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Evaluate both individual-level and unit-

level outcomes when vertical transfer is
compilation-based

Use longitudinal designs when evaluating

vertical transfer based on compilation
emergence models

Use techniques applicable to analyzing

nonlinear configural relationships when
emergence is compilational

Gauge Estimate the cross-level relationships of

Organizational improved individual performance on
Impact organizational performance

Determine whether the costs of training

were recouped

Estimate the return on investment from

training

Estimate the utility or economic impact of

a training solution over time

Disseminate Provide trainees with a copy of training

Training Results evaluation reports

Ensure the information collected from the

transfer context is available to other
designated parties

Ensure designated parties have a clear

understanding of the implications of
evaluation findings

Implement solution process changes

suggested by the findings of formative
evaluations

Page 56 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Implement changes in the talent

management system suggested by
summative evaluations

Adapted from Salas & Stagl (2009) with permission.

Table 11.4 Summary of Future Research Areas for Learning, Training, and
Development in Organizations

Future Research Needs for Learning, Training, and Development in

Organizations

Clarify the linkages between learning, transfer, and performance.

Consider how trainees adapt what is learned in training during transfer and
generalization.
Further develop our understanding of new and informalized forms of training and
learning, such as simulation-based training, on-the-job training, and just-in-time
training.
Establish a better understanding of the active role the learner plays in training
outcomes.
Incorporate multilevel perspectives and the factor of time into training design,
delivery, and evaluation.
Add a component to the traditional conceptualization of training needs analysis which
consciously and deeply analyses the interdependencies of the job/task.
Consider the impact of individual characteristics such as tacit knowledge, practical
intelligence, and adaptability.
Utilize a focus that combines both practitioner needs and scientifically sound
methods.
Develop a better understanding of technology's impact on training evaluation
methods.
Identify moderators that may impact training transfer.

We also need better understanding of the active role that the learner plays in training
outcomes—how they actively change and manipulate KSAs learned in training during
generalization and transfer. An undercurrent of the learner as the passive receiver of
learning pervades traditional models of training effectiveness and evaluation. Models of
adaptive learning, however, have begun to explore what learners do with information
learned in training, how they manipulate it and integrate it into their daily routines in
order to achieve transfer and generalization. To gain a full understanding of these
processes, we must also incorporate multilevel perspectives and the factor of time.

Continuing to Build the Science of Training Antecedents

Page 57 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

While a great deal has been learned about the impact of need analysis and those
antecedents impacting training outcomes, the changing nature of work raises some
important areas for future consideration. First, the growing complexity of jobs and tasks
suggests the need to add a component to the traditional conceptualization of training
needs analysis, which consciously and deeply analyzes the interdependencies of the job/
task. While such elements may be implicitly covered in traditional descriptions of needs
analysis, creating an explicit category of subanalyses focused on this aspect of the job/
task and analyzing its impact would further our understanding and help refine field
application. Traditional network analysis (Newman, Barabasi, & Watts, 2006) and social
network analysis (Wasserman & Faust, 1994) may offer more comprehensive methods for
understanding jobs, enabling more thorough mapping of relevant competencies.
Additionally, the ever increasing rate at which jobs are changing as technology emerges
suggests that combining both strategic and traditional forms of job analysis may provide
a more comprehensive needs analysis—allowing organizations to stay ahead of the curve
by training skills relevant to the very near future.

Second, as noted earlier, future research should consider the impact of individual
characteristics such as tacit knowledge, practical intelligence, and adaptability.
Additionally, developing our understanding of the role that shared knowledge (e.g.,
shared mental models) plays in training development and transfer is vital, considering the
impact on interdependent work and teams (Mathieu, Heffner, Goodwin, Salas, & Cannon-
Bowers, 2000)). We must move beyond more traditional conceptualizations of ability and
knowledge to understand how these factors relate to training and transfer.

Continuing to Build the Science of Training Transfer, Generalization,

and Evaluation

Certainly, we still have much to learn regarding training transfer and evaluation.
Undoubtedly, (p. 365) methods that can reduce training evaluation cost and increase
training transfer need to be explored. Unfortunately, much of what practitioners need in
terms of effective evaluation methods have not always been addressed through previous
research. Utilizing a focus that combines both practitioner needs and scientifically sound
methods will be the most effective means of continuing to build our understanding of
training transfer and evaluation. Organizations may also benefit from a clearer
understanding of how to assess which evaluation methods are most practical for their
needs.

Further, just as technology impacts training design, it is also an important factor in the
evaluation of training strategies. Most traditional models of evaluation focus on
traditional classroom training, yet it is not clear if these methods are equally as useful for
new, more technologically advanced methods of training design. It is very possible that
current evaluation methods may need development in order to best assess these new
strategies. Rosen and colleagues (2008) have begun to tackle this issue through their

Page 58 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

development of a measurement tool to assess the effects of simulation-based training in

emergency medicine. However, further work is needed in this area to more clearly
understand technology's impact on training evaluation methods.

Another issue in need of future research is the identification of moderators that may
impact training transfer. With low rates of transfer occurring in many organizations, it is
important to understand what factors could be impeding the retention and application of
training knowledge. Although some factors have been identified, such as supervisor
support and transfer climate, it is very likely that other moderators exist that affect
training transfer. Additional research is needed to more fully understand the current
moderators that we are aware of, as well as moderators that are yet to be uncovered.

We offer these thoughts as suggestions to feed future research. Exploring such ideas will
further our conceptual and theoretical understanding of the organizational learning and
development process. Considering that organizational knowledge is a now a competitive
advantage in today's globalized economy, it is highly worthwhile to continue building our
scientific, evidence-based understanding of workplace learning and development.

