Tl 6 2 the impact of ojt on the trainer orgainzational commitment

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.

The impact of structured on-the-job training (S-OJT)

on a trainer’s organizational commitment

Daeyeon Cho

Received: 8 April 2008 / Revised: 23 January 2009 / Accepted: 11 February 2009 / Published online: 10 June 2009

Ó Education Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea 2009

Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine the

causal relationships between S-OJT trainer preparation,

self-efficacy as a trainer, trainers’ delivery of S-OJT, and

organizational commitment as a consequence of employing

S-OJT This study proposed a theoretical model from the

review of related literature and then empirically

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

acts as the trainer is an important component of the S-OJT

inputs Furthermore, the training process focuses on a

trainer’s actions Nevertheless, the training outputs that can

be produced from the interactive and iterative combination

of the training inputs and the training process have only

been highlighted from the aspect of the trainees In other

words, any consequences of S-OJT on the trainer have not

yet been empirically reported

In general, experienced employees who serve as trainers

tend not to be teaching and learning professionals Being

an S-OJT trainer can be viewed as a challenge that enables

experienced employees to dedicate themselves to the

development of their fellow employees Consequently,

trainer preparation activities like train-the-trainer courses

can assist them to be effective adult educators in the

workplace

In addition, the delivery of S-OJT is based on various

forms of widely mutual interactions between the trainer and

trainee, such as discussions, dialogs, and non-verbal

behaviors Such interactions can be called developmental

and learning interactions (D’Abate et al.2003) By having a

social process between the trainer and trainee in S-OJT,

development and growth opportunities can be provided to

trainers These opportunities play a significant role as an

antecedent of organizational commitment (Cho and Kwon

2005)

According to a system view of S-OJT in relation to the

trainer, S-OJT trainer preparation through train-the-trainer

programs can be viewed as an input Trainer self-efficacy is

regarded as its output At the same time, these constructs play

a role as the S-OJT inputs, and trainers’ delivery of S-OJT is

viewed as the training process Finally, the organizational

commitment of trainers can be an output of the dynamic

interactions between input and process components

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

greater potential to achieve a transfer of training compared

to classroom training

The delivery of S-OJT

Training processes are described by trainers’ delivery of

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

preparation to serve as S-OJT trainers affects their various

actions in delivering S-OJT

Swanson and Falkman (1997) surveyed 371 novice

trainers and asked them to recall training delivery problems

they had experienced Their study found that fear from a

lack of confidence, feeling anxious, and a lack of personal

experiences as a trainer were the most common difficulties

for novice trainers Therefore, programs used to train

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

Hypothesis 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

translation, a consensus Korean-translated version was

developed with four panel members who are fluent in both

Korean and English and have enough experience in

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

previous 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

Conclusions 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,

coaching, and other constructs that describe developmental

interactions Human Resource Development Review, 2(4), 360–

384 doi:10.1177/1534484303255033.

DeSimone, R L., & Harris, D M (1998) Human resource

development NY: The Dryden Press.

Ellstrom, P E (2001) Integrating learning and work: Problems and

prospects Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(4), 421–

436 doi:10.1002/hrdq.1006.

Ensher, E A., Grant-Valone, E J., & Donaldson, S I (2001) Effects

of perceived discrimination on job satisfaction, organizational

commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and

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.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner Further reproduction prohibited without permission.