A review and critique of rearch on training
and organizational-level outcomes
Phyllis Tharenou a,⁎,Alan M.Saks b,1,Celia Moore c,2
a
Division of Business,University of South Australia,City West Campus,North Terrace,Adelaide 5000,Australia b Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources,University of Toronto,121St.George Street,Toronto,Ontario Canada M5S 2E8
c London Business School,Regents Park,London NW14SA,UK Abstract
This paper aims to advance understanding of the effects of training on organizational-level outcomes by reviewing the results of previous studies that have investigated the relationship between training and human resource,performance,and financial outcomes.The results of meta-analysis from 67studies suggest that training is positively related to human resource outcomes and organizational performance but is only very weakly related to financial outcomes.The relationship between training and firm performance may be mediated by employee attitudes and human capital.Furthermore,training appears
to be more strongly related to organizational outcomes when it is matched with key contextual factors such as organization capital intensity and business strategy,in support of the contingency perspective.Further,training is related independently to organizational outcomes in support of the universalistic perspective of strategic human resource management rather than a configurational perspective.The paper concludes with a critique of previous studies and directions for future rearch.Particular emphasis is given to the need for future rearch to integrate individual-level (micro)and organizational-level (macro)training rearch,models,and theory.
©2007Elvier Inc.All rights rerved.
Keywords:Training;Human capital;Organizational effectiveness
1.Introduction
The knowledge and skills of an organization's workforce have become increasingly important to its performance,competitiveness,and innovation (Lawler,Mohrman,&Ledford,1998;Martocchio &Baldwin,1997).Workplace learning and continuous improvement are now considered esntial for an organization to remain competitive (Salas &Cannon-Bowers,2001).Thus,it is not surprising that employee training is a multi-billion dollar industry worldwide (Haccoun &Saks,1998).In 2006,organiza
tions in the United States spent a total of $55.8billion on training (Industry Report,2006).According to Kraiger (2003),successful organizations are thought to invest more in training
and Human Resource Management Review 17(2007)251–
/locate/humres
Corresponding author.Tel.:+61883020223;fax:+61883020904.
E-mail address:phyllis.tharenou@unisa.edu.au (P.Tharenou),saks@utsc.utoronto.ca (A.M.Saks),cmoore@london.edu (C.Moore).1Tel.:+14169785366;fax:+14169785696.
2Tel.:+442070008931.
1053-4822/$-e front matter ©2007Elvier Inc.All rights rerved.
doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.07.004
252P.Tharenou et al./Human Resource Management Review17(2007)251–273
development than other organizations.The substantial outlay that organizations spend each year on formal training and development programs is made with the expectation that their training investments will lead to improvements in organizational performance or results(Dolezalek,2005;Salas&Cannon-Bowers,2001).Although training is only one way for employee learning to occur,the investment made in training requires an analysis of the evidence to examine if, indeed,training pays off in organizational effectiveness.
However,training is often criticized for being faddish,too expensive,not transferring to the job,and not improving the bottom line(Caudron,2002;Kraiger,McLinden,&Casper,2004;Salas,Cannon-Bowers,Rhodenizer,&Bowers, 1999;Wright&Geroy,2001).Training is often viewed as a cost center to be controlled or downsized during lean times (Kraiger,2003).Indeed,training programs are implemented for reasons other than improving performance such as legal compliance,rewarding and retaining employees,or becau of training fads.There is skepticism about the link between training and results criteria.For example,Alliger,Tannenbaum,Bennett,Traver,and Shotland(1997,p.346) claimed that“most training efforts are incapable of directly affecting results level criteria”.Wright and Geroy(2001, p.586)referred to the belief that training leads to improved organizational performance as a myth—“that equates training with‘goodness’”.
Rearch on the effects of training on results criteria remains spar,especially at the organizational level of analysis.In fact,so few studies have included results criteria that a meta-analysis of the relations among Kirkpatrick's (1987)four levels of training criteria was unable to include results(Alliger et al.,1997).Furthermore,most organizations still only evaluate training programs using reaction criteria,and very few measure the impact of training on results(Alliger et al.,1997;Kraiger,2003;Kraiger et al.,2004).Thus,when it comes to the effects of training on organizati
onal outcomes or results criteria,there has not been the same degree of progress as there has been on the science and practice of training at the individual level of analysis(Kraiger,2003;Salas&Cannon-Bowers,2001).