Acknowledgments
This work was supported by NASA Grant NNX09AK48G to Eduardo Salas, Principal
Investigator; and Kimberly Smith-Jentsch and Stephen M. Fiore, Co-Principal
Investigators, of the University of Central Florida.

References
Aghion, P., Bloom, N., Blundell, R., Griffith, R., & Howitt, P. (2005). Competition and
innovation: An inverted-U relationship. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120, 701–728.

Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(45), 451–474.

Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Career benefits
associated with mentoring for protégés: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
89(1), 127–136.

Alliger, G. M., & Janak, E. A. (1989). Kirkpatrick's levels of training criteria: Thirty years
later. Personnel Psychology, 42(2), 331.

Alliger, G. M., Tannenbaum, S. I., Bennett, W., Traver, H., & Shotland, A. (1997). A meta-
analysis of the relations among training criteria. Personnel Psychology, 50, 341–358.

Page 59 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Alvarez, K., Salas, E., & Garofano, C. M. (2004). An integrated model of training
evaluation and effectiveness. Human Resource Development Review, 3(4), 385–416.

Alvesson, M. (2002). Understanding organizational culture. London: Sage.

Anderson, J. R. (1996). ACT: A simple theory of complex cognition. American Psychologist,

51, 355–365.

Arthur, W. A., Bennett, W., Edens, P. S., & Bell, S. T. (2003). Effectiveness of training in
organizations: A meta-analysis of design and evaluation features. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 234–245.

American Society for Training & Development. (2008). ATSD 2007 State of the Industry
Report Executive Summary. Retrieved November 2, 2008 from: http://www.astd.org/
content/research/stateOfIndustry.htm.

Atkinson, R. L., Atkinson, R. C., Smith, E. E., Bem, D. J., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1996).
Hilgard's introduction to psychology (8th ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Axtell, C. M., Maitlis, S., & Yearta, S. K. (1997). Predicting immediate and long-term
transfer of training. Personnel Review, 26, 201–213.

Azevedo, R. (2005). Using hypermedia as a meta-cognitive tool for enhancing student

learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 199–209.

Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future
research. Personnel Psychology, 41(1), 63–105.

Baldwin, T. T., & Magjuka, R. J. (1997). Training as an organizational episode: Pretraining

influences on trainee motivation. In J. K. Ford, S. W. J. Kozlowski, K. Kraiger, E. Salas, &
M. Teachout (Eds.), Improving training effectiveness in work organizations (pp. 99–127).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Baldwin, T. T., Magjuka, R. J., & Loher, B. T. (1991). The perils of participation: Effects of
choice on trainee motivation and learning. Personnel Psychology, 44, 51–65.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.

Bassi, L., Ludwig, J., McMurrer, D., & Buren, M. V. (2002). Profiting from learning: Firm
level effects of training investments and market implications. Singapore Management
Review, 24(3), 61–76.

Bauernschuster, S., Falck, O., & Heblich, S. (2008). The impact of continuous training on
a firm's innovation. CESifo Working Paper Series, No. 2258. Retrieved November 2, 2008
from http://www.cesifo.de/pls/guestci/download/CESifo%20 (p. 366)

Page 60 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Working%20Papers%202008/CESifo%20Working%20Papers%20March%202008/
cesifo1_wp2258.pdf.

Beaman, I., Waldmann, E., & Krueger, P. (2005). The impact of training in financial
modeling principles on the incidence of spreadsheet errors. Accounting Education, 14(2),
199–212.

Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2008). Active learning: Effects of core training design
elements on self-regulatory processes, learning, and adaptability. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93(2), 296–316.

Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2009). Toward a theory of learner-centered training

design: An integrative framework of active learning. In S. W. J. Kozlowski & E. Salas
(Eds.), Learning, training, and development in organizations (pp. 263–302). New York:
Routledge

Blau, G. J. (1985). A multiple study investigation of the dimensionality of job involvement.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 27, 19–36.

Borman, W. C. (1991). Job behavior, performance, and effectiveness. In M. D. Dunnette &

L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 2,
pp. 271–326). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Brannick, M. T., & Levine, E. L. (2002). Job analysis: Methods, research and applications
for human resource management in the new millennium. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brannick, M. T., Prince, C., & Salas, E. (2005). Can PC-based systems enhance teamwork
in the cockpit? International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 15, 173–187.

Broad, M., & Newstrom, J. (1992). Transfer of training. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.

Broad, M. L., & Newstrom, J. W. (2001). Transfer of training: Action packed strategies to
ensure payoff from training investments. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.

Brown, K. G. (2005). An examination of the structure and nomological network of trainee

reactions: A closer look at “smile sheets.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 991–1001.

Brown, K. G., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2006). Formative evaluation: An integrative practice

model and case study. Personnel Psychology, 55(4), 951–983.

Brown, R. B. (1993). Meta-competence: A recipe for reframing the competence debate.

Personnel Review, 22(6), 25–36.

Burke, R. J. (1997). Culture's consequences: Organisational values, family-friendliness

and a level playing field. Women in Management Review, 12(6), 222–227.

Page 61 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Burke, L. A., & Baldwin, T. T. (1999). Workforce training transfer: A study of the effect of
relapse prevention training and transfer climate. Human Resource Management, 38(3),
227–242.

Campbell, J. P. (1971). Personnel training and development. Annual Review of Psychology,

22, 565–602.

