The purpose of this study was to examine the causal relationships between S-OJT trainer preparation, self-efficacy as a trainer, trainers’ delivery of S-OJT, and organizational commitment as a consequence of employing S-OJT. This study proposed a theoretical model from the review of related literature and then empirically investigated the fitness of the proposed model. This study was conducted in a life insurance company in Korea. A questionnaire was distributed to 334 randomly selected S-OJT trainers in Seoul. There were 235 usable questionnaires. structural equation modeling and principal factor analysis were applied to conduct a data analysis. The results showed that the chi-square was significant, along with good model fit indices. As a result, the causal links in the proposed model were established and these results fully supported the study hypotheses. Finally, the study discussed some implications for HRD, focusing on S-OJT.
Trang 1The impact of structured on-the-job training (S-OJT)
on a trainer’s organizational commitment
Daeyeon Cho
Received: 8 April 2008 / Revised: 23 January 2009 / Accepted: 11 February 2009 / Published online: 10 June 2009
Ó Education Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea 2009
Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine the
causal relationships between S-OJT trainer preparation,
self-efficacy as a trainer, trainers’ delivery of S-OJT, and
organizational commitment as a consequence of employing
S-OJT This study proposed a theoretical model from the
review of related literature and then empirically
investi-gated the fitness of the proposed model This study was
conducted in a life insurance company in Korea A
ques-tionnaire was distributed to 334 randomly selected S-OJT
trainers in Seoul There were 235 usable questionnaires
structural equation modeling and principal factor analysis
were applied to conduct a data analysis The results showed
that the chi-square was significant, along with good model
fit indices As a result, the causal links in the proposed
model were established and these results fully supported
the study hypotheses Finally, the study discussed some
implications for HRD, focusing on S-OJT
Keywords S-OJT S-OJT trainer
Organizational commitment Self-efficacy
In the field of human resource development (HRD),
employee development has been used to improve employee
competence, allowing them to perform better on the job
and in turn enhance organizational performance (Swanson
and Holton2001) Traditionally, most planned employee
development in organizations takes place in off-the-job
settings (Jacobs 2002) Concurrently, knowledge and
understanding can also be further advanced through
planned ‘‘teaching and learning’’ in the actual work setting (Fuller and Unwin2002)
For those reasons, an efficient on-the-job training (OJT) program is vital for developing the highly skilled employees needed for a business’ success In this regard, structured on-the-job training (S-OJT), as a form of plan-ned training on the job, has recently received much atten-tion from HRD researchers and practiatten-tioners alike (Jacobs
2003) S-OJT has many advantages as a planned training program, such as predictable training outcomes and a manageable process
At the same time, there is an increasing interest among HRD professionals in the integration of learning with working on the job (Ellstrom 2001) Because S-OJT incorporates not only the characteristics of planned training programs, but also learning in the actual work settings, it is evident that S-OJT can enhance organizational perfor-mance more effectively than other training programs Empirically, some researchers (e.g., Bennett and Calvin
2002; Jacobs and Osman-Gani1999; Stolovitch and Ngoa-Nguele2001) have reported that S-OJT has helped to make valuable contributions in terms of increasing the produc-tivity of an organization With this attention to S-OJT, some studies (e.g., Jacobs 1996; Jacobs et al.1992) have demonstrated the effectiveness and efficiency of S-OJT compared with mainly off-JT and unstructured OJT in terms of its financial benefits, high satisfaction rating, and fewer quality errors
However, relatively limited attention has been given to the S-OJT trainer Viewing S-OJT as a system, trainers can
be regarded as an important component of that system A system view of S-OJT represents the interaction of several components, such as the training inputs, the training pro-cess, the training outputs, and the organizational context (Jacobs2003) In particular, an experienced employee who
D Cho (&)
Department of Education, College of Education, Korea
University, Anam-Dong, Seongbuk Gu, Seoul, Korea
e-mail: chodae@korea.ac.kr
DOI 10.1007/s12564-009-9037-9
Trang 2acts as the trainer is an important component of the S-OJT
inputs Furthermore, the training process focuses on a
trainer’s actions Nevertheless, the training outputs that can
be produced from the interactive and iterative combination
of the training inputs and the training process have only
been highlighted from the aspect of the trainees In other
words, any consequences of S-OJT on the trainer have not
yet been empirically reported
In general, experienced employees who serve as trainers
tend not to be teaching and learning professionals Being
an S-OJT trainer can be viewed as a challenge that enables
experienced employees to dedicate themselves to the
development of their fellow employees Consequently,
trainer preparation activities like train-the-trainer courses
can assist them to be effective adult educators in the
workplace
In addition, the delivery of S-OJT is based on various
forms of widely mutual interactions between the trainer and
trainee, such as discussions, dialogs, and non-verbal
behaviors Such interactions can be called developmental
and learning interactions (D’Abate et al.2003) By having a
social process between the trainer and trainee in S-OJT,
development and growth opportunities can be provided to
trainers These opportunities play a significant role as an
antecedent of organizational commitment (Cho and Kwon
2005)
According to a system view of S-OJT in relation to the
trainer, S-OJT trainer preparation through train-the-trainer
programs can be viewed as an input Trainer self-efficacy is
regarded as its output At the same time, these constructs play
a role as the S-OJT inputs, and trainers’ delivery of S-OJT is
viewed as the training process Finally, the organizational
commitment of trainers can be an output of the dynamic
interactions between input and process components
Nev-ertheless, little is known about this causal relationship
Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the
causal relationships between S-OJT trainer preparation,
self-efficacy as a trainer, trainers’ delivery of S-OJT, and
organizational commitment as a consequence of employing
S-OJT Specifically, based on viewing S-OJT as a system,
how S-OJT trainer preparation, self-efficacy as a trainer,
and trainers’ delivery of S-OJT influence trainers’
organi-zational commitment was highlighted In order to address
this purpose, this study proposed a theoretical model from
the review of related literature and then empirically
investigated the fitness of the proposed model regarding the
relationships between the main variables
Literature review
This section provides a review of S-OJT research,
includ-ing its definition and unique features, S-OJT trainer
preparation through train-the-trainer programs, and the delivery of S-OJT It presents literature related to trainer self-efficacy and organizational commitment, and proposes three research hypotheses based on the relationships among the variables of this study
Definition and features of S-OJT
On-the-job training refers to training that takes place at a trainee’s regular workstation OJT as a form of individu-alized training can be designed and delivered using two basic approaches: structured OJT and unstructured OJT (Jacobs2003) S-OJT differs from unstructured OJT in that
a systematic planning process is used to design and carry out the training (Stolovitch and Ngoa-Nguele 2001), and work behaviors are separated into manageable units and documented in modules (Jones and Jacobs 1997) Unstructured OJT occurs on the worksite but is not logi-cally sequenced As such, learners are expected to learn by watching what experienced workers do or by actually doing the work Unstructured OJT is often ineffective and inefficient as compared with S-OJT (Johnson and Leach
2001)
On the other hand, S-OJT is a form of individualized training that allows a novice employee in need of train-ing to receive the necessary knowledge, develop the required skills, and improve his or her performance on the job The objectives of S-OJT are clearly outlined, the content is precisely described, training processes are intentional, and evaluation is based on performance on the job (Bjorkquist and Murphy 1996) Those functions
of S-OJT are closely associated with improving trainees’ performance as an expected outcome of S-OJT Jacobs (2003, p 28) defined S-OJT as ‘‘the planned process of developing competence on units of work by having an experienced employee train a novice employee at the work setting or a location that closely resembles the work setting.’’ Consequently, the core elements of S-OJT include a knowledgeable trainer, a prepared trainee, and good documentation
There is an agreement on two distinct features of S-OJT compared with classroom training First, the amount of time between the instructional events can be reduced A trainee has an immediate opportunity to use and practice what she or he has learned on the job (DeSimone and Harris 1998) Therefore, a trainer can achieve learning objectives more efficiently Second, the transfer of learning
is enhanced in S-OJT environments, especially in the match between the training setting and work setting (Jacobs 2003) Because the learning environment is the same as the work environment in S-OJT, a trainee is able to use the same equipment and tools that he or she is meant to use to perform his or her actual work Thus, S-OJT has a
Trang 3greater potential to achieve a transfer of training compared
to classroom training
The delivery of S-OJT
Training processes are described by trainers’ delivery of
S-OJT The determination of what happens in the training
process is based on the trainers’ actions Therefore, the
trainers’ various actions to deliver S-OJT should receive
much attention In regard to the delivery of contents, S-OJT
focuses on trainers’ actions related to the preparation of the
training, the use of a training module, and an evaluation of
what the trainee has learned Based on Jacobs’ work
(2003), this study addresses five training events to describe
trainers’ actions
1 Prepare the delivery The trainer should decide on the
most appropriate time and location to deliver the
training Training resources have to be secured and
the S-OJT module should be reviewed
2 Prepare the trainee The main purpose of this event as
a trainer’s first action is to prepare the trainee to learn
The trainer establishes comfort, explains the context,
and describes the purpose and rationale of the training
3 Present the training This event requires the trainer to
demonstrate a set of behavioral actions to the trainee
In other words, the trainer should explain and show