Training is defined as the systematic acquisition and development of the knowledge,skills,and attitudes required by employees to adequately perform a task or job or to improve performance in the job environment(Goldstein,1980; Latham,1988).Training should impart new knowledge and skills if the training is relevant,bad on employee and organizational needs,and effectively designed and delivered(Salas et al.,1999).When training does result in improvements in relevant knowledge and the acquisition of relevant skills,employee job performance should improve, provided that the skills learned in training transfer to the job(Baldwin&Ford,1988;Salas et al.,1999).Improvement in job performance should be reflected in organizational outcomes or results criteria such as productivity,quality,and rvice,if the job is strategically aligned to the organization's needs.
Yet,as noted by Alliger et al.(1997),results criteria“are at once most distal from training and often perceived as most fundamental to judging training success”(p.346).Though the effects of training will be most felt on individuals' learning and behavior,scholars have called for the effects of training to be evaluated not just on individual and group outcomes but also on organizational outcomes(Haccoun&
Saks,1998;Ramlall,2003).
Although there is increasing concern in organizations that training investments be justified in terms of improved organizational performance(Salas&Cannon-Bowers,2001),it is difficult to find strong evidence of this in the human resource literature.This is becau most models and rearch have focud primarily,if not exclusively,on the individual-level of analysis(Kozlowski,Brown,Weissbein,Cannon-Bowers,&Salas,2000).The main objective of this paper is to advance our understanding of the effects of training on organizational-level outcomes(results criteria in Kirkpatrick's,1987,model),as a first step in dealing with the tension between the need for training and doubts about its benefit to organizations,and as a compliment to the more developed literature on the effects of training on transfer and individual behavior and performance(Salas&Cannon-Bowers,2001).
The paper is organized in five ctions.First,the paper describes theoretical models that explain the relationship between training and organizational-level outcomes.Second,the paper describes three perspectives of strategic human resource management(SHRM)and their implications for training.Third,we briefly describe how prior rearch has measured training and outcome variables.Fourth,we provide the first review of rearch on training and organizational-level outcome
手机浏览器哪个好用
s.Fifth,we critique rearch on training and organizational-level outcomes and discuss future rearch directions,noting theoretical and methodological issues that require the greatest attention.
2.Theoretical models of the relationship between training and organizational-level outcomes
Although there is a strong belief that training is related to organizational-level outcomes(Alliger et al.,1997; Kozlowski et al.,2000),the theoretical rationale for this relationship has ldom been the focus of training rearch.As
noted by Kozlowski et al.(2000),most models of training end with the transfer of individual-level outcomes to the training context and there is little theoretical development or rearch on how individual-level training outcomes result in organizational-level outcomes.Thus,Kozlowski et al.(2000)concluded that there is a levels gap in the training literature in which,although a goal of training is to enhance organizational effectiveness,the models,methods,and tools of training focus on the individual level.
The literature on strategic human resource management (SHRM)provides a number of models to explain how training might lead to organizational outcomes.For example,Wright and McMahan (1992)provide a conceptual framework that incorporates six theoretical models for the study of SHR
M.According to their framework and the theoretical models,HRM practices influence the HR capital pool and HR behaviors;HR behaviors then lead to firm-level outcomes.
Of the six theoretical models described in their framework,three of them are relevant for understanding training and organizational-level relationships.First,according to the resource-bad view of the firm ,an organization's resources can be a source of competitive advantage when it posss resources that add positive value to the firm,are unique,imperfectly imitable,and cannot be substituted with another resource by competitors.Accordingly,human capital is considered to be a resource that can provide a competitive advantage to the extent that HR practices produce skilled employees who provide value to the firm and have unique inimitable skills.Applying the resource-bad view to training suggests that training can be viewed as an investment in human capital that provides employees with unique knowledge,skills and abilities that add value to the firm and enable the performance of activities required to achieve organizational goals,thus resulting in positive organizational-level outcomes (Ostroff &Bowen,2000).
The cond theoretical model is the behavioral perspective which focus on employee role behavior as a mediator between strategy and firm performance.Accordingly,human resource practices should elicit and reinforce the behaviors required by the organization's strategy.Along thes
e lines,it is necessary to identify the HR practices that will be most effective for eliciting desired role behaviors.The desired role behaviors should then lead to positive organizational outcomes.Applying the behavioral perspective to training suggests that training will result in positive organizational outcomes to the extent that it results in employee behaviors that are required by the organization's strategy.