Campbell, J. P. (1988). Training design for performance improvement. In J. P. Campbell, &

R. J. Campbell (Eds.), Productivity in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cañas, J. J., Quesada, J. F., Antolí, A., & Fajardo, I. (2003). Cognitive flexibility and
adaptability to environmental changes in dynamic complex problem-solving tasks.
Ergonomics, 46(5), 482–501.

Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Bowers, C. (2009). Synthetic learning environments: On

developing a science of simulation, games and virtual worlds for training. In S. Kozlowski
& E. Salas (Eds.), Learning, training, and development in organizations (pp. 229–262).
New York: Routledge

Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Mathieu, J. E. (1995). Toward
theoretically based principles of training effectiveness: A model and initial empirical
investigation. Military Psychology, 7(3), 141–164.

Cascio, W. F. (1987). Costing human resources: The financial impact of behavior in

organizations (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Kent.

Charness, N., & Tuffiash, M. (2008). The role of expertise research and human factors in
capturing, explaining, and producing superior performance. Human Factors, 50, 427–432.

Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale.
Organizational Research Methods, 4, 62–83.

Cheng, E. W. L., & Hampson, I. (2008). Transfer of training: A review and new insights.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(4), 327–341.

Chiaburu, D. S., & Marinova, S. V. (2005). What predicts skill transfer? Exploratory study
of goal orientation, training self-efficacy and organizational supports. International
Journal of Training and Development, 9, 110–123.

Choudhry, R. M., Fang, D., & Mohamed, S. (2007). The nature of safety culture: A survey
of the state-of-the art. Safety Science, 45, 993–1012.

Clark, C. S. (1990). Social processes in work groups: A model of the effect of involvement,
credibility, and goal linkage to training success. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation.
Knoxville: University of Tennessee, Department of Management.

Clark, M. C., & Wilson, A. L. (1991). Context and rationality in Mezirow's theory of
transformational learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 41(2), 75–91.

Page 62 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Clarke, N. (2002). Job/work environment factors influencing training transfer within a

human service agency: Some indicative support for Baldwin and Ford's transfer climate
construct. International Journal of Training and Development, 63, 146–162.

Cohen, D. J. (1990). What motivates trainees. Training Development Journal, 44, 91–93.

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(3), 679–707.

Conference Board. (2008). 2008 executive coaching fee survey. Retrieved November 1,
2008 from: http://www.chicagocoachfederation.org/userfiles/
Conference_Board_2008_Coaching_Fee_Study.pdf.

Cooper, M. D. (2000). Towards a model of safety culture. Safety Science, 36, 111–136.

Crandall, B., Klein, G., & Hoffman, R. R. (2006). Working minds: A practitioner's guide to
cognitive task analysis. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press.

Cross, J. (2006, March). The low-hanging fruit is tasty. Chief Learning Officer Magazine.
Retrieved November 1, 2008 from: http://www.clomedia.com/columnists/2006/
March/1314/index.php?pt=a&aid=1314&start=3066&page=2.

D'Abate, C. P., Eddy, E. R., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (2003). What's in a name? A literature-
based approach to understanding mentoring, coaching, and other constructs that
describe developmental interactions. Human Resource Development Review, 2, 360–384.

Day, E., Yeo, S., & Radosevich, D. J. (2003, April). Comparing two- and three-factor models
of goal orientation: A meta- analysis. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.

DeCecco, J. P. (1968). The psychology of learning and instruction: Educational psychology.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Decker, P. J., & Nathan, B. R. (1985). Behavior modeling training: Principles and
(p. 367)

applications. New York: Prager.

Degani, A., & Wiener, E. L. (1997). Philosophy, policies, procedures and practices: The
four P's of flight deck operations. In N. Johnston, N. McDonald, & R. Fuller (Eds.),
Aviation psychology in practice (pp. 44–67). Hampshire, UK: Avebuy.

Denison, D. R. (1996). What is the different between organizational culture and

organizational climate? A native's point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. Academy
of Management Review, 21(3), 619–654.

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist,

41(10), 1040–1048.

Page 63 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.

Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1996). The systematic design of instruction (4th ed.). New York:
Longman.

Donovan, 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(5), 795–
805.

Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition
and expertise in the era of the computer. New York: Free Press.

Ellliott, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2x2 achievement goal framework. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501–519.

Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice
in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406.

Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition.
American Psychologist, 49, 725–747.

Facteau, J. D., Dobbins, G. H., Russell, J. E. A., Ladd, R. T., & Kudisch, J. D. (1995). The
influence of general perceptions of training environment on pretraining motivation and
perceived training transfer. Journal of Management, 21, 1–25.

Feldman, D. C. (1989). Socialization, resocialization, and training: Reframing the research

agenda. In I. L. Goldstein (Eds.), Training and development in organizations (pp. 377–
416). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Feldman, D. C., & Lankau, M. J. (2005). Executive coaching: A review and agenda for
future research. Journal of Management, 31, 839–848.

Feltovich, P. J., Prietula, M. J., & Ericsson, K. A. (2006). Studies of expertise from
psychological perspectives. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman
(Eds.), Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 41–67). New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Fine, S. A., & Cronshaw, S. F. (1999). Functional job analysis: A foundation for human
resources management (Vol. 2, pp. 1019–1035). New York: John Wiley.

Fitts, P. M., & Posner, M. I. (1967). Learning and skilled performance in human
performance. Belmont CA: Brock-Cole.

Fitzpatrick, R. (2001). The strange case of the transfer of training estimate. The
Industrial-Organzational Psychologist, 39(2), 1819.