each step at a time (Johnson and Leach2001)
4 Require a response The trainee must participate and
respond actively The trainer prompts the trainee to
perform In other words, the trainee needs to be
encouraged to try units of work and describe them as
the trainer has demonstrated
5 Provide feedback and evaluate performance Based on
the trainee’s responses, the trainer should try to correct
errors The trainer should give appropriate feedback
and encouragement with assessing the adequacy of the
trainee’s responses Finally, the S-OJT trainer
evalu-ates whether the trainee has achieved the training
objectives
The delivery of S-OJT is an interactive process based on
one-on-one communication between the trainer and trainee
(Osman-Gani and Zidan2001) All events used to deliver
S-OJT are based on widely mutual interactions between the
trainer and trainee in more meaningful ways, including
discussions, dialogs, and performance evaluations (Stein
2001) Although trainees are novice employees who lack
the appropriate competence to fully perform their jobs,
they have some degree of experience and knowledge
derived from their lives The trainee may often have
information that the trainer does not currently know S-OJT
allows the trainer to work with a trainee who has a different
background and different personal experience
The trainer uses discussions to show how tasks could be done or what she or he would like the trainee to do These discussions offer opportunities for both the trainer and trainee to explore alternative ways of tackling parts of a job (Harris et al 2000) As such, trainers also have opportu-nities to acquire new knowledge and skills through inter-actions with the trainee during the delivery of S-OJT For example, Fuller and Unwin (2002) found that experienced and inexperienced employees taught a wide range of knowledge and skills to each other Consequently, the delivery steps of S-OJT are something greater than just describing trainers’ actions to deliver the training module
S-OJT trainer preparation and self-efficacy as a trainer
As the use of S-OJT is increasing in industry, there is a greater need for effective S-OJT trainers At the same time, the use of experienced employees as S-OJT trainers tends
to be increased (Williams 2001) However, we cannot be expected to have expert workers possessing higher levels of expertise to perform the job and the competencies required
to effectively share their knowledge with others (Walter
1998; Williams 2001) Because of this, recently, many organizations have come to recognize the importance of any training program to prepare effective S-OJT trainers (Jacobs2003)
Prospective S-OJT trainers need to complete train-the-trainer courses to understand good training techniques and how to best facilitate learning In other words, prospective trainers are expected to develop training-related skills and instructor-related skills through a train-the-trainer course (Johnson and Leach2001) It is evident that the basics of design and delivery, such as conducting needs assessment, developing objectives, creating an agenda, developing instructional events, and evaluating learning outcomes, still need to be included as core components of any train-the-trainer program (Meyer and Marsick2003)
Through an empirical study, Burkett (2002) demon-strated the effect of train-the-trainer programs: participants indicated their enhanced confidence and competence after the train-the-trainer program More specifically, there are intangible benefits received by participants from train-the-trainer programs, including increased productivity, increased morale, and improved training quality Through train-the-trainer programs, trainers absorb adult learning theory and training techniques to adequately train others Without those knowledge and skills, trainers will have difficulty maximizing the effectiveness of training delivery Viewing S-OJT as a system, the trainer is a critical input component The S-OJT process can be described by trainers’ actions along with the instructional events For S-OJT to be more effective, trainers should be well prepared
to obtain appropriate competencies As such, their
Trang 4preparation to serve as S-OJT trainers affects their various
actions in delivering S-OJT
Swanson and Falkman (1997) surveyed 371 novice
trainers and asked them to recall training delivery problems
they had experienced Their study found that fear from a
lack of confidence, feeling anxious, and a lack of personal
experiences as a trainer were the most common difficulties
for novice trainers Therefore, programs used to train
S-OJT trainers make it possible for S-S-OJT trainers to reduce
such common fears and anxieties Through these programs,
S-OJT trainers often have higher expectations to be
suc-cessful trainers
This study focused on S-OJT trainers’ self-efficacy as a
consequence of train-the-trainer courses The concept of
self-efficacy contains an individual’s belief of what she or
he can do This study defined self-efficacy as an
individ-ual’s judgment of the likelihood that they have the capacity
to successfully perform their tasks as an S-OJT trainer
Some empirical studies have revealed that there is a
positive relationship between training or learning activities
and self-efficacy Self-efficacy can be increased as a result
of learning and feedback (Washington2002) For example,
Prieto and Meyers (1999) tested the effect of a formal
training program for graduate teaching assistants (GTAs)
on self-efficacy toward teaching and found that GTAs
receiving training possessed a greater sense of self-
effi-cacy Orpen (1999) also indicated that financial service
employees who received more formal training had higher
