TRANSFER OF LEARNING AT THE WORK PLACE: A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS
Rationale and Contribution
Introduction
The importance of training effectiveness has long been recognized as a crucial issue for organizations (Ford et al., 1997; Noe and Ford, 1992; Tannenbaum and Yukl, 1992). To the extent that employee-training programs are effective, organizations are able to avoid wasteful spending and improve performance and productivity. Thus, a key consideration for virtually all organizations is the expected return provided the organization for its training investment. Because it has been suggested that organizations are likely to increase their reliance upon and utilization of employee training programs in years to come (Noe, 1999), the effectiveness of training interventions in organizations is likely to become even more salient in the future (Blanchard and Thacker, 1999). In today’ s international economy, workers must be prepared to change the way they do their jobs in order to capture the benefits from rapidly evolving technology. Training goes hand-in-hand with productivity, quality, flexibility, and automation in the best performing firms. (Office of Technology Assessment, 1990)
This is illustrated by several studies conducted by other authors regarding training. Specifically, Tannenbaum and colleagues (1993) provided an integrative framework for all the variables that influence the design and delivery of training (Cannon-Bowers et al 1995). The framework outlines in detail the pre-training and during-training conditions that may influence learning, as well as the factors that may facilitate the transfer of skills after training. Kozlowski & Salas (1997), drawing from organizational theory, discussed the importance of characterizing the factors and processes in which training interventions are implemented and transferred in organizations. Moreover, Kozlowski and colleagues (Kozlowski et al 2000) consider organizational system factors and training design issues that influence the effectiveness of vertical transfer processes. Vertical transfer refers to the upward propagation of individual-level training outcomes that emerge as team- and organizational-level outcomes. This issue has been largely neglected by researchers yet is suggested to be crucial to training effectiveness. Similarly, researchers have begun to understand and outline the barriers and myths that exist in organizations as they implement training (Salas et al 1999). In other work, Kraiger et al (1993) provided new conceptualizations of learning and evaluation theory, approaches, and measurement. These authors expanded Kirkpatrick’s (1976) evaluation typology by incorporating recent notions in cognitive psychology.
In other more focused conceptual developments, studies such as that of Ford et al (1998) stand out. Their study appealed to the opportunity to perform construct as a way to understand the transfer of training process. Concurrently, Colquitt et al (2000) summarized (qualitatively and quantitatively) the literature on training motivation and offered a new, integrative model. Cannon-Bowers & Salas (1997) proposed a framework for how to conceptualize performance measurement in training. Thayer & Teach out (1995) developed a model to understand the climate for transfer in organizations, as well as in-training conditions that enhance transfer. Cannon-Bowers et al (1998) advanced a number of conditions, concepts, and interventions that may enhance practice. Ford and colleagues have looked at individual differences and learner control strategies (Ford et al 1998). Training researchers have also examined variables such as the pretraining context (Baldwin & Magjuka 1997), conscientiousness and training outcomes (Martocchio & Judge 1997), individual and situational characteristics that influence training motivation (Mathieu & Martineau 1997), and participation in developmental activities (Baldwin & Magjuka 1997), just to name a few.
Similarly, training to break down language barriers has also been looked upon by recent researches. Reeves and Wright (1996) suggest three main strategies these companies have for coping such as making better use of existing, language-skilled staff, recruiting new staff who already have the necessary English language skills, and organizing English language training for those who need it. Most companies use the last two options simultaneously; in recruitment, priority is given to staff that can operate in English, and language training is encouraged. Surprisingly, the first option is less frequently employed, as few companies have systematic and up-dated records about their staff’s language competence.