Page 64 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem-solving. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), The

nature of intelligence (pp. 231–235). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ford, J. K., & Kraiger, K. (1995). The application of cognitive constructs and principles to
the instructional systems model of training: Implications for needs assessment, design,
and transfer. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial
and organizational psychology (pp. 1–48). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.

Ford, J. K., Kraiger, K., & Merritt, S. M. (2009). An updated review of the
multidimensionality of training outcomes: New directions for training evaluation
research. In S. W. J. Kozlowski & E. Salas (Eds.), Learning, training, and development in
organizations (pp. 135–168). New York: Routledge.

Ford, 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.

Ford, J. K., Quiñones, M. A., Sego, D. J., & Sorra, J. S. (1992). Factors affecting the
opportunity to perform trained tasks on the job. Personnel Psychology, 45, 511–527.

Foxon, M. J. (1993). A process approach to the transfer of training. Part 1: The impact of
motivation and supervisor support on transfer maintenance. The Australian Journal of
Educational Technology, 9(2), 130–143.

Foxon, M. J. (1994). A process approach to the transfer of training. Part 2: Using action
planning to facilitate the transfer of training. The Australian Journal of Educational
Technology, 10(1), 1–18.

Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review
and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287–322.

Gael, S. (1983). Job analysis: A guide to assessing work activities. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Gagne, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th
ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Gamliel, E., & Peer, E. (2006). Positive versus negative framing affects justice judgments.
Social Justice Research, 19, 307–322.

Garman, A. N., Whiston, D. L., & Zlatoper, K. W. (2000). Media perceptions of executive
coaching and the formal preparation of coaches. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice
and Research, 52, 201–205.

Gephart, M., Marsick, V., Van Buren, M., & Spiro, M. (1996). Learning organizations come
alive. Training and Development, 50(12), 35–45.

Page 65 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Ghodsian, D., Bjork, R., & Benjamin, A. (1997). Evaluating training during training:
Obstacles and opportunities. In M. A. Quiñones & A. Ehrenstein (Eds.), Training for a
rapidly changing workplace: Applications of psychological research (pp. 63–88).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Gist, M. E., Bavetta, A. G., & Stevens, C. A. (1990). Transfer training method: Its
influence on skill generalization, skill repetition, and performance level. Personnel
Psychology, 43(3), 501–523.

Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its

determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17, 183–211.

Gist, M. E., Stevens, C. A., & Bavetta, A. G. (1991). Effects of self-efficacy and post-
training intervention on the acquisition and maintenance of complex interpersonal skills.
Personnel Psychology, 44(4), 837–861.

Gitomer, D. H. (1988). Individual differences in technical trouble shooting. Human

Performance, 1, 111–131.

Goldman. D. (2000). Legal landmines to avoid in employment training. Retrieved

November 2, 2008 from: http://www.hr.com.

Goldsmith, T. E., & Kraiger, K. (1996). Applications of structural knowledge assessment to

training and evaluation. (p. 368) In J. K. Ford, S. W. J. Kozlowski, K. Kraiger, E. Salas, & M.
Teachout (Eds.), Improving training effectiveness in work organizations (pp. 73–97).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Goldstein, I. L. (1986). Training in organizations: Needs assessment, development, and

evaluation. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Goldstein, I. L. (1991). Training in work organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough

(Eds.), Handbook of industrial organization psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 507–621). Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychology Press.

Goldstein, I. L. (1993). Training in organizations: Needs assessment, development and

evaluation (3rd ed.). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Goldstein, I. L., & Ford, J. K. (2002). Training in organizations: Needs assessment,

development, and evaluation (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Gordon, M. E., Cofer, J. l., & McCullough, P. M. (1986). Relationships among seniority,
past performance, interjob similarity, and trainability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,
518–521.

Gregory, J. B., Levy, P. E., & Jeffers, M. (2000). Development of a model of the feedback
process within executive coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,
60(1), 42–56.

Page 66 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Guion, R. (1973). A note on organizational climate. Organizational Behavior and Human

Performance, 9, 120–125.

Guldenmund, F. W. (1998). The nature of safety culture: A review of theory and research.
Paper presented at the 24th International Congress of Applied Psychology, Safety culture
Symposium, San Francisco, CA.

Guthrie, J. P., & Schwoerer, C. E. (1994). Individual and contextual influences on self-
assessed training needs. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(5), 405–422.

Haccoun, R. R., & Hamtiaux, T. (1994). Optimizing knowledge tests for inferring learning
acquisition levels in single group training evaluation designs: The internal referencing
strategy. Personnel Psychology, 47(3), 593–604.

Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. Stevenson, H. Azuma, &
K. Hakuta (Eds.), Child development and education in Japan (pp. 262–272). New York:
Freeman.

Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1992). Desituating cognition through the construction of
conceptual knowledge. In P. Light & G. Butterworth (Eds.), Context and cognition (pp.
115–133). Hempel Hempstead, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Heggestad, E. D., & Kanfer, R. (2005). The predictive validity of self-efficacy in training
performance: Little more than past performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Applied, 11, 84–97.

Hicks, W. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (1987). Entry into training programs and its effects on
training outcomes: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 542–552.

Higgins, M. C., & Kram, K. E. (2001). Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: A

developmental network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, 264–288.

Hoffman, R. R. (Ed.). (2007). Expertise out of context: Proceedings of the sixth

international conference on naturalistic decision making. New York: Erlbaum.

Hoffman, R. R., & Militello, L. G. (2008). Perspectives on cognitive task analysis:

Historical origins and modern communities of practice. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press/Taylor
& Francis.

