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 pretraining 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
& Teachout (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.
No comments:
Post a Comment