The third theoretical framework is reprented by a t of models,described as cybernetic systems models or input –throughput –output models (Wright &McMahan,1992).Open system models portray organizations as transforming inputs from the environment into outputs.Wright and McMahan (1992)prent a cybernetic open systems model of HR in which inputs consist of employees'knowledge,skills and abilities (KSAs);the throughput is employee behaviors;and output includes productivity,satisfaction,and turnover.Included under the cybernetic approach is an open systems model of the HR system in which employee competencies (inputs)lead to behaviors (throughputs)which then lead to affective and performance outcomes (outputs).Thus,when applied to training,cybernetic models suggest that training leads to organizational outcomes to the extent that it results in competencies (i.e.,knowledge,skills,and abilities)that are necessary to perform the behaviors that will impact organizational outcomes.
尔湾时间Kozlowski et al.(2000)provided a theoretical framework to develop a multilevel model of training effectiveness to bridge the micro –macro gap in the training literature.Kozlowski et al.(2000,p.199)propod that “Training effectiveness involves the linkage between micro training outcomes and macro objectives at higher organizational levels ”.They focud on training transfer “becau it is the primary leverage point by which training can influence organizational effectiveness ”(p.159)and prent a theoretical framework to guide rearch on vertical transfer (i.e.,upward transfer across different levels of the organizational system).Kozlowski et al.(2000)distinguished between two types of vertical transfer process:composition and compilation.With composition ,individual contributions are additive and compensatory becau they involve the same content (e.g.,as in a typing pool).The averaged combination of individual-level KSAs,behavior,and performance will lead to higher-level outcomes.With compilation,individual contributions are conjunctive and individuals contribute different or diver content (e.g.,as in a surgical team or a flight crew).Thus,different skills and behaviors need to combine across positions in order for vertical transfer to occur.Regardless of the combinatorial rules,it is individual KSAs,behaviors,and performance that are imparted through training and are the precursor of vertical transfer.Training leads to organizational-level outcomes to the extent that it results in the acquisition of KSAs,behaviors,and performance that are necessary to achieve desired organizational outcomes.
In summary,the theories reviewed in this ction suggest that the effect of training on organizational-level outcomes is mediated through direct effects of training on employee attitudes,behaviors,and KSAs.As Ostroff and Bowen 253
P .Tharenou et al./Human Resource Management Review 17(2007)251–273
254P.Tharenou et al./Human Resource Management Review17(2007)251–273
(2000,p.217)theorized,an HR system is a complex t of practices designed to influence employees'collective satisfaction,commitment,motivation,behavior and skills;the attributes are thought to be the mediating mechanism that links HR practices and firm performance.
Therefore,bad on the theories that link HRM practices to organizational outcomes,we propo a theoretical framework shown in Fig.1that links training to organizational outcomes.Training has a direct effect on HR outcomes and an indirect effect on organizational performance that is mediated through HR outcomes.We have ud Ostroff and Bowen's(2000)classification scheme of employee attributes to reprent HR outcomes as it encompass all of the variables in the various models:,collective employee satisfaction)and motivation;, performance-related),and human ,workforce knowledge,skills and abilities).According to Ostroff and Bo
天然牧场wen(2000),employees'collective attitudes,behaviors,and human capital should influence organizational performance.In turn,organizational performance should lead to positive financial outcomes for the organization (Becker&Hulid,1998;Dyer&Reeves,1995),mediating the relationship between human resource outcomes and financial performance.
中国沙洋
3.SHRM perspectives and implications for training
In the previous ction,we described veral theories to explain how training is related to organizational-level outcomes.Most of the theories imply a direct linear relationship between training and organizational outcomes. However,theories of ,resource bad theory,behavioral theory)imply that other types of relationships also need to be considered in addition to the basic model in Fig.1.The literature on SHRM provides alternative perspectives of the relationship between HR practices and organization-level outcomes that are generally referred to as the universalistic,contingency,and configurational perspectives(Delery&Doty,1996;Ostroff&Bowen,2000).The perspectives can also explain different types of relationships between training and organizational-level outcomes.
The most basic perspective is the universalistic perspective.According to the universalistic perspecti
ve,some HR practices such as formal training are work practices that are believed to be linked to organizational effectiveness for all organizations that u them(Delery&Doty,1996;Ostroff&Bowen,2000).The basic premi of the universalistic perspective is that greater u of particular HR practices will result in better organizational performance.Thus,according to the universalistic perspective,organizations that provide more extensive training will be more effective.This is in effect the primary perspective taken in most studies on training and organizational-level outcomes,in which training is predicted to have a positive relationship with organizational outcomes.The model shown in Fig.1corresponds to this perspective.
A cond perspective is known as the contingency perspective.The general premi of the contingency perspective is that the relationship between a specific HR practice and organizational performance is contingent on key contextual factors,most notably an organization's strategy(Delery&Doty,1996).Thus,organizations adopting particular strategies require certain HR practices that will differ from tho required by organizations with different strategies. The contingency perspective is more complex than the universalistic perspective becau it implies interactions between HR practices and organizational factors.Organizations with greater congruence between their HR practices and their strategies,or other relevant contextual factors,should have sup心灵的旅程
erior performance(Delery&Doty,1996). When applied to training,the contingency perspective suggests that extensive formal training will be most effective when ud in combination with certain organizational ,Schuler,1989).
A third perspective is known as the configurational perspective.The configurational perspective suggests that there are ideal types or configurations of HR practices that form HR systems that lead to superior performance(Ostroff&Bowen, 2000).In high-performance systems,HR practices need to be complementary and interdependent,working together to
When
学习的英语单词是什么develop valuable,unique human capacities to increa organizational effectiveness(Barney&Wright,1998). Array Fig.1.Theoretical model linking training to organizational-level outcomes.
applied to training,the configurational perspective suggests that training will enhance organizational effectiveness when it is ud in conjunction with other,complementary HR practices than when ud independently.Thus,when firms invest in training,training must be consistent with other HR practices.HR practices consistent with training include careful screening of applicants for potential an
d trainability,practices to decrea turnover,u of promotion from within and internal labor markets,u of performance-contingent incentive systems,defining jobs broadly,and providing opportunities for employee participation (Baron &Kreps,1999;Lepak &Snell,1999).
In summary,the SHRM literature suggests that the nature of the relationship between training and organizational-level outcomes might be universalistic as suggested in Fig.1,such that HR outcomes mediate the relationship between training and organizational performance;and/or it might be moderated by organizational factors such as firm strategy (contingency perspective);and/or it might be moderated by other congruent HR practices (configurational perspective).
4.Rearch on training and organizational-level outcomes
Our review of the literature on training and organizational-level outcomes unearthed 67studies that have been published in many different journals across a number of disciplines.As a result,there are a number of challenges in reviewing the existing rearch on training and organizational level outcomes.There is a lack of consistency in how the studies are conducted,how key variables are measured,and how data are analyzed.There are a range of training and outcome variables ud.We briefly describe the training and outcome variables that have been measured in previous studies.
4.1.Training variables
Training has been conceptualized and measured in four main ways.In general,the measurement of training has comprid absolute measures (e.g.,amount of training employees receive),proportional measures (e.g.,percent of workers trained),content measures (e.g.,type of training provided),and emphasis measures (e.g.,perceived importance of training to the organization).Within the categories,measurement of training has varied.For example,absolute measures of training have been operationalized as total hours or days of training,total dollar amount spent on training,number of workers trained,or the prence or abnce of training as a categorical variable.In addition,the number of training variables included in a study also varies.Many studies u a single item to measure training,while others u multiple training measures across different categories.Training items also range from single-item,categorical variables to multi-item scales with reliability measures.As a result,in some studies the training predictor might be a single-item variable,while in others there might be multiple training variables ud collectively to predict an outcome.
4.2.Outcome variables
Rearch on training and organizational-level outcomes also varies as a function of the outcome vari
ables.We can categorize the variety of outcome variables by using Dyer and Reeves'(1995)four-category definition of organizational effectiveness for evaluating effects of HR practices.They break down effectiveness outcomes into:(a)HR outcomes (low abnteeism and turnover,motivation,high job performance);(b)organizational performance outcomes (productivity/output,quality,rvice);(c)financial or accounting outcomes (profit,return on invested capital
[ROI],return on asts [ROA])and (d)if they are publicly listed companies,stock market outcomes (shareholder returns,stock value).Studies in this review ud all types of the variables except for stock market outcomes which are rarely measured and are the most distal theoretically from training.The content of some of the categories was expanded to incorporate other indicators.Learning (e.g.,skill acquisition,employee attitudes)was included as a human resource outcome,and internal business operations (e.g.,quality rvice,rework,cycle time)and customer outcomes (e.g.,on-time delivery,customer satisfaction)were included as organizational performance outcomes (Kaplan &Norton,1993).HR,performance,and financial outcomes are results criteria in Kirkpatrick's (1987)model.
解酒吃什么水果
5.Results
In this ction,we review the results of 67studies (a total of 65parate samples)that assd the relationship between training and three categories of organization-level outcomes:HR outcomes,performance outcomes,and financial outcomes.We focud on published rearch.Studies were obtained from electronic (PsycINFO,Sociological Abstracts,255
半个世纪的诺言P .Tharenou et al./Human Resource Management Review 17(2007)251–273