Furthermore, a recurrent imprudent retort in company language training is that everyone in the organization, or anyone who wants and is willing, is sent or encouraged to go on language courses, with financial support within limits provided. Particularly in the European context, training may well be provided in a wide range of languages. Lester (1994) quotes Siemens as an example: “Siemens is one of the companies in Europe best known for its language-training policies. All its employees–40 percent outside Germany–have the opportunity to learn English, German, French and Spanish at the company’s expense” (p. 43). The thinking behind such an approach is simply “the better our language proficiency, the better will we be able to operate in that language.” While thinking of this kind is basically sound, it does not remedy the problems staff may be experiencing in their communication. Concurrently, Huhta (1997), in her pioneering study of language training in Finnish companies, suggests that general, non-targeted language courses only work with staff who are already extremely motivated, albeit sometimes motivated by company external factors like wanting to learn the language in order to cope on holidays abroad. When that happens, the studying of a foreign language has become a hobby sponsored by the company. As a result, these general courses are frequently unsuitable and ineffective from the corporate perspective, since they are unfocused, designed without reference to the communication needs of the organization and its technical area. Motivation may be difficult to keep up, as the general course gives the impression that the whole of the language is there to be mastered. Progress is also slow. As Reeves and Wright (1996) point out, the prospect is daunting, and the probability of non-completion is high.
Description of Topic
Scholars continue to debate the extent to which public and private organizations actually differ (Rainey 1997). Researchers have developed a variety of frameworks for highlighting different aspects of organizational structures and processes (Dahl and Lindblom 1953; Benn and Gaus 1983; Lan and Rainey 1992; Perry and Rainey 1988; Mitnick 1980). Others have delineated the traits or characteristics that are unique to public organizations and that focus on rules and job formalization, hierarchy, inefficient degree of bureaucratization (Pugh, Hickson, and Hinings 1969; see also Meyer 1982), and greater amounts of red tape (Bozeman 1993; Rainey, Pandey, and Bozeman 1995). Some investigations yield evidence that public organizations are more rule-oriented and inefficient (Perry and Porter 1982; Warwick 1975), while others suggest the opposite (Bozeman and Rainey 1998; Rainey, Pandey, and Bozeman 1995; Perry and Rainey 1988).
Traditionally, public organizations have multiple conflicting goals, serve multiple constituencies, and are not tied to market incentives. Some have argued that these factors have led to inflexible, bureaucratic structures coupled with particularist personnel practices (Bozeman 1987; Meyer 1982; Pearce, Branyiczki, and Bigley 1997). Such organizations are characterized by rigid rule structures, formalized job guidelines and responsibilities, formal means of communication, clear division of labor and hierarchical control, civil service systems, inflexible reward systems, strict reporting requirements, regulations, and constraints (Weber 1947; Meyer 1982; Perry and Porter 1982; Rainey 1983; Perry and Rainey 1988; Robertson and Seneviratne 1995). By comparison, private-sector organizations are driven primarily by market preferences, which dictate flexibility and responsiveness in both process and outcomes for survival. In theory then, private-sector organizations are likely to be less encumbered by rules and regulations. In addition, organizational effectiveness is more readily measured in terms of efficiency and profitability in private-sector organizations (Bozeman 1987 and 1993).
Nevertheless, there has been a dearth amount of material on the learning transfer offered by both sectors of the industry. This study intends to identify the difference of the private and public sector in their transfer of learning through training.
Significance of the Study This study will be focusing on the comparison of learning through training of both private and public sectors in Malaysia. This study will primarily benefit both the youth and the leaders of both public and private sectors. The youth, especially those intent on a career in the either public or private industries will find out what is expected of them by the two, what future the industries has for them, and what they have to do to be competitive career-wise, in this type of industry. As for the leaders, this study will show if their expectations and goals can be met by future batches of graduates. Through feedback, they would be able to voice out their concerns regarding the quality of graduates and help the universities cope with their demands and the ever-changing needs of the industry. Moreover, educators can gain from this study, as they find the connection between how they have designed their curriculum and what are the actual needs of the public and private sectors. In that way, they would be able to make immediate changes, if necessary, or continued improvement of their programs, through further studies. Any deficiencies in training can then be addressed by both the academe and the industry so that there won’t be any shortages in that field.
Finally, this study would benefit future researchers in the field of the public administration, business administration, education, and the social sciences since it depicts the future of the publicly and privately owned businesses and corporations and its varying effects to many sectors of society.