levels of self-efficacy in their ability to do their jobs
Before delivering S-OJT, trainers have various learning
opportunities, which can be from train-the-trainer courses
Based on these experiences, S-OJT trainers should be able
to explain and demonstrate perfectly, in front of a trainee,
the work content that they have done for many years
Therefore, such positive experiences enable S-OJT trainers
to feel that they have much higher capacities to perform
their jobs as trainers
Hypothesis 1 S-OJT trainer preparation through
train-the-trainer programs has a positive impact on a trainer’s
delivery of S-OJT and self-efficacy as a trainer
Hypothesis 2 Self-efficacy as a trainer has a positive
influence on a trainer’s delivery of S-OJT
Organizational commitment
According to Bartlett (2001, p 336), ‘‘organizational
commitment can be thought of as the level of attachment
felt toward the organization in which one is employed.’’ In
general, organizational commitment refers to an
individ-ual’s feelings about the organization as a whole (Ensher
et al 2001) Of all the forms of organizational
commit-ment, affective commitment has shown the strongest
correlation with desirable outcomes; hence, organizations typically strive to foster this type of commitment among their employees (Meyer and Allen 1997) Affective com-mitment refers to ‘‘the employee’s emotional attachment
to, identification with, and involvement in the organiza-tion’’ (Meyer and Allen1991, p 67) If employees have a strong affective commitment, they will stay in an organi-zation because they want to do so
Researchers have theoretically and empirically posited the relationship between organizational commitment and its antecedents Some studies have focused on its rela-tionship to workplace learning (Cho and Kwon 2005) Consistently, findings have shown that participation in training programs provided by an organization enhances participants’ organizational commitment Employees’ per-ception of learning and growth opportunities in the work-place plays a significant role in enhancing organizational commitment
In S-OJT cases, as trainers are deeply and sincerely engaged in the train-the-trainer program, they themselves have the opportunity to acquire new knowledge and skills that enable them to be effective S-OJT trainers In addi-tion, since the social processes between the trainer and trainee are distinctive features of S-OJT, mutual learning and development interactions between them are more likely to occur In other words, S-OJT is based on social processes and close contact between the trainer and trai-nee Therefore, there are a variety of opportunities for S-OJT trainers to acquire or update their knowledge and skills Black et al (1996) also indicated that one of the strengths of S-OJT is that there are a great number of developmental opportunities for S-OJT trainers Conse-quently, both the delivery of S-OJT and trainer prepara-tion focusing train-the-trainer courses can be viewed as learning and developmental opportunities for trainers themselves and play a role as an antecedent of S-OJT trainers’ organizational commitment
Organizational commitment can be developed through a social exchange mechanism as a result of positive work experiences (Meyer and Allen 1991; Bartlett 2001) For instance, if organizations provide employees with useful opportunities to improve their capabilities and meet their individual needs, the employees in turn are more likely to feel a stronger organizational commitment Such an opportunity may be seen as a reward for and recognition of their effort (Unwin and Fuller 2003) Being an S-OJT trainer means that an organization acknowledges the trai-ner’s level of competence In addition, S-OJT enables trainers to develop their reputation as a leader and an expert with knowledge and wisdom to share Consequently, such positive opportunities given from organizations are valued by trainers In turn, they can be committed to the organization that provided these experiences
Trang 5Hypothesis 3 Both trainers’ delivery of OJT and
S-OJT trainer preparation has a positive impact on trainers’
organizational commitment
Methods
This study was conducted in a life insurance company in
Korea where S-OJT is being implemented to provide
tech-nical training for new employees In this company, new
financial consultants (FCs) receive 40 days of field training
with experienced FCs An experienced FC conducts S-OJT
for the new FC The length of each S-OJT session is
approximately 8 h During the field-training period, new FCs
should complete at least 10 S-OJT sessions
Sample
The population consisted of all S-OJT trainers who were
working in Seoul, Korea The total population trainers in
Seoul are 2498 According to the table for determining
sample size from a given population (Krejcie and Morgan
1970, p 608), the appropriate sample size for this study is
334 trainers A questionnaire was distributed to 334
ran-domly selected S-OJT trainers from 20 divisional offices of
the company in Seoul Finally, 246 questionnaires were
returned Among them, 11 questionnaires were returned
uncompleted or nearly uncompleted These 11 were
elim-inated from further analyses As a result, there were 235
usable questionnaires, yielding a response rate of 70.35%
A check was made to identify any out-of-range values by
examining stem and leaf diagrams and frequency tables
All of the items did not have any extreme outliers
Demographic information was collected on the
respon-dents’ age, education level, and length of service as a FC at
the organization The population of this study consists
solely of females, because in Korea FC is a strictly female
occupation as a long-term career Thus, gender was
con-trolled in this study The average age of the respondents is
42.29 years (SD = 5.08) The average length of service as
a FC in the organization is 7.44 (SD = 3.37) Of the
respondents, 68.5% have completed high school, 13.2%
have a 2-year college degree, 14.4% have a 4-year college
degree Nearly 4% did not provide information about their
education level
As suggested by Miller and Smith (1983), respondents
were divided into two groups to control non-response error
Early respondents were those who responded to the first
mailing Late respondents were defined as those who
responded to the second mailing The two groups were
compared with a couple of variables t-tests indicated no
statistical difference between early respondents and late
respondents on organizational commitment (t = -.597,
d.f = 232, p [ 05) and self-efficacy (t = 813, d.f =
229, p [ 05)
Measures
The instrument was developed based on either established construct scales (for example, organizational commitment and self-efficacy) or new construct scales This study developed new construct scales after an extensive review
of the related literature In addition, the existing scales were revised to fit into the context of this study For example, to measure self-efficacy as a trainer, this study used the teacher efficacy short form scale developed by Hoy and Woolfolk (1990) The researcher modified some wordings After developing the instrument, it was reviewed for content validity by a panel of seven experts Also, the instrument was field tested with a group of S-OJT trainers During the field test, suitability and face validity were established All items were linked to a six-point Likert scale ranging from 6 = ‘‘strongly agree (or always)’’ to
1 = ‘‘strongly disagree (or never)’’ with the exceptions of trainers’ participation in training and learning activities and previous experience as an S-OJT trainer
S-OJT trainer preparation
This construct was measured by the trainer’s perception about the extent to which knowledge and skills that are learned in the train-the-trainer program were useful to their current S-OJT practice S-OJT trainer preparation through the train-the-trainer program was evaluated using an average score comprised five related items, including understanding the importance of S-OJT, use of appropriate instruction events, trainees’ learning evaluation and so on
S-OJT trainer’s delivery of S-OJT
This latent construct consisted of six variables Jacobs (2003) identified the three basic actions of trainers to pre-pare to deliver S-OJT, along with five instructional events and the 17 actions to deliver S-OJT A 20-item scale was developed to identify trainers’ actions to deliver S-OJT
Self-efficacy as an S-OJT trainer
This variable represented the respondent’s belief about whether she/he can successfully deliver S-OJT by using her/his skills and knowledge This study employed a scale used by Hoy and Woolfolk (1990) According to them, self-efficacy as a trainer represented an independent factor from other similar self-efficacy scales The alpha coeffi-cient of reliability was 84 in their study Also this instru-ment was translated into Korean In order to validate the
Trang 6translation, a consensus Korean-translated version was
developed with four panel members who are fluent in both
Korean and English and have enough experience in
trans-lating English documents and books Then, the backward
translation was conducted with a Korean bilingual
profi-cient in both languages Although some wordings were not
equivalent, the comparison showed both versions had the
same meaning
Affective organizational commitment
This variable refers to the respondent’s emotional
attach-ment to, identification with, and involveattach-ment in the
organi-zation This study used the eight-item Korean version of the
Affective Commitment Scale (Cho and Kwon2005) Meyer
and Allen’s model includes three components: affective,
normative, and continuous domain In terms of construct
validity issues, however, affective commitment is the most
widely studied, as it has consistent relationships with
orga-nizational outcomes such as performance, attendance, and
retention (Meyer and Allen1997) In particular, the
reli-ability estimate was found to be remarkably similar to those
of studies that were using the Korean version of the Affective
Commitment Scale: Cronbach’s alpha = 87 (Cho and
Kwon 2005), 84 (Lee et al 2001), and 86 (Jung 2000),
respectively
Analysis
Following the data collection, structural equation modeling
(SEM) was applied to conduct a data analysis This study
followed a two-step procedure proposed by Hair et al (1995): conducting confirmatory factor analysis and then analyzing the structural model SPSS and AMOS were adopted as the tools for analyzing the data In order to handle missing values, this study used the most common imputation technique, which is the replacement of missing values with the variable mean that was computed using the complete case This procedure replaced missing values with the variable means
In terms of validity, principal factor analysis using SPSS was employed to test whether the participants in this study made distinctions among six domains of the delivery of S-OJT Along with varimax as the rotation method, five factors were identified, unlike the expected number of factors proposed by Jacobs (2003) Through repeated factor analyses, five items were excluded from the original scales because their factor loading was under 5 In general, this criterion (factor loading = 5 above) can be used to make a strict interpretation regarding relationships between items and a factor (Hair et al.1995) As a result, the five factors were extracted These five factors explained 66.93% of the total variance in trainers’ delivery of S-OJT These validity statistic results are provided in Table1
Following the principal factor analysis, this study con-ducted a confirmatory factor analysis using the structural equation model (SEM) on five factors The model showed a reasonable fit to the data for sample, v2 (80,
N = 235) = 176.222, p \ 001; CFI = 907; IFI = 909; GFI = 906; RMSEA = 073 In addition, validity issues
on self-efficacy as an S-OJT trainer and affective organi-zational commitment employed results manifested by the
Table 1 Result of principal
response
Prepare the trainee
Prepare the delivery
Present the training
Provide feedback
& evaluation
Trang 7previous research (Hoy and Woolfolk1990; Cho and Kwon
2005, respectively)
In terms of internal consistency, this study calculated
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the delivery of S-OJT
scale, usefulness of the train-the-trainer program scale,
affective organizational commitment scale, and
self-effi-cacy as an S-OJT trainer scale in Table2 All reliability
coefficients were quite high and reflected the internal
consistency of each instrument
Results
Table3shows the correlation matrix among the variables
The results indicated that all of the variables were weakly
or moderately correlated with each other Also, no
nega-tively correlated variables existed
The model to confirm the relationships between latent
constructs and factors was tested using SEM with the AMOS
program In order to evaluate the adequacy of the fit of the
proposed model to the data, a combination of fit indices was
examined The results for the proposed model showed that
the chi-square was significant, v2(33, N = 235) = 40.060;
p = 002, along with good CFI = 94; IFI = 94;
GFI = 96, AGFI = 93, RMSEA = 07) indices Figure1
presents the standardized solution for the structural model All the hypothesized coefficients and factor loadings are significant (CR [ 1.96) More specifically, the causal effect
of self-efficacy as an S-OJT trainer on trainers’ delivery of S-OJT was relatively high (b = 44), followed by the rela-tionship between trainers’ delivery of S-OJT and organiza-tional commitment (b = 34) S-OJT trainer preparation also predicted self-efficacy as an S-OJT trainer (b = 28), train-ers’ delivery of S-OJT (b = 22), and organizational com-mitment (b = 20)
As shown above, the causal links in the proposed model were established The results indicated that S-OJT trainers who held positive experiences of being an S-OJT trainer through the train-the-trainer program felt a stronger belief that they could be a successful S-OJT trainer, delivered more thoroughly work contents based on five instructional events compared to trainers who did not, and felt stronger organizational commitment In this model, self-efficacy served as a significant mediator: self-efficacy mediated the relationship between S-OJT trainer preparation through the train-the-trainer program and trainers’ delivery of S-OJT
In particular, S-OJT trainer preparation through train-the-trainer programs was more important in terms of predicting self-efficacy than predicting trainers’ delivery of S-OJT Self-efficacy as an S-OJT trainer mediated between S-OJT trainer preparation and trainers’ delivery of S-OJT How-ever, the causal influence of S-OJT trainer preparation through train-the-trainer programs is relatively high for self-efficacy as an S-OJT trainer compared to trainers’ delivery of S-OJT and organizational commitment The results show that S-OJT trainers who perform their delivery of S-OJT according to five instructional events and who learn knowledge and skills that are needed to be S-OJT trainer were more organizationally committed Also, trainers’ delivery of S-OJT mediated between trainer preparation and organizational commitment and between self-efficacy and organizational commitment Conse-quently, these results fully supported the study hypotheses
Table 2 Cronbach’s alpha coefficients
Self-efficacy as an S-OJT trainer 86
Table 3 Correlation matrix among variables
a S-OJT trainer
preparation
d Self-efficacy 28**
c Prepare the
delivery
.27** 25**
d Prepare the
training
.24** 32** 42**
e Present the
training
.13* 28** 33** 46**
f Require a
response
.29** 36** 24** 42** 47**
g Feedback &
Evaluation
.13* 28** 28** 46** 32** 39**
h Organizational
commitment
.32** 37** 26** 30** 24** 21** 18**
* p \ 05, ** p \ 01
.57 63 63 73 52
.34
.44
S-OJT trainer preparation
Self-Efficacy
Trainer Delivery Actions
Organizational Commitment
Prepare the delivery
Prepare the trainee
Present the training
Require a response
Feedback & Evaluation
.28
.20 22
Fig 1 The proposed model
Trang 8Conclusions and implications
A model was postulated suggesting that causal
relation-ships exist between S-OJT trainer preparation through the
train-the-trainer program, trainers’ delivery of S-OJT,
self-efficacy as an S-OJT trainer, and organizational
commit-ment Findings confirm the study’s conceptual model and
support all the hypotheses The model provides a good fit to
the data
The results of the study further showed the
under-standing of how mutual interaction between the trainer and
trainee allows S-OJT trainers to learn and develop their
professional competences and in turn produces unintended
consequences, such as trainers’ organizational
commit-ment Also, this study reveals that S-OJT trainer
prepara-tion through train-the-trainer programs can directly
influence self-efficacy as an S-OJT trainer At the same
time, these variables are directly and indirectly able to
affect the actions performed by trainers to deliver S-OJT
In other words, when S-OJT trainers are well prepared
through the train-the-trainer program, S-OJT trainers are
more likely to feel stronger self-belief that they can
per-form well as an S-OJT trainer and to utilize essential
actions to deliver S-OJT along with the instructional
events
Previous research pointed mainly to the effectiveness of
S-OJT on trainees and empirically showed a separate link
between ‘‘input’’ and ‘‘output’’ or ‘‘process’’ and ‘‘output’’
based on a system view of S-OJT This study provides a
possible research issue by proposing a path model
under-lying a systematic link, including input (S-OJT trainer
preparation and self-efficacy as a trainer), process (trainers’
delivery of S-OJT), and output (organizational
commit-ment of trainers) simultaneously in the S-OJT system
In addition to offering a path model, the results of this
study may also contribute to the conceptualization of
S-OJT trainers’ delivery of S-S-OJT What happens in the
training process totally depends on the trainer’s delivery of
S-OJT Nevertheless, trainers’ delivery of S-OJT has
received relatively little attention by researchers in general
This study highlights this notion and its five instructional
events: prepare the delivery, prepare the trainee, present the
training, require a response, and provide feedback and
evaluation Furthermore, this study examines the construct
validity of trainers’ delivery of S-OJT by using
confirma-tory factor analysis The results support five distinct factors
composed of a total of 15 items The fit of the five factor
model is good Consequently, the scale proposed in this
study can be used to measure the extent to which an S-OJT
trainer successfully delivers work contents along with 15
essential actions
The study outcomes, then, have some implications for
HRD, focusing on S-OJT First, it seems critical that
organizations continuously examine the effectiveness of their train-the-trainer program From the results of this study, if trainers perceive that train-the-trainer programs are helpful to their current S-OJT practice, trainers’ self-belief that they can perform S-OJT by using their skills and knowledge are more likely to be increased At the same time, trainers tend to engage in the essential instructional events required for effective training Also, S-OJT trainer preparation through the train-the-trainer program can play
an important role in increasing trainers’ organizational commitment
Second, it seems critical that how trainers deliver S-OJT needs to be regularly checked In order to do this, Jacobs (2003) suggested that some consistent and standardized forms to measure trainers’ delivery of S-OJT should be developed When trainers are fully engaged in the instructional events required for effective training, they may have more opportunities to obtain unintended conse-quences, beyond a stronger organizational commitment Although some implications can be expected to impact S-OJT practice in the field of HRD, care must be taken when generalizing the findings into other populations This study examines one company in a Korean context Future research needs to examine the research issues proposed from this study in more diverse settings
References
Bartlett, K R (2001) The relationship between training and organizational commitment: A study in the health care field Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(4), 335–352 doi:10.1002/hrdq.1001.
Bennett, T L., & Calvin, J (2002) Structured on-the-job training of field service engineers: Liebert global services In R L Jacobs (Ed.), Implementing structured on-the-job learning (pp 131– 142) Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.
Bjorkquist, D C., & Murphy, B P (1996) Structured on-the-job training: Pitfalls and payoffs In C P Campbell (Ed.), Education and training for work: Volume 1 Planning programs Lancaster, PN: TECHNOMIC Publication.
Black, J A., Zenner, F J., & Ezell, E (1996) A case study of the development and implementation of a structured on-the-job (S-OJT) training program in the coil processing industry In E F Holton (ed.), Proceedings of the 1996 academy of human resource development conference Minneapolis, MN: Academy
of Human Resource Development.
Burkett, H (2002) Leveraging employee know-how through struc-tured OJT In R L Jacobs (Ed.), Implementing on-the-job learning: Thirteen case studies from the real world of training Alexandria, VA: ASTD.
Cho, D., & Kwon, D (2005) Self-directed learning readiness as an antecedent of organizational commitment: A Korean study International Journal of Training and Development, 9(2), 140– 152.
D’Abate, C P., Eddy, E R., & Tannenbaum, S I (2003) What’s in a name? A literature-based approach to understanding mentoring,
Trang 9coaching, and other constructs that describe developmental
interactions Human Resource Development Review, 2(4), 360–
384 doi:10.1177/1534484303255033.
DeSimone, R L., & Harris, D M (1998) Human resource
development NY: The Dryden Press.
Ellstrom, P E (2001) Integrating learning and work: Problems and
prospects Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(4), 421–
436 doi:10.1002/hrdq.1006.
Ensher, E A., Grant-Valone, E J., & Donaldson, S I (2001) Effects
of perceived discrimination on job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and
griev-ances Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(1), 53–72.
doi:10.1002/1532-1096(200101/02)12:1\53::AID-HRDQ5[3.0.
CO;2-G.
Fuller, A., & Unwin, L (2002) Developing pedagogies for the
contemporary workplace In K Evans, P Hodkinson, & L.
Unwin (Eds.), Working to learning: Transforming learning in
the workplace (pp 95–111) London: Kogan Page.
Hair, J F., Anderson, R E., Tatham, R L., & Black, W C (1995).
Multivariate data analysis with readings (4th ed.) New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Harris, R., Simons, M., & Bone, J (2000) More than meets the eyes?
Rethinking the role of workplace trainer Australia: NCVER.
Hoy, W K., & Woolfolk, A E (1990) Socialization of student
teachers American Educational Research Journal, 27(2), 279–
300.
Jacobs, R L (1996) Unstructured versus structured on-the-job
training In J Phillips (Ed.), Measuring return on investment
(Vol 1, pp 123–132) Alexandra, VA: American Society for
Training and Development.
Jacobs, R L (2002) Implementing structured on-the-job learning In
R L Jacobs (Ed.), Implementing on-the-job learning
Alexan-dra, VA: American Society for Training and Development.
Jacobs, R L (2003) Structured on-the-job training: Unleashing
employee expertise in the workplace (2nd ed.) San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler Publications, Inc.
Jacobs, R L., Jones, M J., & Neil, S (1992) A case study in
forecasting the financial benefits of unstructured on-the-job
training Human Resource Development Quarterly, 3(2), 133–
139 doi:10.1002/hrdq.3920030205.
Jacobs, R L., & Osman-Gani, A M (1999) Status, impact, and
implementation issues of structured on-the-job training: A study
of Singapore-based companies Human Resource Development
International, 2(1), 17–24 doi:10.1080/13678869900000005.
Johnson, S D., & Leach, J A (2001) Using expert employees to
train on the job Advances in Developing Human Resources,
3(4), 425–434 doi:10.1177/15234220122238481.
Jones, M J., & Jacobs, R L (1997) Developing frontline employees:
A new challenge for achieving organizational effectiveness In
R Kaufman, S Thiagarajan, & P MacGinnis (Eds.), The
guidebook for performance improvement: Working with
individ-uals and organizations San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Jung, J (2000) Reexamination of the three-component model of
organizational commitment in South Korea Unpublished
Dis-sertation, Kent State University.
Krejcie, R V., & Morgan, D W (1970) Determining sample size for
research activities Educational and Psychological
Measure-ment, 30, 607–610.
Lee, K., Allen, N J., Meyer, J P., & Rhee, K (2001) The three-component model of organizational commitment: An application
to South Korea Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(4), 596–614.
Meyer, J P., & Allen, N J (1991) A three-component conceptuali-zation of organiconceptuali-zational commitment Human Resource Manage-ment Review, 1(1), 61–89 doi:10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z Meyer, J P., & Allen, N J (1997) Commitment in the workplace Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Meyer, S R., & Marsick, V J (2003) Professional development in corporate training In K P King & P A Lawler (Eds.), New perspectives on designing and implementing professional devel-opment of teachers of adults (Vol 98) New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Miller, L E., & Smith, K L (1983) Handling non-response issues Journal of Extension, 21(5), 45–50.
Orpen, C (1999) The impact of self-efficacy on the effectiveness of employee training Journal of Workplace Learning, 11(4), 119–
122 doi:10.1108/13665629910276034.
Osman-Gani, A M., & Zidan, S S (2001) Cross-cultural implica-tions of planned on-the-job training Advances in Developing Human Resources, 3(4), 442–460 doi:10.1177/152342201222 38517.
Prieto, L R., & Meyers, S A (1999) Effects of training and supervision on the self-efficacy of psychology graduate teaching assistants Teaching of Psychology, 26(4), 264–266 doi:10.1207/ S15328023TOP260404.
Stein, D S (2001) Situated learning and planned training on the job Advances in Developing Human Resources, 3(4), 415–442 doi:10.1177/15234220122238472.
Stolovitch, H D., & Ngoa-Nguele, D (2001) Structured on-the-job training in developing nations Advances in Developing Human Resources, 3(4), 461–470 doi:10.1177/15234220122238526 Swanson, R A., & Falkman, S K (1997) Training delivery problems and solutions: Identification of novice trainer problems and expert trainer solutions Human Resource Development Quar-terly, 8(4), 305–314 doi:10.1002/hrdq.3920080406.
Swanson, R A., & Holton, E F., III (2001) Foundation of human resource development San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Unwin, L., & Fuller, A (2003) Expanding learning in the workplace: Making more of individual and organizational potential A NIACE Policy Discussion Paper England: National Institute of Adult Continuing Education.
Walter, D (1998) Training and certifying on-the-job trainers Technical Training, March/April, 32–35.
Washington, C L (2002) The relationships among learning transfer climate, transfer self-efficacy, goal commitment, and sales performance in an organization undergoing planned change Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The Ohio State University Williams, S W (2001) The effectiveness of subject matter experts as technical trainers Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(1), 91–97 doi:10.1002/1532-1096(200101/02)12:1\91::AID-HRDQ7[3.0.CO;2-0.
Trang 10Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner Further reproduction prohibited without permission.