Hofmann, D. A., & Stetzer, A. (1996). A cross-level investigation of factors influencing

unsafe behaviors and accidents. Personnel Psychology, 49, 307–339.

Hoiberg, A., & Berry, N. H. (1978). Expectations and perceptions of Navy life.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 21(2), 130–145.

Holt, D. T., & Crocker, M. (2000). Prior negative experiences: Their impact on computer
training outcomes. Computers and Education, 35(4), 295–308.

Page 67 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Holton, E. F. (1996). The flawed four level evaluation model. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 7(1), 5–21.

Holton, E. F., III., & Baldwin, T. T. (2003). Making transfer happen: An action perspective
on learning transfer systems. In E. F. Holton, III. & T. T. Baldwin (Eds.), Improving
learning transfer in organizations (pp. 3–15). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational leaning: The contributing processes and literatures.

Organization Science, 2(1), 88–115.

Huczynski, A. A., & Lewis, J. W. (1980). An empirical study into the learning transfer
process in management training. The Journal of Management Studies, 17(2), 227–240.

Hunter, J. (1983). A causal analysis of cognitive ability, job knowledge, job performance
and supervisory ratings. In E. Landy, S. Zedeck, & J. Cleveland (Eds.), Performance
measurement and theory (pp. 257–266). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hurtz, G. M., & Williams, K. J. (2009). Attitudinal and motivational antecedents of

participation in voluntary employment development activities. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94(3), 635–653.

Ivancic, K., & Hesketh, B. (2000). Learning from error in a driving simulation: Effects on
driving skill and self-confidence. Ergonomics, 43, 1966–1984.

Jarvis, P. (1987). Adult learning in the social context. London: Croom-Helm.

Jonassen, D., & Tessmer, M. (1996/1997). An outcomes-based taxonomy for instructional

systems design, evaluation, and research. Training Research Journal, 2, 11–46.

Jones, A. M., & Hendry, C. (1994). The learning organization: Adult learning and
organizational transformation. British Journal of Management, 5(2), 153–162.

Joo, B. K. (2005). Executive coaching: A conceptual framework from an integrative review

of research and practice. Human Resource Development Review, 4, 462–488.

Kampa-Kokesch, S., & Anderson, M. Z. (2001). Executive coaching: A comprehensive

review of the literature. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 53, 205–
228.

Kanfer, R. (1991). Motivational theory and industrial and organizational psychology. In M.

D. Dunnettee & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology (2nd ed., pp. 75–170). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/
aptitude treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 74(4), 657–690.

Page 68 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Kilburg, R. R. (1996). Toward a conceptual understanding and definition of executive

coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48, 134–144.

Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1959a). Techniques for evaluating training programs. Journal for the
American Society of Training Directors, 13(11), 3–9.

Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1959b). Techniques for evaluating training programs: Part 2 -

Learning. Journal for the American Society of Training Directors, 13(12), 21–26.

Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1960a). Techniques for evaluating training programs: Part 3 - Behavior.

Journal for the American Society of Training Directors, 14(1), 13–18.

Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1960b). Techniques for evaluating training programs: Part 4 -

(p. 369)

Results. Journal for the American Society of Training Directors, 14(1), 28–32.

Kirkpatrick. D. L. (1976). Evaluation of training. In R. L. Craig (Ed.), Training and

development handbook: A guide to human resource development (2nd ed., pp. 1–26). New
York: McGraw-Hill.

Klein, C., Sims, D. E., & Salas, E. (2006). Training evaluation. In W. Karwowski (Ed.),
International encyclopedia of ergonomics and human factors (Vol. 2, pp. 2441–2446).
London: Taylor & Francis.

Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance:
A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory.
Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.

Knowles, M. S. (1973). The adult learner: A neglected species. Houston, TX: Gulf
Publishing.

Knowles. M. S. (1984). Andragogy in action: Applying modern principles of adult learning.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Knowles, M. S., Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F., III. (2005). The adult learner: The
definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (6th ed.). London:
Elsevier.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and

development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemalis, C. (2001). Experiential learning theory:
Previous research and new directions. In R. J. Sternburg & L. F. Zhang (Eds.),
Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 227–248). Philadelphia:
Taylor & Francis, Inc.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., Brown, K. G., Weissbein, D., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000).
A multilevel approach to training effectiveness: Enhancing horizontal and vertical

Page 69 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

transfer. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods
in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 157–210). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., & Jensen, J. M. (2009). Building an infrastructure for
organizational learning: A multilevel approach. In S. W. J. Kozlowski & E. Salas (Eds.),
Learning, training, and development in organizations (pp. 363–404). New York:
Routledge.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Brown, K. G., Salas, E., Smith, E. A., & Nason, E. R.
(2001). Effects of training goals and goal orientation traits on multi-dimensional training
outcomes and performance adaptability. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 85, 1–31.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Nason, E. R., & Smith, E. M. (1999). Developing adaptive
teams: A theory of compilation and performance across levels and time. In D. R. Ilgen, &
E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing,
motivation, and performance (pp. 240–292). San Franscico: Jossey-Bass.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1996). Team leadership
and development: Theory, principles, and guidelines for training leaders and teams. In M.
Beyerlein, S. Beyerlein, & D. Johnson (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work
teams: Team leadership (Vol. 3, pp. 253–292). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Salas, E. (1997). A multilevel organizational systems approach for
the implementation and transfer of training. In. J. K. Ford (Ed.), Improving training
effectiveness in work organizations (pp. 247–287). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kozlowski, S. W., J., Toney, R. J., Mullins, M. E., Weissbein, D. A., Brown, K. G., & Bell, B.
S. (2001). Developing adaptability: A theory for the design of integrated-embedded
training systems. In E. Salas (Ed.), Advances in human performance and cognitive
engineering research (Vol. 1, pp 59–123). Amsterdam: JAI/Elsevier Science.

Kraiger, K. (2002). Decision-based evaluation. In K. Kraiger (Ed.), Creating,

implementing, and maintaining effective training and development: State-of-the-art
lessons for practice (pp. 331–375). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kraiger, K. (2003). Perspectives on training and development. In W. C. Borman, D. R.

Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Volume 12, Industrial and
organizational psychology (pp. 171–192). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and
affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78(2), 311–328.

Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life.

Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Page 70 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Lachman, S. J. (1997). Learning is a process: Toward an improved definition of learning.

The Journal of Psychology, 131(5), 477–480.

Lajoie, S. P. (2008). Metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning: A rose by

any other name? Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 469–475.

Latham, G. E. (1989). Behavioral approaches to the training and learning process. In I. L.

Goldstein (Ed.), Training and development in organizations (pp. 256–295). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting
and task motivation: A 35 year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717.

London, M., & Mone, E. M. (1999). Continuous learning. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos
(Eds.), The changing nature of performance (pp. 119–153). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Machin, M. A. (2002). Planning, managing, and optimizing transfer of training. In K.

Kraiger (Ed.), Creating, implementing, and managing effective training and development
(pp. 263–301). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Manpower. (2008). Talent shortage survey: 2008 global results. Retrieved November 6,
2008 from: http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/MAN/
292351486x0x189693/9adcf817–96cf-4bb3-ac68–038e79d5facf/
Talent%20Shortage%20Survey%20Results_2008_FINAL.pdf.

Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2003). Demonstrating the value of an organization's

learning culture: The dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire. Advances in
Developing Human Resources, 5(2), 132–151.

Martocchio, J. J. (1992). Microcomputer usage as an opportunity: The influence of context

in employee training. Personnel Psychology, 45, 529–552.

Marx, R. D. (1982). Relapse prevention for managerial training: A model for maintenance
of behavior change. Academy of Management Review, 7, 433–441.

Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The
influence of shared mental models on team performance and processes. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85(2), 273–283.

Mathieu, J. E., & Martineau, J. W. (1997). Individual and situational influences in training
motivation. In J. K. Ford & Associates (Eds.), Improving training effectiveness in work
organizations (pp. 193–222). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Mathieu, J. E., Martineau, J. W., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (1993). Individual and

(p. 370)

situational influences on the development of self-efficacy: Implications for training

effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 46, 125–147.

Page 71 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Salas, E. (1992). Influences of individual and
situational characteristics on measures of training effectiveness. Academy of
Management Journal, 35(4), 828–847.

Mayer, R. E. (2009). Research-based solutions to three problems in web-based training. In

S. W. J. Kozlowski & E. Salas (Eds.), Learning, training, and development in organizations
(pp. 203–228). New York: Routledge

Mayo, A. (2000). The role of employee development in the growth of intellectual capital.
Personnel Review, 29(4), 521–533.

Mezirow, J. (1978). Perspective transformation. Adult Education, 28, 100–110.

Mezirow, J. (1981). A critical theory of adult learning and education. Adult Education
Quarterly, 32(3), 3–24.

Mezirow, J. A. (Ed.). (2000). Learning as transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Molenda, M., Pershing, J. A., & Reigeluth, C. M. (1996). Designing instructional systems.
In R. L. Craig (Ed.), The ASTD training and development handbook (4th ed., pp. 266–293).
New York: McGraw-Hill.

Mullen, J. (2004). Investigating factors that influence individual safety behavior at work.
Journal of Safety Research, 35, 275–285.

Myers, D. G. (2004). Psychology (7th ed.). New York: Worth.

National Center for O*NET Development. (n.d.). The O*NET content model: Detailed
outline with descriptives. Retrieved March 9, 2009 from: http://www.onetcenter.org/
dl_files/ContentModel_DetailedDesc.pdf.

Newman, M., Barabasi, A. L., & Watts, D. J. (Eds.). (2006). The structure and dynamics of
networks. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Noe, R. A. (2002). Employee training and development (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Irwin-
McGraw.

Noe, R. A. (2008). Employee training and development (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Irwin-
McGraw.

Noe, R. A., & Schmitt, N. (1986). The influence of trainee attitudes on training
effectiveness: Test of a model. Personnel Psychology, 39, 497–523.

Passmore, J., & Gibbes, C. (2007). The state of executive coaching research: What does
the current literature tell us and what's next for coaching research? International
Coaching Psychology Review, 2(2), 116–128.

Page 72 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Payne, S. C., Youngcourt, S. S., & Beaubein, J. M. (2007). A meta-analytic examination of

the goal orientation nomological net. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 128–150.

Pentland, B. T. (1989). The learning curve and the forgetting curve: The importance of
time and timing in the implementation of technological innovations. Paper presented at
the 49th annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Washington, DC.

Prien, E. P., Goldstein, I. L., & Macey, W. M. (1987). Multi-domain job analysis: Procedures
and applications. Training and Development Journal, 41, 68–72.

Pritchard, R. D., & Ashwood, E. L. (2008). Managing motivation: A manager's guide to

diagnosing and improving motivation. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Quiñones, M.A. (1995). Pretraining context effects: Training assignment as feedback.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 226–238.

Quiñones, M. A., & Ehrenstein, A. (1997). Psychological perspectives on training in

organizations. In M. A. Quiñones & A. Ehrenstein (Eds.), Training for a rapidly changing
workplace: Applications of psychological research (pp. 1–9). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.

Ree, M., J., Carretta, T. R., & Teachout, M. S. (1995). Role of ability and prior job
knowledge in complex training performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(6), 721–
730.

Rohrer, D., Taylor, K., Pasher, H., Wixted, J. T., & Cepeda, N. J. (2004). The effect of
overlearning on long-term retention. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 361–374.

Rooney, R. H. (1985). Does in-service training make a difference? Results of a pilot study
of task centered dissemination in a public social service setting. Journal of Social Services
Research, 8, 33–50.

Rosen, M. A., Salas, E., Lyons, R., & Fiore, S. M. (2008). Expertise and naturalistic
decision making in organizations: Mechanisms of effective decision making. In G. P.
Hodgkinson & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational decision
making: Psychological and management perspectives (pp. 211–230). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Roth, E. M. (2008). Uncovering the requirements of cognitive work. Human Factors,

50(3), 475–480.

Rouiller, J. Z., & Goldstein, I. L. (1993). The relationship between organizational transfer
climate and positive transfer of training, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 4,
377–390.

Ruark, B. E. (2009, August). The ABCDEs of learning and development's next paradigm.
Training + Development, 51–55.

Page 73 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Russ-Eft, D. (2002). A typology of training design and work environment factors affecting
workplace learning and transfer. Human Resource Development Review, 1, 45–65.

Sackett, P. R., & Mullen, E. J. (1993). Beyond formal experimental design: Towards an
expanded view of the training evaluation process. Personnel Psychology, 46, 613–627.

Saks, A. M., & Belcourt, M. (2006). An investigation of training activities and transfer of
training in organizations. Human Resource Management, 45(4), 629–648.

Salas, E., Burgess, K. A., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1995). Training effectiveness

techniques. In J. Weiner (Ed.), Research techniques in human engineering (pp. 439–471).
Englewood, NJ: Princeton & Hall.

Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1997). Methods, tools, and strategies for team training.
In M. A. Quiñones & A. Ehrenstein (Eds.), Training for a rapidly changing workplace:
Applications of psychological research (pp. 249–280). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.

Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). Designing training systems systematically. In E.

A. Locke (Ed.), The Blackwell handbook of principles of organizational behavior (pp. 43–
59). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2001). The science of training: A decade of progress.
Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 471–499.

Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Smith-Jentsch, K. A. (2006). Principles and strategies
for team training. In W. Karwowski (Ed.), International encyclopedia of ergonomics and
human factors (Vol. 2, pp. 2245–2248). London: Taylor Francis.

Salas, E., DiazGranados, D., Klein, C., Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Goodwin, G. F., & Halpin,
S. M. (2008). Does team training improve team performance? A meta-analysis. Human
Factors, 50(6), 903–933.

Salas E., Nichols, D. R., & Driskell, J. E. (2007). Testing three team training
(p. 371)

strategies in intact teams: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 38(4), 471–488.

Salas, E., & Rosen, M. (2009). Experts at work: Principles for developing expertise in
organizations. In S. W. J. Kozlowski & E. Salas (Eds.), Learning, training, and development
in organizations (pp. 99–134). New York: Routledge.

Salas, E., Burke, C. S., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (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: State-of-the-art lessons
for practice (pp. 234–259). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Page 74 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Sales, E., & Stagl, K. C. (2009). Design training systematically: Infuse the science of
training: In E. A. Locke (Ed.), The Blackwell handbook of principles of organizational
behavior (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

Salas, E., Wildman, J. L., & Piccolo, R. F. (2009). Using simulation-based training to
enhance management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(4),
559–573.

Salas, E., Wilson, K. A., Priest, H. A., & Guthrie, J. W. (2006). Design, delivery, and
evaluation of training systems. In G. Salvendy, Handbook of human factors and
ergonomics (3rd ed., pp. 472–512). New York: Wiley & Sons.

Satish, U., & Streufert, S. (2002). Value of a cognitive simulation in medicine: Towards
optimizing decision making and performance of healthcare personnel. Quality and Safety
in Healthcare, 11, 163–167.

Schein, E. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45, 109–119.

Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., & Outerbridge, A. N. (1986). Impact of job experience and
ability on job knowledge, work sample performance, and supervisory ratings of job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 432–439.

Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common

principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3,
207–217.

Schraagen, J. M., Chipman, S. F., & Shalin, V. L. (Eds.). (2000). Cognitive task analysis.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (2008). Motivation and self-regulated learning:
Theory, research, & applications. Philadelphia, PA: Routledge

Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., & Sears, D. L. (2005). Efficiency and innovation in
transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary
perspective (pp. 1–51). Scottsdale, AZ: Information Age Publishing.

Seijts, G. H., & Latham, G. P. (2005). Learning versus performance goals: When should
each be used? Academy of Management Executive, 19, 124–131.

Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
New York: Random House.

Seyler, D. L., Holton, E. F., III., Bates, R. A., Burnett, M. F., & Carvalho, M. A. (1998).
Factors affecting motivation to transfer training. International Journal of Training and
Development, 2, 2–16.

Shih, Y., & Alessi, S. M. (1994). Mental models and transfer of learning in computer
programming. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26, 154–175.

Page 75 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Simpson, P., & Bourner, T. (2007). What action learning is not in the twenty-first century.
Action Learning: Research and Perspectives, 4(2), 173–187.

Sitzmann, T., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D., & Wisher, R. (2006). The comparative effectiveness
of Web-based and classroom instruction: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 59, 623–
664.

Smith, E. M., Ford, J. K., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1997). Building adaptive expertise:
Implications for training design. In M. A. Quiñones & A. Ehrenstein (Eds.), Training for a
rapidly changing workplace: Applications of psychological research (pp. 89–118).
Washington, DC: APA Books.

Smither, J. W., London, M., & Reilly, R. R. (2005). Does performance improve following
multisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review of empirical
findings. Personnel Psychology, 58(1), 33.

Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Jentsch, F. G., Payne, S. C., & Salas, E. (1996). Can pre-training
experiences explain differences in learning? Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(1), 110–
116.

Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Salas, E., & Brannick, M. T. (2001). To transfer or not to transfer?
Investigating the combined effects of trainee characteristics, team leader support, and
team climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 279–292.

Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Scielzo, S. A., Yarbrough, C. S., & Rosopa, P. J. (2008). A comparison
of face-to-face and online mentoring: Interactions with mentor gender. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 72(2), 193–206.

Spiro, R. J., & Jehng, J. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology
for the non-linear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix &
R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia (pp. 163–205). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A

meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 240–261.

Stern, L. R. (2004). Executive coaching: A working definition. Consulting Psychology

Journal: Practice and Research, 56, 154–162.

Stout, R. I., Salas, E., & Fowlkes, J. (1997). Enhancing teamwork in complex environments
through team training. Group Dynamics: Theory Research and Practice, 1, 169–182.

Switzer, K. C., Nagy, M. S., & Mullins, M. E. (2005). The influence of training reputation,
managerial support, and self-efficacy on pre-training motivation and perceived training
transfer. Applied H.R.M. Research, 10(1), 21–34.

Page 76 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Tannenbaum, S. I., & Yukl, G. (1992). Training and development in work organizations.
Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 399–441.

Tannenbaum, S. I., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Mathieu, J. E. (1993). Factors that
influence training effectiveness: A conceptual model and longitudinal analysis (Tech. Rep.
No. 93–011). Orlando, FL: Naval Training Systems Center.

Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1991). Meeting
trainees’ expectations: The influence of training fulfillment on the development of
commitment, self-efficacy, and motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 759–769.

Taylor, M. S., Fisher, C. D., & Ilgen, D. R. (1984). Individuals’ reactions to performance
feedback in organizations: A control theory perspective. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris
(Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 2., pp. 231–272).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Tesluk, P. E., Farr, J. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Vance, R. J. (1995). Generalization of employee
involvement training to the job setting: Individual and situational effects. Personnel
Psychology, 48, 607–632.

Thayer, P. W., & Teachout, M. S. (1995). A climate for transfer model. (Rep No. ALM-
TP-1995–0035). Brooks Air Force Base, TX: Air Force Material Command.

Tonidandel, S., Avery, D. R, & Phillips, M. G.. (2007). Maximizing returns on

(p. 372)

mentoring: factors affecting subsequent protégé performance. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 28, 89–110.

Tracey, J. B., Hinkin, T. R., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Mathieu, J. E. (2001). The influence of
individual characteristics and the work environment on varying levels of training
outcomes. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(1), 5–23.

Tracey, J. B., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Kavanagh, M. J. (1995). Applying trained skills on the
job: The importance of work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 239–252.

Tziner, A., Haccoun, R. R., & Kadish, A. (1991). Personal and situational characteristics
influencing the effectiveness of transfer of training improvement strategies. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 64, 167–177.

U.S. Department of Labor. (1972). Handbook for analyzing jobs. Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office.

USACE Learning Organization Doctrine (2003, November). Retrieved November 6, 2008

from: http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/cepa/learning/learningdoctrine.pdf.

Uttal, B. (1983, October). The corporate culture vultures. Fortune Magazine, 108(8), 66–
72.

Page 77 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Vandewalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation

instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 995–1015.

Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Webster, J., & Martocchio, J. J. (1995). The differential effects of software training
previews on training outcomes. Journal of Management, 21, 757–787.

Xiao, J. (1996). The relationship between organizational factors and the transfer of
training in the electronics industry in Shenzhen, China. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 7, 55–73.

Yeo, G. B., & Neal, A. (2004). A multilevel analysis of effort, practice, and performance:
Effects of ability, conscientiousness, and goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology,
89(2), 231–247.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2006). Development and adaptation of expertise: The role of self-

regulatory processes and beliefs. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, & R.
Hoffman (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 705–722).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Eduardo Salas

Eduardo Salas is Trustee Chair and Professor of Psychology at the University of

Central Florida. He also holds an appointment as Program Director for the Human
Systems Integration Research Department at the Institute for Simulation & Training.
Eduardo Salas has co‐authored over 300 journal articles and book chapters and has
co‐edited 16 books. He is on or has been on the editorial boards of Journal of Applied
Psychology, Personnel Psychology, Military Psychology, Interamerican Journal of
Psychology, Applied Psychology: An International Journal, International Journal of
Aviation Psychology, Group Dynamics, Journal of Organizational Behavior, and is a
past editor of Human Factors journal. He is a fellow of the American Psychological
Association (SIOP and Divisions 19 & 21), and the Human Factors and Ergonomics
Society. He received his PhD degree (1984) in industrial and organizational
psychology from Old Dominion University.

Sallie J. Weaver

Sallie J. Weaver, Department of Psychology, University of Central Florida.

Marissa L. Shuffler

Marissa L. Shuffler, Institute for Simulation and Training, Department of Psychology,

University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL

Page 78 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018

Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations

Page 79 of 79

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 15 June 2018