Aims and Objectives
Statement of the Problem
The study intends to conduct a comparative study of the transfer of learning of both public and private sector in Malaysia. Specifically, the study would like to answer the following questions:
1. What are the training techniques conducted by both private and public firms in Malaysia?
2. How do private and public firms choose their trainees?
3. How do these firms measure the level of learning the trainees have acquired from their training?
4. What is the level of learning of the trainees after they have finished their training from private and public firms?
5. Is there a significant difference between the level of learning acquired by the trainees from public and private firms?
Hypothesis
This study would like to test the following hypothesis:
“There is no significant difference between the learning transfer of both public and privately owned firms.”
Scope and Limitations
The study intends to investigate the similarities and differences of public and privately owned firms. For this study, primary research and secondary research will be used. Primary research will be conducted using anonymous questionnaires that will be sent to randomly selected private and public employees. The researcher will also be conducting focus group interview with managers and administrators of particular institutions. The questionnaires will be used to collect quantitative data and the interviews will be used to provide qualitative insights into the data collected.
The data will be analyzed and compiled for the correlation of the hypothesis. The data will then be presented by means of graphical representations and illustration and the difference would be highlighted. A negative correlation between the variables would suggest that the hypothesis is null, that is, there is no significant difference between the learning transfer of both public and privately owned firms.
Methodology
Research methodology and techniques for data collection
Research requires an organized data gathering in order to pinpoint the research philosophies and theories that will be included in the research, the methodology of the research and the instruments of data interpretation. In this study, the Research Process “Onion” will be utilized so that the findings of the study can be thoroughly established. The inner part of the onion describes the methodology portion whereas the outer part discusses the strategies that can be utilized in interpreting the results of the findings.
The descriptive research method uses observation and surveys. In this method, it is possible that the study would be cheap and quick. It could also suggest unanticipated hypotheses. Nonetheless, it would be very hard to rule out alternative explanations and especially infer causations. Thus, this study will use the descriptive approach. This descriptive type of research will utilize observations in the study. To illustrate the descriptive type of research, Creswell (1994) will guide the researcher when he stated: Descriptive method of research is to gather information about the present existing condition. The purpose of employing this method is to describe the nature of a situation, as it exists at the time of the study and to explore the cause/s of particular phenomena. The researcher opted to use this kind of research considering the desire of the researcher to obtain first hand data from the respondents so as to formulate rational and sound conclusions and recommendations for the study.
The research described in this document is partly based on quantitative research methods. This permits a flexible and iterative approach. During data gathering the choice and design of methods are constantly modified, based on ongoing analysis. This allows investigation of important new issues and questions as they arise, and allows the investigators to drop unproductive areas of research from the original research plan.
This study also employs qualitative research method, since this research intends to find and build theories that would explain the relationship of one variable with another variable through qualitative elements in research. These qualitative elements does not have standard measures, rather they are behavior, attitudes, opinions, and beliefs.
Furthermore, as we define the qualitative research it is multimethod in focus, involving an interpretative, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. Accordingly, qualitative researchers deploy a wide range of interconnected methods, hoping always to get a better fix on the subject matter at hand.
Data analysis techniques
The primary source of data will come from the researcher-made questionnaire and interview questions. The primary data frequently gives the detailed definitions of terms and statistical units used in the study. These are usually broken down into finer classifications.
The secondary sources of data will come from published articles from social science journals, theses and related studies on corporate management. Acquiring secondary data are more convenient to use because they are already condensed and organized. Moreover, analysis and interpretation are done more easily.
Validity of the Data
For this research design, the researcher will gather data, collate published studies from different local and foreign universities and articles from social science journals; and make a content analysis of the collected documentary and verbal material. Afterwards, the researcher will summarize all the information, make a conclusion based on the null hypotheses posited and provide insightful recommendations on the learning on both private and the public sectors.
Project time plan
TASK
MONTH
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
Select topic
Undertake preliminary literature search
Define research questions
Write-up aims and objectives
Select appropriate methodology and locate sources of information. Confirm access.
Write-up Dissertation Plan
Undertake and write-up draft critical literature review.
Secondary and Primary Data Detailed
Sources
Consulted
Research Findings:
Analyzed
Evaluated
Written-up
Discussion:
Research findings evaluated and discussed in relation to the literature review
Methodology written-up
(including limitations and constraints)
Main body of the report written-up and checked for logical structure
Conclusions drawn
Recommendations made
Introduction and Executive Summary written-up
Final format and indexing
References
Baldwin TT, Magjuka RJ. 1997. Training as an organizational episode: pretraining influences on trainee motivation. See Ford et al 1997, pp. 99-127
Blanchard P.N. and J.W. Thacker. 1999. Effective training: Systems, strategies, and practices. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E, Tannenbaum SI, Mathieu JE. 1995. Toward theoretically-based principles of trainee effectiveness: a model and initial empirical investigation. Mil. Psychol. 7:141-64
Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E. 1997. Teamwork competencies: the interaction of team member knowledge, skills, and attitudes. In Workforce Readiness: Competencies and Assessment, ed. HF O’Niel, pp. 151-74. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Colquitt JA, LePine JA, Noe RA. 2000. Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: a meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. J. Appl. Psychol.
Creswell, J.W. (1994) Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Ford JK, Smith EM, Weissbein DA, Gully SM, Salas E. 1998. Relationships of goal-orientation, metacognitive activity, and practice strategies with learning outcomes and transfer. J. Appl. Psychol. 83:218-33
Huhta, M. (1997). The dynamics of language training: From an element of cost to an investment in communication. Licentiate thesis. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
Kirkpatrick DL. 1976. Evaluation of training. In Training and Development Handbook, ed. RL Craig, Ch. 18. New York: McGraw-Hill. 2nd ed.
Kozlowski SWJ, Brown K, Weissbein D, Cannon-Bowers J, Salas E. 2000. A multilevel approach to training effectiveness: enhancing horizontal and vertical transfer. In Multilevel Theory, Research and Methods in Organization, ed. K Klein, SWJ Kozlowski. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Kozlowski SWJ, Salas E. 1997. A multilevel organizational systems approach for the implementation and transfer of training. See Ford et al 1997, pp. 247-87
Kraiger K, Ford JK, Salas E. 1993. Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. J. Appl. Psychol. 78:311-28
Lester, T. (1994). Pulling down the language barrier. International Management, July-August, 42-44.
Martocchio JJ, Judge TA. 1997. Relationship between conscientiousness and learning in employee training: mediating influences of self-deception and self-efficacy. J. Appl. Psychol. 82:764-73
Mathieu JE, Martineau JW. 1997. Individual and situational influences in training motivation. See Ford et al 1997, pp. 193-222
Noe RA, ed. 1999. Employee Training and Development. Boston: Irwin/McGraw-Hill
Noe, R. A. and J. K. Ford. 1992. “Emerging issues and new directions for training research.” In Research in personnel and human resources management. Ed. G. R. Ferris. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. pp. 345-384.
Office of Technology Assessment . Worker Training: Competing in the New International Economy, Report No. OTA-ITE-457, September 1990), p. 3
Reeves, N., & Wright, C. (1996). Linguistic auditing: A guide to identifying foreign language communication needs in corporations. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Salas E, Fowlkes J, Stout RJ, Milanovich DM, Prince C. 1999. Does CRM training improve teamwork skills in the cockpit?: two evaluation studies. Hum. Factors 41:326-43
Tannenbaum SI, Cannon-Bowers JA, Mathieu JE. 1993. Factors That Influence Training Effectiveness: A Conceptual Model and Longitudinal Analysis. Rep. 93-011, Naval Train. Syst. Cent., Orlando, FL
Tannenbaum, S. I. and G. Yukl. 1992. “Training and development in work organizations.” In Annual review of psychology. Eds. P. R. Rozenzwig and L. W. Porter. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc. pp. 399-441.
Thayer PW, Teach out MS. 1995. A Climate for Transfer Model. Rep. AL/HR-TP-1995-0035, Air Force Mat. Command, Brooks Air Force Base, Tex.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment