Symposium Introduction
Contemporary trends in
employee involvement
and participation
Raymond Markey
Journal of Industrial Relations
55(4) 475–487
! Australian Labour and
Employment Relations Association
(ALERA)
SAGE Publications Ltd,
Los Angeles, London, New Delhi,
Singapore and Washington DC
DOI: 10.1177/0022185613489389
jir.sagepub.com
Macquarie University, Australia
Keith Townsend
Griffith University, Australia
Abstract
Employee involvement and participation have been at the heart of industrial relations
since its inception, although much of the contemporary terminology has moved away
from ‘industrial democracy’ employed by the Webbs in 1898. The labels and terms for
employee involvement and participation have expanded and varied over time, reflecting
different disciplinary bases (industrial relations, human resource management, psychology and political science), changing socio-economic contexts, competing goals
between management, labour and government, and a variety of practices. This complexity has become problematical because not all terms are equivalent in their meanings
and their different parameters are not always clearly defined. We attempt to provide
some clarity by defining ‘employee voice’ or ‘participation’ as umbrella terms denoting a
wide range of practices. The article also clearly delineates direct and representative
approaches to employee participation, and their interrelationship. Two critical contemporary issues are the role of the state and the link between participation and organisational performance. The article concludes that the sphere of employee involvement
and participation is likely to remain contested, but that its strategic viability is enhanced
when linked with employee well-being as well as performance. Successful state intervention requires public policy integration and dialogue between government, employers
and employee representatives.
Keywords
Employee engagement, employee involvement, employee participation, employee voice,
industrial democracy
Corresponding author:
Raymond Markey, Centre for Workforce Futures, Faculty of Business and Economics, Macquarie University,
NSW 2109, Australia.
Email: ray.markey@mq.edu.au
476
Journal of Industrial Relations 55(4)
Introduction
Throughout the history of industrial relations (IR) scholarship there has been a
focus on the manner by which employees are actively involved in decision-making
in their workplaces. In arguably the first IR text, Industrial Democracy published in
1898 (Webb and Webb, 1898), the Webbs focused on this central theme, and the title
of their book has been associated with employee participation ever since. If we take
as a starting point the turbulent IR period during the late 19th century, employee
involvement and debates about its antecedents, composition and outcomes have
persisted through economic cycles, shifts in legislative paradigms, the rise of human
resource management (HRM), fluctuations in union density and substantial demographic changes to the workforce and the sectors in which people are concentrated.
The Journal of Industrial Relations has a long and rich history of documenting the
changes in employee involvement and participation (EIP). For this reason, it is
apposite that this journal provides the forum for a special issue (55(4)) titled
‘Reassessing Employee Involvement and Participation: International Perspectives’.
The articles included in this special issue have been developed from papers presented
at an international symposium held in Brisbane, Australia in August 2012.1
The persistence of the theme of EIP in various forms in IR literature is based on
the very nature of the employment relationship that involves employees in decisionmaking relating to their work. The basis of a pluralist employment relationship
dictates some joint determination over, for example, the work-effort bargain. Even
the more unitarist employment relationships implied by many HRM approaches
incorporate some, or even extensive, employee discretion over tasks. However, the
extent to which employees are involved and participate in decision-making affecting how and when they do their work, and how the spoils of their labour are
distributed, varies greatly across organisational, institutional and international
contexts.
Labels are plentiful in the area: ‘organisational democracy’, ‘industrial democracy’, ‘employee involvement’, ‘employee voice’ and ‘high-involvement human
resource management’, to name but a few. Each of these labels tends to have multiple, often slightly different, definitions. The definitions can be all-encompassing, to
include joint decision-making between management and employees and any form of
consultation with employees. Alternatively, the definitions can be more narrowly
defined, such as information-sharing or a ‘formal, ongoing structure of direct communications, such as through a team briefing’ (Gallie et al., 2001: 7). Typically,
different forms of participation have been conflated and treated as versions of the
same phenomenon. However, practitioners and scholars understand that there is a
gulf of difference between a shift team briefing and a works council with full
employee representation and codetermination rights. Over time, subtle shifts in
meaning and terminology have occurred as a result of changing priorities in the
goals for EIP, associated developments in economic and political circumstances,
and the balance of power between labour and capital (Markey and Patmore, 2009:
41–42).
Markey and Townsend
477
While plagued with the dual problem of multiple definitions and a conflation of
practices, it is difficult to be precise when comparing scholarly contributions, as
well as workplace initiatives in practice. Terms carry different connotations or have
ideological baggage for both academics and practitioners. Varied definitions are
particularly evident across different disciplinary traditions – from HRM, political
science, psychology, law and IR – which have distinct perspectives on employee
voice, as well as the other overlapping and related terms (Wilkinson et al., 2010). It
seems that scholars from diverse traditions often know relatively little of the
research that has been done in other areas. There have been only rare attempts
to address this disciplinary silo approach in the past (see Wilkinson and Fay, 2011;
Wilkinson et al., 2010). Gollan and Patmore (this issue, 2013) identify the different
epistemological perspectives of employment relations and law, and attempt to
transcend their discrete separate limitations by developing a model for combining
them. Their approach may ultimately need to be broadened to take account of still
other different disciplinary traditions. However, our purpose in this article is not to
overcome the cacophony of potentially confusing terminology; rather, we aim to
offer an analytical overview of some contemporary scholarly and policy highlights
in the field.
Defining terms
In the contemporary era, two of the most commonly used terms for employee
influence in decision-making are ‘EIP’ and ‘employee voice’ – from a more explicitly HRM perspective, similar initiatives might be seen as ‘empowerment’ or
‘engagement’. But much more important than the labels that are attached to a
particular practice is what the specific practices actually mean to the actors; and
whether such schemes can make changes in the workplace. The debate persists
despite more than a century of research in the area, continual changes to industries,
regulations and managerial paradigms, and the economic, social and political contexts. The primary objective of researchers and practitioners remains familiar: to
determine if EIP does improve organisational effectiveness and employee wellbeing, and the processes by which various practices allow workers to have a legitimate say in organisational decisions that affect the workers directly and indirectly.
Cox et al. (2006) argue that EIP has a more significant impact when strongly
embedded within the decision-making processes within the workplace than when it
is initiated as part of a managerial fad. Clearly, forms of employee participation
can differ in the amount of influence workers can exercise over management and
their jobs, the scope of decisions, and the organisational level at which the decisions
are made. Some forms are purposely designed to give workers a voice but not more
than a very modest role in decision-making, while others are intended to give the
workforce a more significant say in organisational governance.
Central to most definitions of EIP is an opportunity for employees to have ‘a
say’, that is, a voice (Freeman et al., 2007; Marchington, 2005). But, as Strauss
(2006) points out, some terms are weaker than others – for example, ‘employee
478
Journal of Industrial Relations 55(4)
voice’ does not necessarily denote influence and may be no more than having a say
but not having anyone listen or pay attention. In its weakest sense, employee voice
is a necessary precursor for participation, but voice need not in itself lead to participation in decision-making. Voice has multiple ‘meanings’ and can be interpreted
in different ways on a continuum from briefings or suggestion schemes, to mutual
gains processes, to countervailing sources of power for employees in relation to
management, to self-management (Dundon et al., 2004). Strauss (2006) sees participation as allowing employees to influence their work or employment conditions.
Strauss (2006) suggests that there should be a distinction between involvement and
influence – involvement can be a passive exercise, while influence is seen to be
active. Consequently, in this special issue we define ‘employee voice’ and ‘EIP’ as
equivalent umbrella terms, including involvement and participation, in a continuum of concepts and practices that cover varying degrees of employee influence.
Wilkinson and Fay (2011) identify four strands of literature that contribute to
our understanding of EIP, for which the authors use the term ‘employee voice’ in
their original work. Our classification adapts their original schema (as presented in
Table 1), slightly extending the detail and acknowledging significant overlaps
between some forms of voice or EIP. Like all typologies, there is a level of simplification, but it is a useful heuristic device. Basically, Table 1 presents how each of
the strands of literature covers the dimensions of EIP. These are the types of
Table 1. Employee voice and participation: Theory and practice.
Literature
strand/discipline
Schemes
Focus
Form of vehicle
Philosophy
HRM
Briefing
Open-door policy
Suggestion schemes
Performance
Individual
Efficiency
IR
Collective bargaining
Works councils
Social partnership
Non-union employee
representation
Power
Control
Representative
Countervailing
power
Industrial democracy
(political science)
Works councils
Workers on boards
Decision-making
Representative
Rights
Organisational
behaviour
(psychology)
Teams
Groups
Task/job control/
autonomy
Job redesign
Individuals and
groups
Autonomy and
human needs
Source: Adapted from Wilkinson and Fay (2011).
Markey and Townsend
479
schemes typically discussed, together with the focus, the forms and the underlying
philosophies of these vehicles.
The context for EIP has changed since the Webbs first coined the term ‘industrial democracy’ (Webb and Webb, 1898) and since the major policy experiments
with industrial democracy in Australia, the UK and elsewhere in the 1970s (for
reviews, see Markey and Patmore, 2009; Poole et al., 2001). For the Webbs, industrial democracy was based in trade unions and collective bargaining. Since the
1970s, union membership has declined in the Western world and governments
have adopted neo-liberal approaches to re-regulating labour markets. However,
inside organisations, Boxall et al. (2007: 215) note that ‘management driven forms
of involvement’ serve employer goals of improved productivity and flexibility,
while increasingly meeting ‘the desire of workers to be involved in the things
that relate most directly to them’.
What mediates this desire is addressed by Markey, Ravenswood, Webber and
Knudsen (in this issue, 2013). They find strong connections with other aspects of
voice and employee well-being, notably, employees’ feelings of appreciation by management, receiving adequate information, opportunities to learn new things and the
regulatory environment. The characteristics of employees may also be important, as
in this case, where age and length of service were found to have an impact.
Direct and indirect or representative participation
EIP may occur directly or indirectly. Direct EIP refers to influence, control or
autonomy in performance of tasks and/or jobs without the mediation of employee
or firm representatives (Bryson et al., 2006; Markey, 2001). Direct participation
may also be individual- or group-oriented. Indirect EIP affects employment conditions more broadly and occurs through employee representatives such as unions,
works councils, joint consultative committees or employee representation on
boards (Kim et al., 2010).
A key issue is how direct and indirect voice coexist and the extent to which they
complement or conflict with each other. In a European context, direct and representative forms of voice usually complement each other, especially in Scandinavia
and Germany (EPOC Research Group, 1997; Knudsen et al., 2013; Marchington
and Wilkinson, 2008; Purcell and Georgiadis, 2006). In Europe, government
policy and legislation provides a statutory right to voice in certain defined areas
and among both union and non-union establishments. Other countries, notably the
liberal market Anglo-Saxon-dominant ones, have much less emphasis on statutory
provisions for employee participation, with more emphasis on unilateral management choice or arrangements negotiated with unions. Direct participation may
often be at the expense of representative forms in this context. In many organisations, the result is a cocktail of direct and indirect participation (Wilkinson,
Townsend and Burgess, this issue, 2013).
It is also worth noting that varying benefits for EIP are emphasised in the different societal regimes within which it is situated. Thus, in the liberal market
480
Journal of Industrial Relations 55(4)
economies, EIP is predominantly framed in terms of contribution to profit and
shareholder value at the organisational level and in customer service, and product
quality and staff retention at the workplace level. However, Budd and Zazgelmeyer
(2010) remind us that employee participation or voice is not simply about improving economic performance. Issues to do with worker commitment, job satisfaction
and alignment with organisational goals are often the proxies used to measure the
success of EIP and voice schemes, but these may tell us little in themselves about
the impact of particular schemes on the bottom line or the consolidation of management prerogative, which are likely to be the primary goals of management. In
coordinated market economies, the focus is longer-term and holds a more widely
defined range of stakeholder interests, including those of government, employers,
trade unions and workers. In these situations, the expectation is more likely to be of
mutual gains, either at the level of the individual-employing organisation or more
broadly in terms of citizenship and long-term social cohesion (Wilkinson et al.,
2010). Hence, in coordinated market economies, representative forms of
employee voice – union and non-union – are more strongly institutionalised and
embedded in IR than in the liberal market economies, where direct participation is
more evident. In addition, the coordinated market economies place more emphasis
on collectively-based, as distinct from individually-based, direct participation
(Knudsen et al., 2013).
Policy interventions and the role of the state
A contribution from Greg Patmore (2013) in this issue demonstrates the importance of historical perspective. According to Patmore, ‘public policy amnesia’ is
evident when contemporary debates over how policy should be developed ignore
experimentation from the interwar period. Throughout the world, Employee
Representation Plans or company unions (US), union management cooperation
(US), works committees (UK) and works councils (Germany) were structures
developed to overcome a concerning ‘representation gap’. Patmore uses this
period to study how unions are affected by such policy initiatives.
Patmore indicates the critical role of the state in policy intervention. This may be
through direct legislation, as in the case of German works councils in the Weimar
Republic, through promotion of EIP initiatives such as the British Whitley works
committees and joint industrial councils, or though the nature of IR legislation that
provided the context for employer initiatives in North America. Since the Second
World War, the role of the state has underwritten the spread of works councils in
Europe at the level of individual countries and the EU as a whole, as well as in Asia
(Gumbrell-McCormick and Hyman, 2010; Markey, 2006; Markey et al., 2010).
During the international upsurge of interest in EIP in the 1970s, the South
Australian state government arguably led the way in Australia’s policy experimentation (Markey and Patmore, 2009). Policy discourse in South Australia moved from
one promoting ‘worker participation’ to one promoting ‘industrial democracy’.
However, while government promoted various forms of EIP systems, unions
Markey and Townsend
481
remained lukewarm to the idea and many businesses actively opposed the approach,
particularly as the government envisaged legislation in the private sector. Ultimately,
‘government leadership could not overcome a lack of consensus and support among
the employers and unions’ (Markey and Patmore, 2009: 61). More recently, from
2008 to 2012, the Queensland state government in Australia initiated a pilot programme titled ‘Workplace Partnership and Productivity’, engaging consultants to
support change initiatives for EIP. Six manufacturing worksites participated in the
pilot project, all of which reported significant improvements in performance attributable to greater involvement of employees in decisions that affect their work
(Workplace Partnership and Productivity Project (WPPP), 2013).
These instances illustrate that EIP is continually affected by state intervention
and the nature of employer and union responses to this intervention. In this issue,
Bull, Pyman and Gilman (2013) examine Information and Consultation of
Employees (ICE) regulations in the UK, which implemented European Union
(EU) provisions at the national level. They suggest that these ICE regulations
have changed the character of non-union employee representation in the UK,
but in a subtle, rather than substantive, manner. Non-union firms have enjoyed
some ‘quick wins’ and employees have become more aware of the business environment because of a new-found requirement of managers to share information.
Nevertheless, the authors question the extent to which this minimal extent of voice
is better than no voice at all.
In Australia, Barnes, MacMillan and Markey (this issue, 2013) examine the
unusual instance of the state introducing a form of EIP in one sector with the intention of undermining unionism. This occurred with universities under the Higher
Education Workplace Relations Requirements (HEWRR) introduced by the John
Howard-led Liberal–National Party Coalition government in 2005. However,
union representatives were overwhelmingly voted onto the ‘non-union’ consultative
forums created by legislation, paralleling earlier instances noted by Patmore and
common European experience with works councils. What the authors refer to as
‘hybrid’ forms of voice, with union and non-union representative structures in the
workplace, has also been an ongoing issue in EIP, with the parties adopting different stances depending on the regulatory context.
Employers and organisational performance
While Freeman and Medoff’s (1984) seminal work suggested that employee voice
through unions can lead to improvements in organisational performance, many
researchers have failed to reproduce similar results (for a discussion, see
Doucouliagos and Laroche, 2003). More recent research shows quite a mixed
bag of results. Some examples include: Black and Lynch (2001) showing a positive
link between voice and performance; Wilkinson et al. (2004) showing that voice led
to a more open and constructive working environment, with improvements in
absenteeism and staff retention; Bryson et al. (2006) not finding an association
between employee voice channels and labour productivity, although they did
482
Journal of Industrial Relations 55(4)
show a statistically significant and positive relationship between employee perceptions of managerial responsiveness to voice and managers’ perceptions of productivity in non-union organisations; Kim et al. (2010) not finding a positive
association between team or representative voice and productivity; and Addison
and Belfield (2004) finding that union workplaces have reduced labour turnover
and increased labour stability – similar to findings from Batt (2002). In a study of
luxury hotels, Townsend, Wilkinson and Burgess (2013) found that those hotels
with more established and effective voice systems were able to demonstrate better
performance in measures of employees’ satisfaction, line manager performance and
employee turnover. The hotel where managers had poor relationships with unions
had the worst overall levels of employee turnover and employee satisfaction.
Fakhfakh, Perotin and Robinson (2011) found that workplaces that have employee
representatives but do not involve them in change could have lower performance
than workplaces that have no employee representation at all. In contrast, when EIP
is involved at all levels, the impacts were positive. Pfeffer (1998) argues that
increased participation through High Performance Work Systems empowers
employees to make decisions, reducing the need for multiple layers of management,
ultimately reducing administrative costs.
Despite numerous publications on the topic of High Performance Work
Systems, we are no nearer to identifying an agreed set of practices that comprise
the high-road HRM bundle of practices, although it is well understood that there
are commonalities among the lists (Guest, 2011). Sometimes, this literature refers
indiscriminately to ‘high performance work systems’, ‘high commitment’ HRM or
‘high involvement’ HRM. A number of review papers have summarised the evidence to date, such as Boselie et al. (2005), Wall and Wood (2005), Hyde et al.
(2005) and Boxall and Macky (2009); each examines slightly different samples of
work, uses different data sets and comes up with different conclusions. Despite the
ongoing debate, various labels for voice or participation are often included as a key
factor in the high commitment literature (e.g. Batt, 2002; Boxall et al., 2007;
Dundon et al., 2004; Huselid, 1995).
Wilkinson et al. (2004) explain that EIP, whether through union or non-union
channels, can have a positive impact on an organisation in three ways. First, when
managers legitimately value employees’ opinions it can lead to improved attitudes
and behaviours, including loyalty and commitment to the organisation. Second, this
increased loyalty and commitment can lead to the flow-on effects of lower absenteeism and greater cooperation, which can lead to improved productivity. Third, accessing employee input and ideas can lead to improved managerial systems. While the
authors are largely silent on the notion of distributing the gains from these improvements, they do acknowledge that while these concepts are simple and logical in
theory, decades of research demonstrate that practice is much more complicated.
This complexity is illustrated in very different ways in the three final contributions
to this special issue, each of which shows the importance of context in a contested
terrain where organisational performance rather than democracy is the key driver.
Wilkinson, Townsend and Burgess (this issue, 2013) note that management’s main
Markey and Townsend
483
interest in EIP concerns whether there is a pay-off in terms of efficiency and added
value to the business. However, they also warn us to avoid assuming that channels
for EIP are homogeneous, as managers and workers, and even different managers,
will likely have different approaches shaped by the context provided by management
style and employment relations generally. Cathcart (this issue, 2013) also shows that
even in a long-term case of employee ownership, as provided by the John Lewis
Partnership in the UK, organisational democracy is contested terrain, subject to
the contemporary pressures for organisational efficiency.
Sablok, Bartram, Stanton, Burgess and McDonnell (this issue, 2013) show that
the choice of employee voice strategies of foreign-owned multinational corporations
(MNCs) operating in Australia was affected by country of origin, trade union recognition and whether the MNC had adopted a strategic HRM approach. High trade
union presence was associated with an indirect representative approach to employee
voice through unions, quality circles and joint consultative committees, more often
in non-US MNCs, whereas weak union presence is associated with direct or minimalist approaches. Direct voice mechanisms focused on informal means of
communication such as interactions between employers and employees, information-sharing, quality circles, newsletters, suggestion schemes and employee feedback.
Lewer (this issue, 2013) presents a counter-intuitive finding worthy of special
note. One of Lewer’s key conclusions is that EIP mechanisms under the appropriate conditions can achieve significant mutual gain outcomes. After studying productivity and performance at the BHP steelworks in Newcastle, the author noted a
significant rise in performance levels after senior management made a decision to
close the plant. Following this decision, there was a dramatic improvement in the
EIP experience at the workplace, an improvement that is attributed to increasing
overall output and performance, although it is really an instance of causal ambiguity. Assuming a causal link between EIP and performance in this case, the key
for practitioners in ongoing worksites is to understand how to translate this
performance improvement when there is no closedown imperative.
Conclusions
The notion of EIP in decision-making is not a new one for IR practitioners or
scholars. However, the field is plagued by the conflation of different practices and
the different labelling of what may actually be the same practices. There are many
forms of participation and it can occur at a variety of levels. Typically, people want
to participate in decisions that directly affect them. One question remains though:
Should the business case be the prime consideration, or is EIP enough just to
improve the experience of the workforce?
Historically, managers have held the power to decide what forms of EIP are
used and how they are used, although this power has never been absolute. The
sphere is regularly contested by employees, and the state frequently intervenes to
shape processes and structures, with mixed success. However, in the foreseeable
future the contribution to organisational performance is likely to remain the
484
Journal of Industrial Relations 55(4)
dominant theme in many of the ongoing debates around EIP. Hence, HRM strategies within organisations must be considered in conjunction with, not separate
from, IR strategies. Channels of EIP will be best used as part of a suite of workplace or organisational policies designed to provide employees quality of working
experience while contributing to organisational performance. Key to this success is
having managers who are well trained in understanding how to capture and use
employee voice for the benefit of all parties.
Policy and regulation at a government level need to support these workplace
goals and integrate them within other key public policy areas such as workforce
development and the productivity agenda. However, process is equally critical:
development of national policy needs to be part of a broader process of dialogue
between government, employers and employee representatives. As the South
Australian case of the 1970s shows, governments cannot ignore the need to bring
the major parties along with them in support of initiatives. It is clear from the articles
in this issue that flexibility to take account of varying contexts is also important:
what may work in one industry will not necessarily work in another, and what will
work in one organisation may not translate to another with the same success.
Scholars play an important role in the ongoing development of EIP. We must be
more precise with our explanations of the phenomena we are studying. Context is
critical, and the development of theories to predict and explain practitioner experiences will assist the practitioner community to model their practices for the greatest
benefits to all involved. However, scholars cannot do this alone. Practitioners need
to be engaged with academic research and even provide resources for studying the
practices in situ so that the ideas to feed back into the practitioner community may
be developed. By working together, employees, unions and employers can develop
mutual gains and, likewise, practitioners and academics working together can make
greater gains for all parties.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial
or not-for-profit sectors.
Note
1. This symposium was made possible by the generosity of the Association of Industrial
Relations Academics of Australia and New Zealand (AIRAANZ); the Centre for Work,
Organisation and Wellbeing (WOW), Griffith University; and the Centre for Workforce
Futures, Macquarie University. The authors would also like to thank Clare Inwood
(WOW) for her assistance in organising the symposium.
References
Addison JT and Belfield CR (2004) Union voice. Journal of Labour Research 25(4): 563–596.
Barnes A, MacMillan C, Markey R (2013) Maintaining union voice in the Australian university sector: Union strategy and non-union forms of employee participation. Journal of
Industrial Relations 55(4). DOI: 10.1177/0022185613489414.
Markey and Townsend
485
Batt R (2002) Managing customer services: Human resource practices, quit rates and sales
growth. Academy of Management Journal 45(3): 587–597.
Black SE and Lynch LM (2001) How to compete: The impact of workplace practices and
information technology on productivity. The Review of Economics and Statistics 83(3):
434–445.
Boselie P, Dietz G and Boon C (2005) Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and
performance research. Human Resource Management Journal 15(3): 67–94.
Boxall P and Macky K (2009) Research and theory on high-performance work systems:
Progressing the high-involvement stream. Human Resource Management Journal 19(1):
3–23.
Boxall P, Haynes P and Freeman RB (2007) Conclusion: What workers say in the AngloAmerican World. In: Freeman RB, Boxall P and Haynes P (eds) What Workers Say:
Employee Voice in the Anglo-American Workplace. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, pp. 206–220.
Bryson A, Charlwood A and Forth J (2006) Worker voice, managerial response and labour
productivity: An empirical investigation. Industrial Relations Journal 37(5): 438–455.
Budd JW and Zazgelmeyer S (2010) Public policy and employee participation. In: Wilkinson
A, Gollan P, Marchington M, et al. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Participation in
Organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 504–525.
Bull EE, Pyman A, Gilman MW (2013) A reassessment of non-union employee representation in the UK: Developments since the ‘ICE’ age. Journal of Industrial Relations 55(4).
DOI: 10.1177/0022185613489403.
Cathcart A (2013) Directing democracy: Competing interests and contested terrain in the
John Lewis Partnership. Journal of Industrial Relations 55(4). DOI: 10.1177/
0022185613489424.
Cox A, Zagelmeyer S and Marchington M (2006) Embedding employee involvement and
participation at work. Human Resource Management Journal 16(3): 250–267.
Doucouliagos C and Laroche P (2003) What do unions do to productivity? A meta-analysis.
Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society 42(4): 650–691.
Dundon T, Wilkinson A, Marchington M, et al. (2004) The meanings and purpose of employee
voice. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 15(6): 1149–1170.
EPOC (Employee Participation in Organisational Change) Research Group (1997) New
Forms of Work Organisation: Can Europe Realise Its Potential? Results of a Survey of
Direct Employee Participation in Europe. Luxembourg: European Foundation for the
Improvement of Living and Working Conditions/Office for the Official Publications of
the European Community.
Fakhfakh F, Perotin V and Robinson A (2011) Workplace change and productivity.
In: Hayter S (ed.) The Role of Collective Bargaining in the Global Economy:
Negotiating for Social Justice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar/Geneva: ILO, pp. 107–135.
Freeman RB and Medoff JL (1984) What Do Unions Do? New York, NY: Basic Books.
Freeman RB, Boxall P and Haynes P (2007) What Workers Say: Employee Voice in the
Anglo-American Workplace. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
Gallie D, Felstead A and Green F (2001) Changing patterns of employee involvement. ERSC
SKOPE Working Paper.
Gollan PJ and Patmore G (2013) Perspectives of legal regulation and employment relations
at the workplace: Limits and challenges for employee voice. Journal of Industrial
Relations 55(4). DOI: 10.1177/0022185613489392.
Guest DE (2011) Human resource management and performance: Still searching for some
answers. Human Resource Management Journal 21(1): 3–13.
486
Journal of Industrial Relations 55(4)
Gumbrell-McCormick R and Hyman R (2010) Works councils: The European model of
industrial democracy? In: Wilkinson A, Gollan P, Marchington M, et al. (eds) The
Oxford Handbook of Participation in Organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
pp. 286–314.
Huselid M (1995) The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal 38:
673–703.
Hyde P, McBride A, Young R, et al. (2005) Role redesign: New ways of working in the
NHS. Personnel Review 34(6): 697–712.
Kim J, MacDuffie JP and Pil FK (2010) Employee voice and organizational performance:
Team versus representative influence. Human Relations 63(3): 371–394.
Knudsen H, Markey R and Simpkin G (2013) Work environment and participation: The
case of teachers in Denmark and New Zealand. Industrial Relations Journal 44(1): 38–56.
Lewer J (2013) Employee involvement and participation under extreme conditions: The
Newcastle steelworks case. Journal of Industrial Relations 55(4). DOI: 10.1177/
0022185613489438.
Marchington M (2005) Employee involvement: Patterns and explanations. In: Harley B,
Hyman J and Thompson P (eds) Participation and Democracy at Work: Essays in Honour
of Harvie Ramsay. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 20–37.
Marchington M and Wilkinson A (2008) Human Resource Management at Work, 4th edn.
London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
Markey R (2001) Introduction: Global patterns of participation. In: Markey R, Gollan P,
Hodgkinson A, et al. (eds) Models of Employee Participation in a Changing Global
Environment: Diversity and Interaction. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 3–22.
Markey R (2006) The internationalization of representative employee participation and its
impact in the Asia Pacific. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 44(3): 341–363.
Markey R and Patmore G (2009) The role of the state in the diffusion of industrial democracy: South Australia, 1972–9. Economic and Industrial Democracy 30(1): 37–66.
Markey R, Balnave N and Patmore G (2010) Worker directors and worker ownership/
cooperatives. In: Wilkinson A, Gollan P, Marchington M, et al. (eds) The Oxford
Handbook of Participation in Organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 237–257.
Markey R, Ravenswood K, Webber DJ, et al. (2013) Influence at work and the desire for
more influence. Journal of Industrial Relations 55(4). DOI: 10.1177/0022185613489393.
Patmore G (2013) Unionism and non-union employee representation: The interwar experience in Canada, Germany, the US and the UK. Journal of Industrial Relations 55(4).
DOI: 10.1177/0022185613489398.
Pfeffer J (1998) The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People First. Boston, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Poole M, Lansbury R and Wailes N (2001) Participation and industrial democracy revisited:
A theoretical perspective. In: Markey R, Gollan P, Hodgkinson A, et al. (eds) Models of
Employee Participation in a Changing Global Environment: Diversity and Interaction.
Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 23–36.
Purcell J and Georgiadis K (2006) Why should employers bother with employee voice?
In: Freeman RB, Boxall P and Haynes P (eds) What Workers Say: Employee Voice in
the Anglo-American Workplace. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, pp. 181–197.
Sablok G, Bartram T, Stanton P, et al. (2013) The impact of union presence and strategic
human resource management on employee voice in multinational enterprises in Australia.
Journal of Industrial Relations 55(4). DOI: 10.1177/0022185613489434.
Markey and Townsend
487
Strauss G (2006) Worker participation – Some under-considered issues. Industrial Relations:
A Journal of Economy and Society 45(4): 778–803.
Townsend K, Wilkinson A and Burgess J (2013) Routes to partial success: Collaborative
employment relations and employee engagement. International Journal of Human
Resource Management (in press).
Wall TD and Wood SJ (2005) The romance of human resource management and business
performance, and the case for big science. Human Relations 58(4): 429–461.
Webb S and Webb B (1898) Industrial Democracy. London: Longmans Green.
Wilkinson A and Fay C (2011) New times for employee voice? Human Resource
Management 50(1): 65–74.
Wilkinson A, Dundon T, Marchington M, et al. (2004) Changing patterns of employee
voice: Case studies from the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Journal of Industrial
Relations 46(3): 298–322.
Wilkinson A, Gollan P, Marchington M, et al. (2010) Conceptualizing employee participation in organizations. In: Wilkinson A, Gollan P, Marchington M, et al. (eds) The Oxford
Handbook of Participation in Organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–28.
Wilkinson A, Townsend K, Burgess J (2013) Reassessing employee involvement and participation: Atrophy, reinvigoration and patchwork in Australian workplaces. Journal of
Industrial Relations 55(4). DOI: 10.1177/0022185613489419.
Workplace Partnership and Productivity Project (WPPP) (2013) Workplace Partnership and
Productivity Project: Review of pilot project. Department of Employment, Economic
Development and Innovation, Queensland Government.
Biographical notes
Raymond Markey is Professor of Employment Relations and Director of the
Centre for Workforce Futures in the Faculty of Business and Economics,
Macquarie University which he joined at the end of 2011. He was foundation
Director of the New Zealand Work & Labour Market Institute and Foundation
Chair of the New Zealand Employment Relations Society. He has published 20
books and 60 journal articles, specialising in employee participation and labour
history. He is currently leading a project on Climate Change, Work and
Employment.
Keith Townsend is an associate professor in the Griffith Business School. He has
published four books and more than fifty journal articles in the areas of industrial
relations and human resource management, specifically in areas of EIP/voice, line
managers, and employee misbehaviour. Keith balances the academic-practitioner
divide through engaging in teaching, high levels of research outputs and engagement with the practitioner community in his role as vice president of the Industrial
Relations Society of Queensland and executive member of the Australian Labour
and Employment Relations Association.
International Journal of Training and Development 12:3
ISSN 1360-3736
Leader influences on
training effectiveness:
motivation and outcome
expectation processes
Anne Scaduto, Douglas Lindsay and
Dan S. Chiaburu
Training effectiveness is a function of trainee characteristics,
training design and contextual factors. Social exchanges in the
work environment have received less attention compared with
other training effectiveness predictors. We focus on the extent to
which leaders (through their relationships and exchanges with
followers) influence skill transfer, maintenance and generalization. We also examine two intervening processes (training motivation and outcome expectancy). Our findings, based on surveys
from 495 employees, argue for the importance of leader–member
exchange for training transfer, with training motivation and
outcome expectancy as intervening mechanisms.
Training is one of the most frequently utilized human resource development interventions. According to Burke and Baldwin (1999), there is much evidence suggesting
that a considerable part of organizations’ investment in training does not result in
optimal transfer. To improve job performance, the skills and behaviors learned and
practiced during training have to be transferred to the workplace, maintained over
time, and generalized across contexts (Holton & Baldwin, 2003). As transfer of training remains an important issue for researchers and practitioners (Holton & Baldwin,
❒ Anne Scaduto, Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, 426 Beam Building,
University Park, PA 16802, USA. Email: azs105@psu.edu. Douglas Lindsay, Department of Behavioral
Sciences and Leadership, United States Air Force Academy. Email: douglas.lindsay@usafa.edu. Dan S.
Chiaburu, Pennsylvania State University, Smeal College of Business, 403 A Business Building, University Park, PA 16802, USA. Email: dchiaburu@psu.edu
A previous version of this paper was presented at the 23rd Annual Conference of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, April 10–12, 2008, San Francisco, USA.
© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2QD,
UK and 350 Main St., Malden, MA 02148, USA.
158 International Journal of Training and Development
2003), it becomes essential to test models that include central, but less frequently
studied training effectiveness predictors. For the purposes of the current study, training can be defined as ‘the systematic acquisition of skills, rules, concepts, or attitudes
that result in improved performance in another environment’ (Goldstein & Ford,
2002, p. 1).
Researchers have called for more integrative models of training effectiveness, in an
effort to include both individual and organizational contextual factors as antecedents
of transfer of training (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Colquitt et al., 2000; Kozlowski & Salas,
1997; Mathieu & Martineau, 1997; Quinones, 1997). For example, although work environment aspects are important for training transfer (e.g. Burke & Hutchins, 2007),
they are not sufficiently examined in existing models. It has also been suggested that
future studies look at the role of motivation in the relationship between contextual
factors and learning, and other training outcomes (e.g. training transfer, maintenance
and generalization). For example, Tracey et al. (2001) discuss the importance of future
research examining the impact of training motivation on different effectiveness criteria, and similar research needs were suggested in other studies (Cheng & Ho, 2001;
Colquitt et al., 2000; Mathieu & Martineau, 1997; Quinones, 1997; Tracey et al., 2001).
Specifically, whereas acknowledging that individual characteristics are related to
training motivation and training outcomes, Colquitt and colleagues (2000) maintain
that researchers tend to ignore situational aspects. Therefore, there are calls for studies
where the social context is connected with training motivation and transfer (Colquitt
et al., 2000), and specifically for connecting leader–member exchange (LMX) and
training dimensions; ‘despite the high level of scholarly interest in LMX theory development, researchers have not yet approached the phenomenon through the lens of
HRD interventions such as individual training and development’ (Kang & Stewart,
2007, p. 553).
We take these suggestions into account and propose a model connecting the social
context component (the relationship between the individual worker and his or her
direct manager/leader, in the form of LMX), with training effectiveness dimensions.
We also examine several individual components from the followers’ perspective (the
resulting training motivation and outcome expectancy of the individual involved in
training), which are positioned as mediators of the LMX to training transfer relationship. Concerning the outcomes, we are consistent with current trends in the literature,
and view training effectiveness as a multidimensional construct (e.g. Baldwin & Ford,
1988; Colquitt et al., 2000). More specifically, training effectiveness outcomes include
transfer of training, training maintenance and training generalization. Transfer of training is defined as ‘the degree to which trainees effectively apply the knowledge, skills,
and attitudes gained in a training context to the job’ (Baldwin & Ford, 1988, p. 63).
Training maintenance is defined as the reproduction of trained skills in a new setting,
and training generalization refers to the adaptation of trained skills to a more complex
task situation (Ford et al., 1998). Figure 1 presents our proposed model, and the arguments for specific hypotheses are presented below.
The leader as a component of the social context of work
Although components of the work social environment have been studied less frequently than individual characteristics, they are still important for understanding the
process of transfer of training (Colquitt et al., 2000; Lim & Johnson, 2002). Although
researchers proposed that supervisor support is positively related to training transfer
(e.g. van der Klink et al., 2001; Velada et al., 2007), there are no empirical studies
examining the relationship between a leader and a follower. This relationship is frequently referred to as LMX (e.g. Gerstner & Day, 1997; Murphy & Ensher, 1999). LMX
theory (Dansereau et al., 1975) describes the supervisor–subordinate relationship as a
dyadic social exchange process that is unique to each supervisor–subordinate pair
(Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Built into these exchange relationships is the fact that leaders
form different relationships with each follower, making it possible that at any given
time, a leader will have many different exchange relationships with his or her employLeader influences on training effectiveness 159
© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Training
Transfer
Training
Motivation
Leader–Member
Exchange
Training
Maintenance
Outcome
Expectancy
RELATIONSHIP
WITH THE DIRECT
LEADER
INTERVENING
PROCESSES
Training
Generalization
TRAINING
OUTCOMES
Figure 1: Hypothesized model.
ees (Ilies et al., 2007). There has been strong empirical support for LMX and work
outcomes, including performance (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Wang et al., 2005) and discretionary behaviors, or behaviors that go beyond formal task requirements (Ilies et al.,
2007). In addition, LMX has been linked to many different organizational outcomes
and has been found to have a positive relationship with job satisfaction (Murphy &
Ensher, 1999), organizational commitment (Gerstner & Day, 1997) and a negative
relationship with turnover (Gerstner & Day, 1997).
As related to training, Velada and coauthors (2007) recently investigated whether
aspects of the work environment (performance feedback and supervisor support)
predicted the transfer of training. Specifically, performance feedback from the supervisor that was received after training had a significant correlation with skill transfer.
In their study, performance feedback was defined as an indication from management
about how well an employee is performing on the job. Feedback concerning the newly
acquired knowledge and skills, and how these relate to job performance, increases
the probability of its transfer to the workplace (Velada et al., 2007). Although positively
related to training transfer, the other component of the work context – supervisor
support – did not predict skill transfer. This is a finding that is consistent with several
other studies examining support coming from a vertical source (e.g. Chiaburu &
Marinova, 2005; van der Klink et al., 2001).
These inconsistent results of supervisor support on training transfer may be because
support dimensions are proximal and specific to training transfer aspects. For example,
supervisors engage in discussions with the employees (Lim and Johnson, 2002) and
provide feedback (Velada et al., 2007). Unfortunately, more distal aspects and diffuse
support aspects, such as the relationship of the employee with one’s direct leader (or
LMX) and its influence on training effectiveness, have received little empirical attention. Yet, conceptual advances persuasively relate LMX with human resource development aspects. For example, Kang and Stewart (2007) state that leaders who form
high-quality social exchanges with their subordinates create an environment where
subordinates have increased levels of trust, empowerment and performance. These
dimensions are beneficial for training transfer.
The current study focuses on filling this gap and examining how LMX impacts
training effectiveness. Overall, based on previously documented positive relationships
between LMX and other organizational outcomes, including performance and discretionary behaviors (referred to as organizational citizenship behaviors), high levels of
social exchanges with one’s leader should have a positive impact on training transfer.
160 International Journal of Training and Development
© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Examples of social exchanges include a subordinate knowing how satisfied a supervisor is with what he or she is doing at work, and a subordinate having confidence that
a supervisor understands his or her problems and needs. Because of the social
exchange relationship with their leaders and their mutual trust, employees will feel
more empowered and motivated (Kang & Stewart, 2007). To some extent, they reciprocate to – and uphold – the positive social exchange relationship they have with their
leaders. Thus, they will transfer skills learned in training, monitor their skill maintenance and utilize their skills in situations other than the ones they were trained for (i.e.
generalization).
Hypothesis 1:
LMX will be positively related to (a) training transfer, (b) training
maintenance, and (c) training generalization.
Processes leading to training effectiveness
The current study focuses on training motivation and outcome expectancy as individual factors having an effect on training outcomes. For example, there are particular
training characteristics that are essential preconditions for learning, such as training
motivation (Goldstein & Ford, 2002), the first individual factor investigated in the
present study. Training motivation refers to the ‘intensity and persistence of efforts that
trainees apply in learning-oriented improvement activities before, during, and after
training’ (Burke & Hutchins, 2007, p. 267). There is evidence suggesting that there are
differences in the amount of training motivation among different trainees, and that it
relates to the success of the trainees in the subsequent training program (Goldstein &
Ford, 2002).
For example, Chiaburu and Tekleab (2005) investigated both individual and contextual predictors of training transfer, maintenance and generalization. Their findings
suggest that training motivation is directly related to all components of training effectiveness (positive correlation with training transfer, maintenance and generalization).
A more specific example demonstrating the link of training motivation to outcomes,
comes from a study conducted by Facteau and colleagues (1995), who found a correlation of 0.45 between training motivation and training transfer. Researchers also
examined specific components of training motivation (e.g. motivation to learn) as a
factor influencing training outcomes, and have found it to be a key variable in linking
training characteristics to training outcomes (Quinones, 1997). Lastly, Noe (1986)
conducted studies in military settings and reported motivation to learn as having a
probable impact on training effectiveness. Replicating these findings, we expect a
positive relationship between training motivation and all our training effectiveness
dimensions.
Hypothesis 2:
Training motivation will be positively related to (a) training transfer, (b) training maintenance, and (c) training generalization.
How do leaders who foster positive social exchanges with their followers influence
training effectiveness? In addition to the direct effects of training motivation on training
effectiveness, we also propose that it has a mediating role. Because LMX is a dyadic
relationship between the leader and the member, certain information is conveyed
through the development and maintenance of this relationship. For that reason, it is
possible that through this relationship, information about the importance and usefulness of organizational training is conveyed. If this is the case, then, a positive relationship with the leader could influence a person’s motivation concerning subsequent
training, and would impact training outcomes. Furthermore, high-quality leader–
member relationships have a positive influence on employees’ levels of empowerment,
which are described by Kang and Stewart (2007) as a motivating factor (or ‘empowerment as motivation’, p. 539), and supported empirically in other studies (Liden et al.,
2000).
In addition, because LMX relationships are based on social exchanges, there is a
perceived commitment on the part of subordinates to reciprocate high-quality relaLeader influences on training effectiveness 161
© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
tionships (Hofmann et al., 2003). One way in which subordinates can reciprocate
these relationships is by engaging in discretionary behaviors. Reciprocation is not
limited to these behaviors, and employees can also engage in such behaviors as
paying attention to skill application in a work setting. More importantly, employees
will be motivated to maintain the skills in time (training maintenance), and will go
the extra mile and generalize these skills to new situations (training generalization).
Therefore:
Hypothesis 3:
Training motivation will mediate the relationship between LMX
and training outcomes (transfer, maintenance, generalization).
The second individual factor of interest influencing training effectiveness is outcome
expectancy, which we position as a mediator of the relationship between LMX and
training outcomes. Outcome expectancy was initially investigated in the field of social
psychology and defined by Bandura (1977, 1986) as ‘a judgment of the likely consequence . . . behavior will produce’ (p. 391), and is more recently investigated in the field
of industrial and organizational psychology (Frayne & Geringer, 2000; Riggs et al.,
1994). From another perspective (e.g. Stone & Henry, 2003), outcome expectancy is
defined as ‘the consequence of an act and not the act itself’ (p. 40). Concretely, the
central idea of expectancy theories is that the influence on an individual to take on a
specific behavior is a function of: (1) his or her expectations that the behavior will result
in a specific outcome; and (2) the sum of the valences (or values) that he or she gains
from the outcome (House, 1971).
In a training context, in most cases, learners who are motivated have two beliefs: (1)
making an effort during training will result in learning; and (2) the material they learn
will be useful for achieving valued outcomes back on the job (Brown & Ford, 2002).
There is both theoretical and empirical support for the importance of this second belief,
which is related to Vroom’s (1964) expectancy theory (Brown & Ford, 2002). This theory
suggests that the motivating force behind specific choices originates mainly from
perceptions of the utility or value of that choice (Brown & Ford, 2002). According to
Vroom’s theory (1964), an individual is more likely to pursue choices, and make an
effort, when he or she believes the result will be valued outcomes. Empirical support
for the importance of utility perceptions demonstrated a high correlation between
beliefs in the value of training and specific motivation to do well in training (Alliger
et al., 1997; Warr & Bunce, 1995).
Leaders, through their complex relationships with followers, can have an influence
on follower expectancies, in that they provide formal rewards for task performance and
for discretionary behaviors (by having a choice on positioning specific employees in the
in- or out-group through high or low LMX relationships). Therefore, a good relationship between the leader and the follower would include communication about what
behaviors are tied to good – and bad – performance. If the organization has done a
good job of aligning the training outcomes with necessary employee performance, then
the benefits of training transfer would be apparent to the employee, subsequently
adding to their outcome expectancy regarding the training. Put another way, if the
leader and follower agree (through a good LMX relationship) on what is important
from a performance standpoint, and if they see the training as contributing to this
desired performance, then employee outcome expectancy would increase because
training is a path to the performance desired by the leader (and the organization).
The idea is cogently summed up by House and Dressler (1974) when they said, ‘The
motivational functions of the leader consist of increasing personal payoffs to subordinates for their goal attainment, and making the path of these payoffs easier to travel by
clarifying it, reducing roadblocks, and pitfalls, and increasing the opportunities for
personal satisfaction en route’ (p. 31). Therefore, training becomes a mechanism for
increase in performance, and the outcome expectancy of that training is clear through
a good relationship with the leader.
Hypothesis 4:
Outcome expectancy will mediate the relationship between LMX
and training outcomes (transfer, maintenance, generalization).
162 International Journal of Training and Development
© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Method
Participants and procedure
This study was conducted in a large organization in the Mid-Atlantic area of the United
States. Data on the predictors and intervening variables were collected immediately
after the employees attended professional development training courses in the organization, and data on the outcomes originate from a survey sent to the same participants
6–12 weeks after attending the training. The current sample consists of 495 responses
matched across the two time periods (a response rate of 55 per cent, calculated based on
the total of 897 respondents targeted initially). Of the participants, 76 per cent were
men, 47 per cent had at least some college education, 49 per cent were 40 years or older
and 46 per cent had worked for the organization for more than 8 years.
Measures
We used previously published scales to collect data relevant for the study. Unless
otherwise indicated, all measures were assessed using a 5-point Likert-type scale
(1-strongly disagree; 2-disagree; 3-neither agree nor disagree; 4-agree; and 5-strongly
agree).
Leader–Member Exchange (LMX): This construct was measured with the LMX7
designed by Graen et al. (1982). It consisted of seven items; ‘I always know how
satisfied my supervisor is with what I do’, a = 0.85.
Training motivation was measured using a scale developed by Noe and Schmitt (1986)
(15 items, ‘I try to learn as much as I can from training programs’, a = 0.79). The training
outcome expectancy was based on a scale developed by Stone and Henry (2003) and
adapted for organizational outcomes (eight items, ‘Working with the techniques from
this course will result in obtaining better work outcomes’, and ‘Knowing and applying
skills learned in class will help advance my career’, a = 0.89).
Training outcomes were measured by training transfer (seven items, Xiao, 1996, ‘I can
accomplish the job tasks better by using new knowledge acquired from the training
course’, a = 0.83), training maintenance (seven items, Gist et al., 1991, ‘I have monitored
my progress in the use/review of the skills’, a = 0.86) and training generalization (two
items, Tesluk et al., 1995, ‘I make use of the acquired skills only in situations similar to
those presented during the training program’ [reverse-scored], a = 0.78).
Results
Preliminary analyses
Means, standard deviations and correlations are presented in Table 1. Hypothesis 1
predicted direct positive relationships between LMX and the three performance
outcomes. As expected, LMX was positively related to transfer (r = 0.16, p < 0.01),
maintenance (r = 0.16, p < 0.01) and generalization (r = 0.13, p < 0.01) of training skills.
Hypothesis 2 predicted a direct positive relationship between training motivation and
the three performance outcomes. As expected, training motivation was positively
related to transfer (r = 0.47, p < 0.01), maintenance (r = 0.57, p < 0.01) and generalization
(r = 0.40, p < 0.01) of training skills. Therefore, Hypotheses 1 and 2 were supported.
Additionally, outcome expectancy was positively related to transfer (r = 0.58, p < 0.01),
maintenance (r = 0.53, p < 0.01) and generalization (r = 0.53, p < 0.01). Lastly, as shown
in Table 1, LMX was positively correlated to both training motivation (r = 0.29, p < 0.05)
and outcome expectancy (r = 0.31, p < 0.05).
Regression results
Hypothesis 1 was also supported from the regression analysis. As shown in Table 2,
LMX is positively related to transfer (b = 0.21, p < 0.001), maintenance (b = 0.17,
p < 0.01) and generalization (b = 0.15, p < 0.01).
Leader influences on training effectiveness 163
© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Table 1: Means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliabilities
1
2
3
4
5
6
Variable
Mean
SD
1
2
3
4
5
Leader–member
exchange
Training motivation
Outcome expectancy
Training transfer
Training
maintenance
Training
generalization
3.04
0.84
(0.85)
3.49
3.70
3.49
3.7
0.40
0.70
0.67
0.65
3.86
0.77
6
0.29*
0.31*
0.16*
0.16*
(0.79)
0.56*
0.47*
0.57*
(0.89)
0.58*
0.53*
(0.83)
0.51*
(0.86)
0.13*
0.40*
0.53*
0.51*
0.51*
(0.78)
* p < 0.01; n = 495.
SD = standard deviation.
Table 2: Direct and mediated regressions for training transfer, maintenance, and
generalization
Predictors
Outcome variables
Training
transfer
Distal variable
Leader–member
exchange
Mediators
Training motivation
Outcome expectancy
R2
DR2
F
DF
Step 1
(b)
Step 2
(b)
0.21***
0.00
0.04
15.80***
0.19***
0.45***
0.34
0.30
58.17***
75.91***
Training
maintenance
Step 1
(b)
0.17**
0.03
10.36**
Step 2
(b)
-0.03
0.40***
0.28***
0.32
0.29
61.69***
84.87***
Training
generalization
Step 1
(b)
0.15**
0.02
8.43***
Step 2
(b)
-0.05
0.12*
0.49***
0.28
0.26
51.62***
71.53***
* p < 0.05.
** p < 0.01.
*** p < 0.001.
Hypotheses 3 and 4 predicted a mediating effect of training motivation and outcome
expectancy, respectively. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), the following relationships must be investigated in order to demonstrate mediation. First, the relationship
between the predictor (LMX) and the outcome variables (transfer, maintenance and
generalization) must be significant. As shown in Table 2, LMX was positively related
to these outcomes. Second, the predictor must be related to the mediators. As shown
in Table 1, LMX was positively correlated to both training motivation and outcome
expectancy. Third, the path between the mediators and the criteria must be tested, and
the positive relationships between training motivation and the transfer outcomes are
supported (see Table 2, all correlation coefficients higher than 0.40, p < 0.01). For
Hypothesis 3, the effect of the LMX on the outcome variables, controlling for training
motivation should decrease (for partial mediation), or become nonsignificant (for full
mediation). After entering training motivation into the equation, the relationship
164 International Journal of Training and Development
© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
between LMX and transfer (b = 0.00, nonsignificant [ns]), maintenance (b = -0.03, ns)
and generalization (b = -0.05, ns), became nonsignificant; hence, the mediating test
was meaningful for all three of the outcome variables, supporting Hypothesis 3.
Training motivation fully mediated the relationship between LMX and transfer
(b = 0.19, p < 0.001), maintenance (b = 0.40, p < 0.001) and generalization (b = 0.12,
p < 0.05).
Hypothesis 4 predicted a mediating effect of outcome expectancy. The same procedure used for the previous hypothesis was used to test this hypothesis (Baron & Kenny,
1986). In addition to the relationship between LMX and the criteria (demonstrated
above, for Hypothesis 3), as shown in Table 1, LMX was positively related to outcome
expectancy. The path between the mediator and the criterion must be tested using LMX
and outcome expectancy as predictors of the outcome variables. After entering
outcome expectancy into the equation, the relationship between LMX and transfer
became, again, nonsignificant (with standardized coefficients close to zero); hence, the
mediating test was meaningful for all three outcome variables. There was support for
Hypothesis 4, and outcome expectancy fully mediated the relationship between LMX
and transfer (b = 0.45, p < 0.001), maintenance (b = 0.28, p < 0.001) and generalization
(b = 0.49, p < 0.001).
Discussion
Theoretical and practical study contributions
The purpose of the study was to examine the influence of one aspect of the social
environment of work – exchanges with the direct leader (LMX) – on training transfer.
We focus on this particular aspect of the work environment to compensate for the
scarcity of research in this area (Burke & Hutchins, 2007) and attempt to contribute
both theoretically and practically to the training effectiveness and leadership research
domains. Concretely, we provide a model of training effectiveness with a focus on
the leader–member exchanges, and relationships between leaders and followers. Our
approach is similar to studies examining the influence of the work environment on
training transfer (e.g. Awoniyi et al., 2002; Lim & Johnson, 2002), and we extend prior
work where the role of supervisor was linked only to training motivation (e.g. Seyler
et al., 1998), or took place in a specific context (e.g. teams; Smith-Jentsch et al., 2001).
We also advance previous work focused on how supervisors provide reinforcement
(Gumuseli & Ergin, 2002), incentives and cues (Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993), recognition
and credit (Tracey & Tews, 2005), or support (e.g. Chiaburu & Marinova, 2005; Velada
et al., 2007), and focus on the more comprehensive leader–member relationship. This
type of integration has been called for, and provided at a conceptual level in work
explicating the connection between LMX and human resource development (Kang &
Stewart, 2007). In this study, we provide a necessary empirical test. A broad focus on
exchanges with the direct leader is important for creating more inclusive models of
training effectiveness, and also speaks for the potential generalizability of our results.
In most workplaces, leaders and followers have established relationships, and it is
useful to know how these relationships impact multiple dimensions of training transfer. Exchanges with the supervisor are similar to a pool of available resources. Knowing
where one stands with the supervisor, having the certainty that the manager will use
his or her power to help the employee solve work issues and, more generally, having an
effective work relationship with one’s leader (all aspects of LMX as evaluated in this
study), are beneficial for training transfer.
Another important feature of the study is that we theorize on, and demonstrate
empirically, mechanisms through which the relationship with the direct leader influences training transfer. As suggested in prior theories, but captured to a limited
extent in empirical work in a training setting, leaders are powerful motivating forces
and can manage the outcome expectancies of their followers (e.g. Guerrero & Sire,
2001). We demonstrate the importance of leader–follower relationships for follower
training motivation and outcome expectations using multiple criteria of training
Leader influences on training effectiveness 165
© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
effectiveness (training transfer, maintenance and generalization). Showing processes
through which the leader influences employees’ training effectiveness, especially in
managing the performance–outcome link (conceptualized as outcome expectancy) is
important. It adds to the studies connecting supervisor support for training with
related outcomes (learning and training satisfaction) through a similar mechanism
(Guerrero & Sire, 2001), and to work where the relationship between instrumentality
and training outcomes has been demonstrated, although without an explicit connection to leaders as intervening on trainees’ expectancies (Chiaburu & Lindsay, 2008;
Tziner et al., 2007).
Although practitioners are well versed in recognizing the importance of supervisor
support for training (see empirical results in Hutchins & Burke, 2007; e.g. item 24, p.
250), less is known on particular aspects pertaining to the leader–follower relationship,
as captured in this study. The practical contributions of this study are twofold. The first
has to do with leadership. The existence of direct relationships between LMX and
training outcomes has implications for the individual (in terms of training material
learned and performed on the job) and for the organization. Therefore, less than ideal
relationships and exchanges between employees and their supervisors can stall training transfer and related outcomes (maintenance, generalization). These point to the fact
that the effectiveness of training programs and interventions extends beyond the
individual participating in the training, the particular type of training and the intervention design features. The individual who has a good relationship with his or her
supervisor (which enhances communication of organizationally relevant and important
information) stands a much better chance of benefiting from the training, which will
lead to positive outcomes, both for the individual and the organization.
The second aspect is related to training motivation and outcome expectancy as
intervening processes. Leaders can directly influence their employees’ training motivation and this has a positive impact on how they transfer new skills, maintain them
over time and how they use them in other domains of their jobs. Of importance here
is the fact that employees do not enter, remain and exit the training situation in a
neutral state. The entire experience is influenced by their perception of the relationship with the direct leader, and this can both enhance, and hinder in the case of a
negative LMX relationship, their motivation. Leaders are also a source for trainees’
outcome expectancies, and our study shows the need to actively manage information
in this particular domain. Practically, leaders can (and should) inform their followers
on how their performance during training is related to outcomes of interest to the
employees.
Limitations and future research directions
This study is not without limitations. First, the data were collected from only one
source. Although inflation due to common method variance might be a concern, this
problem is less of a threat than is commonly believed (Spector, 2006). In addition, for
some of the constructs (i.e. the predictors and the intervening processes), individual
employees are the only source from which researchers can collect this information.
Future research can be conducted to replicate these findings using data from another
source for the criterion variables. Second, we relied on a sample of trainees attending
training in one organization, potentially limiting, thus, the generalizability of the
results. Despite this limitation, our results are consistent with studies indicating (using
constructs other than LMX) that supervisors are important in influencing training
transfer (see Hutchins & Burke, 2007, for a review).
Furthermore, consistent with our main objective, we focused on one aspect of
leader influence (e.g. LMX) for training transfer. Future work can expand on this
model and examine both the interplay and relative importance of various forms of
positive and negative leader actions: support (Chiaburu & Marinova, 2005), reinforcement (Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993) or punishment (Russ-Eft, 2002). In addition, LMX
seems a distal and somewhat diffuse factor influencing training transfer, in the form
of a relationship with the supervisor, when compared with more proximal and punc166 International Journal of Training and Development
© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
tual aspects, such as discussions with – and feedback from – the supervisor, also
identified as critical for transfer (Brinkerhoff & Montesino, 1995; Lim & Johnson,
2002). A logical question then, is whether positive social exchanges with the direct
leader (high LMX) compensate for the absence of such proximal aspects determining
transfer (e.g. supervisor feedback). Conversely, assuming a positive leader–member
relationship, should organizations invest resources and design proximal training
support features (e.g. reinforcement; Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993)? These are all good
questions for future inquiry.
Moving to a broader conceptualization of the work social environment, leaders are
not the only ones from the employees’ work context who can support or impede
training processes and outcomes. Coworkers also represent sources of support and
antagonism for various performance and learning components (Chiaburu & Harrison,
2008). Future research can provide broader theories, specifying situations when lateral
(e.g. coworkers), vertical (e.g. leaders) or organizational dimensions (e.g. perceived
support) are most critical for transfer. Research shows that perceived support originating from coworkers, leaders and the organization are differentially related to
workplace outcomes (e.g. attitudes, Ng & Sorensen, 2008). Similar distinctions may be
beneficial for training transfer studies, especially in the light of findings indicating that
support may be a function of the extent to which employees identify with various
dimensions of the social environment (e.g. the organization, the workgroup or the
supervisor; Pidd, 2004).
In conclusion, we advance our knowledge of training effectiveness and leader
influence on training transfer. The social context of work is important, and we were
set to examine a more complex model, connecting a relational predictor (LMX) with
individual motivation factors, and training outcomes. Our results provide preliminary support for these relationships and, given the considerable complexity of factors
influencing transfer (supervisor support, peer support, the nature of the task, etc.),
training effectiveness predictors will continue to be important in both research and
business settings, and future studies should explicate these relationships in greater
detail.
References
Alliger, G. M., Tannenbaum, S. I., Bennett, W., Traver, H. and Shotland, A. (1997), ‘A meta-analysis
of the relations among training criteria’, Personnel Psychology, 50, 341–58.
Awoniyi, E. A., Griego, O. V. and Morgan, G. A. (2002), ‘Person-environment fit and transfer of
training’, International Journal of Training and Development, 6, 25–35.
Baldwin, T. T. and Ford, J. K. (1988), ‘Transfer of training: a review and directions for future
research’, Personnel Psychology, 41, 63–103.
Bandura, A. (1977), Social Learning Theory (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).
Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundation of Though and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory (Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).
Baron, R. M. and Kenny, D. A. (1986), ‘The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–82.
Brinkerhoff, R. and Montesino, M. (1995), ‘Partnerships for training transfer: lessons from a
corporate study’, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 6, 263–74.
Brown, K. G. and Ford, J. K. (2002), ‘Using Computer Technology in Training: Building an
Infrastructure for Active Learning’, in K. Kraiger (ed.), Creating, Implementing, and Managing
Effective Training and Development (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass), pp. 192–233.
Burke, L. A. and Baldwin, T. T. (1999), ‘Workforce training transfer: a study of the effect of relapse
prevention training and transfer’, Human Resource Management, 38, 227–43.
Burke, L. A. and Hutchins, H. M. (2007), ‘Training transfer: an integrative literature review’,
Human Resource Development Review, 6, 263–96.
Cheng, E. W. L. and Ho, D. C. K. (2001), ‘A review of transfer of training studies in the past
decade’, Personnel Review, 30, 102–18.
Chiaburu, D. S. and Harrison, D. A. (2008), ‘Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and
meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance’, Journal of
Applied Psychology. In press.
Leader influences on training effectiveness 167
© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Chiaburu, D. S. and Lindsay, D. R. (2008), ‘Can do or will do? The importance of self-efficacy
and instrumentality for training transfer’, Human Resource Development International, 11, 199–
206.
Chiaburu, D. S. and Marinova, S. V. (2005), ‘What predicts skill transfer? An exploratory study of
goal orientation, training self-efficacy and organization supports’, International Journal of Training and Development, 9, 110–23.
Chiaburu, D. S. and Tekleab, A. G. (2005), ‘Individual and contextual influences on multiple
dimensions of training effectiveness’, Journal of European Industrial Training, 29, 604–26.
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A. and Noe, R. A. (2000), ‘Toward an integrative theory of training
motivation: a meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research’, Journal of Applied Psychology,
85, 679–707.
Dansereau, F., Jr., Graen, G. and Haga W. J. (1975), ‘A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership
within formal organizations: a longitudinal investigation of the role making process’, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46–78.
Facteau, J. D., Dobbins, G. H., Russell, J. E. A., Ladd, R. T. and Kudisch, J. D. (1995), ‘The influence
of general perceptions of the training environment on pretraining motivation and perceived
transfer of training’, Journal of Management, 21, 1–25.
Ford, J. K., Smith, E. M., Weissbein, D. A., Gully, S. M. and Salas, E. (1998), ‘Relationships of
goal orientation, metacognitive activity, and practice strategies with learning outcomes and
transfer’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 218–32.
Frayne, C. A. and Geringer, J. M. (2000), ‘Self-management training for improving job
performance: a field experiment involving salespeople’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
361–72.
Gerstner, C. R. and Day, D. V. (1997), ‘Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory:
correlates and construct issues’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827–44.
Gist, M. E., Stevens, C. K. and Bavetta, A. G. (1991), ‘Effects of self-efficacy and post-training
intervention on the acquisition and manitenance of complex interpersonal skills’, Personnel
Psychology, 44, 837–61.
Goldstein, I. L. and Ford, J. K. (2002), Training in Organizations: Needs Assessment, Development, and
Evaluation, 4th edn (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group).
Graen, G. B. and Uhl-Bien, M. (1995), ‘Relationship-based approach to leadership: development
of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level
multi-domain perspective’, Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–47.
Graen, G. B., Novak, M. A. and Sommerkamp, P. (1982), ‘The effects of leader-member exchange
and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model’, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 109–31.
Guerrero, S. and Sire, B. (2001), ‘Motivation to train from the workers’ perspective: example of
French companies’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12, 988–1004.
Gumuseli, A. I. and Ergin, B. (2002), ‘The manager’s role in enhancing the transfer of training: a
Turkish case study’, International Journal of Training and Development, 6, 80–97.
Hofmann, D. A., Morgeson, F. P. and Gerras, S. J. (2003), ‘Climate as a moderator of the relationship between leader-member exchange and content specific citizenship: safety climate as an
exemplar’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 170–8.
Holton, E. F., III and Baldwin, T. T. (2003), Improving Learning Transfer Systems in Organizations
(San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass and Pfeiffer).
House, R. J. (1971), ‘A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness’, Administrative Science Quarterly,
16, 321–39.
House, R. and Dressler, G. (1974), ‘The path goal theory of leadership: some post hoc and a priori
tests’, in J. G. Hunt and L. L. Larson (eds), Contingency Approaches to Leadership (Carbondale, IL:
Southern University Press), pp. 29–62.
Hutchins, H. M. and Burke, L. A. (2007), ‘Identifying trainers’ knowledge of training transfer
research findings – closing the gap between research and practice’, International Journal of
Training and Development, 11, 236–64.
Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D. and Morgeson, F. P. (2007), ‘Leader-member exchange and citizenship
behaviors: a meta-analysis’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 269–77.
Kang, D. and Stewart, J. (2007), ‘Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership and HRD:
development of units of theory and laws of interaction’, Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 28, 531–51.
Kozlowski, S. W. J. and Salas, E. (1997), ‘An organizational systems approach for the implementation and transfer of training’, in J. K. Ford, S. W. J. Kozlowski, K. Kraiger, E. Salas and M.
Teachout (eds), Improving Training Effectiveness in Work Organizations (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum),
pp. 247–87.
168 International Journal of Training and Development
© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J. and Sparrowe, R. T. (2000), ‘An examination of the mediating role of
psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and
work outcomes’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 407–16.
Lim, D. H. and Johnson, S. D. (2002), ‘Trainee perception of factors that influence learning
transfer’, International Journal of Training and Development, 6, 36–48.
Mathieu, J. E. and Martineau, J. W. (1997), ‘Individual and situational influences on training
motivation’, in J. K. Ford (ed.), Improving Training Effectiveness in Work Organizations (Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), pp. 193–223.
Murphy, S. E. and Ensher, E. A. (1999), ‘The effects of leader and subordinate characteristics in the
development of leader-member exchange quality’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29,
1371–94.
Ng, T. W. H. and Sorensen, K. L. (2008), ‘Toward a further understanding of the relationships
between perceptions of support and work attitudes: a meta-analysis’, Group and Organization
Management, 33, 243–68.
Noe, R. A. (1986), ‘Trainee attributes: neglected influences on training effectiveness’, Academy of
Management Review, 11, 736–49.
Noe, R. A. and Schmitt, N. (1986), ‘The influence of trainee attitudes on training effectiveness: test
of a model’, Personnel Psychology, 39, 497–523.
Pidd, K. (2004), ‘The impact of workplace support and identity on training transfer: a case study
of drug and alcohol safety training in Australia,’ International Journal of Training and Development, 8, 274–88.
Quinones, M. A. (1997), ‘Contextual influences on training effectiveness’, in M. A. Quinones
and A. Ehrenstein (eds), Training for a Rapidly Changing Workforce: Application of Psychological
Research (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association), pp. 177–201.
Riggs, M., Warka, J., Babasa, B., Betancourt, R. and Hooker, S. (1994), ‘Development and validation of self-efficacy and outcome expectancy scales for job-related applications’, Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 54, 793–802.
Rouiller, J. Z. and Goldstein, I. L. (1993), ‘The relationship between organizational transfer climate
and positive transfer of training’, Human Resources Development Quarterly, 4, 377–90.
Russ-Eft, D. (2002), ‘A typology of training design and work environment factors affecting
workplace learning and transfer’, Human Resource Development Review, 1, 45–65.
Seyler, D. L., Holton, E. F., Bates, R. A., Burnett, M. F. and Carvalho, M. A. (1998), ‘Factors
affecting motivation to transfer training’, International Journal of Training and Development, 2,
2–16.
Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Salas, E. and Brannick, M. T. (2001), ‘To transfer or not to transfer? Investigating the combined effects of trainee characteristics, team leader support, and team climate’,
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 279–92.
Spector, P. E. (2006), ‘Method variance in organizational research: truth or urban legend?’, Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221–32.
Stone, R. W. and Henry, J. W. (2003), ‘The role of computer self-efficacy and outcome expectancy
in influencing the computer end user’s organizational commitment’, Journal of End User Computing, 15, 38–53.
Tesluk, P. E., Fair, J. L., Mathieu, J. E. and Vance, R. J. (1995), ‘Generalization of employee
involvement training to the job setting: individual and situational effects’, Personnel Psychology,
48, 607–32.
Tracey, J. B. and Tews, M. J. (2005), ‘Construct validity of a general training climate’, Organizational Research Methods, 8, 353–74.
Tracey, J. B., Hinkin, T. R., Tannenbaum, S. and Mathieu, J. E. (2001), ‘The influence of individual
characteristics and the work environment on varying levels of training outcomes’, Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 12, 5–23.
Tziner, A., Fisher, M., Senior, T. and Weisberg, J. (2007), ‘Effects of trainee characteristics on
training effectiveness’, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 167–74.
van der Klink, M., Gielen, E. and Nauta, C. (2001), ‘Supervisory support as a major condition to
enhance transfer’, International Journal of Training and Development, 5, 52–63.
Velada, R., Caetano, A., Michel, J. W., Lyons, B. D. and Kavanagh, M. J. (2007), ‘The effects of
training design, individual characteristics and work environment on transfer of training’,
International Journal of Training and Development, 11, 282–94.
Vroom, V. H. (1964), Work and Motivation (New York: Wiley).
Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D. and Chen, Z. X. (2005), ‘Leader-member
exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’
performance and organizational citizenship behavior’, Academy of Management Journal, 48,
420–32.
Leader influences on training effectiveness 169
© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Warr, P. and Bunce, D. (1995), ‘Trainee characteristics and the outcomes of open learning’,
Personnel Psychology, 48, 347–75.
Xiao, J. (1996), ‘The relationship between organizational factors and the transfer of training in
the electronics industry in Shenzhen, China’, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7, 55–
73.
170 International Journal of Training and Development
© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Record: 1
Title: Rewards to Motivate (Why it's not the whole story).
Source: Canadian Manager. Spring2006, Vol. 31 Issue 1, p24-25. 2p.
Document Type: Article
Subjects: EMPLOYEE motivation
MOTIVATION (Psychology)
PERSONNEL management
WATSON, John
TAYLOR, Frederick
THORNDIKE, Edward
BEHAVIORISM (Psychology)
Abstract: The article discusses the concept of employee motivation and
rewards and provides information on the theory of
behaviorism. An extremely common response to motivating
people is to reward them for the behaviors you want them to
continue and punish them for the behaviors you want them to
discontinue. Behaviorism is based on a theory developed by
John Watson in the early 1900s and even earlier by Frederick
Taylor (the father of scientific management) and Edward
Thorndike in 1898.
Lexile: 990
Full Text Word Count: 1115
ISSN: 0045-5156
Accession Number: 22957195
Database: MasterFILE Premier
Section: EXPERT ADVICE
Rewards to Motivate (Why it's not the whole story)
The most successful leaders are ones who create a motivating environment where everyone is able
to contribute their individual and team best to meet the business goals.
External Motivation
An extremely common response to motivating people is to reward them for the behaviors you want
them to continue and punish them for the behaviors you want them to discontinue. Thus the
common saying is "What gets rewarded gets done." Presumably, the flipside of this belief is that
what isn't rewarded doesn't get done.
The belief that "what gets rewarded gets done" arose during the Enlightenment. (The Enlightenment
started at the turn of the 20th century and was founded on the belief that with enough scientific study
and rigor, everything could be perfected. Moreover, whatever was not explained through the
scientific method was only the result of a deficient methodology or technology and was only a matter
of time before the proper method or tool would explain it.) Behaviorism was one such theory. It is
based on a theory developed by John Watson in the early 1900s and even earlier by Frederick
Taylor (the father of scientific management) and Edward Thorndike in 1898.
The field of behaviorism as we know it currently was popularized and developed for popular
consumption and application in the 1960s by B.F. Skinner.
The theories underlying behaviorism are…
• That the human is not a self (soul, me, or "I"), but is rather a collection of behaviors.
• If something of the human experience cannot be explained through the empirical scientific method,
it is not real and therefore not worth consideration.
• Finally, human behavior is not derived from initiative or self-will but rather is the result and
response to either positive or negative reinforcement.
In practice, the theories of behaviorism suggest that if you do this (give rewards) you'll get the
behavior you want from people. Or, the flipside, if you give negative reinforcement (punishment), you
get less of the behaviors you don't want. This is commonly referred to as "the carrot or the stick"
approach to management.
The trouble with rewards is that they fail to tap into (or assume people don't possess) initiative,
selfhood, or free will. Therefore, in practice they don't tend to produce motivation, they produce
temporary compliance, but not long-term commitment.
According to motivation theorist Frederick Herzberg, rewards like pay, benefits etc. are what he
called "hygiene factors." They are like the temperature. When they are where they should be-not too
high or too low-we don't think about them. When they are too low, they tend to produce
dissatisfaction. However, when they are too high, they do not produce higher levels of motivation. In
sum, the absence of them can be de-motivating, but they are not, in themselves, motivating.
Ironically, there are other replicated studies (about 70) that have shown that inner motivation actually
decreases when people are given external rewards. The reason for this is presumably because
people believe that if they have to get paid to do the job, it must be something they wouldn't want to
do without payment. (Alfie Kohn "Challenging behaviorist dogma; myths about money and
motivation." Compensation and Benefits Review. 30, 3-17-98 and Alfie Kohn, Punished by Rewards,
1993).
Inner Motivation
In contrast to external motivation, inner motivation is something that motivates people to want to do
something without expecting a reward.
So what creates inner motivation?
According to study after study, people report feeling motivated by intrinsic experiences of things like:
• A sense of accomplishment
• Pride in good work
• Sense of growth
• Challenging work
• Working with great colleagues
Does this mean that you shouldn't reward people? Absolutely not! Rewards are important when they
are given as recognition rather than bribe. When rewards are given to recognize the intrinsic
motivation already in play, people cherish them for what they symbolize.
The promise of an external reward (like a trip to Hawaii, a new stereo system or a diamond pin) may
push someone who is already doing a certain behavior to do more of it, but it is likely due to the
accomplishment of the important goal than the reward itself. Rewards earned for this reason are
remembered and cherished long after the item itself has outlived its usefulness. If you have ever
moved a trinket earned early in your career from house to house to house and wondered why you
kept hanging onto the item, the answer may be that, for you, it represents and reminds you of an
important achievement in your life. Or, consider the situation in which an employee is given a plaque
upon the completion of a major project. The employee doesn't work hard for the plaque, nor does
he/she value the plaque for its own sake. Instead, the employee values the plaque because it is
symbolic of his/her accomplishment of a goal, personal growth, etc.
Create an Environment that Promotes Inner Motivation
You cannot force someone to be motivated. They have to choose it. However, as a leader, you can
create the kind of environment that naturally promotes inner motivation. The motivating environment
includes the following elements:
1. Goals. A clear sense of what you are trying to accomplish and why it matters. Describe your
vision of the completed goal and how others can make a difference in accomplishing that goal.
2. Challenge. The ability to improve ones' own performance is incredibly motivating. It is one of the
reasons we like to play and watch sports or video games. For example, if you shoot 10 baskets in a
game, you will strive to shoot 11 in the next game. After you have communicated the final goal in a
clear and inspiring manner, find ways to help people improve their own performance and give them
feedback mechanisms so they can track their own growth.
3. Achievement. Give people the sense that their contribution matters in the larger scheme of
things. People want rewarding things to do. Show them how their task is important.
4. Ownership. Give people ownership over their tasks. This relates to empowering leadership. Give
them responsibility and the resources to do a good job.
5. Community. Although we know that some personality types prefer to work alone sometimes,
most people are motivated when they get the chance to bounce ideas off of other people and work
together on a task. Teamwork also tends to promote natural accountability.
Reprinted with permission from the Selecting and Leading Top Performers Training Manual
published by Tero International, Inc. Tero International, Inc. is a corporate training company
specializing in the research, development and delivery of training programs designed to build
personal and interpersonal skills. Visit Tero online at vvww.tero.com.
Copyright of Canadian Manager is the property of Canadian Institute of Management and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Back to previous page
document 1 of 1
Employee involvement and organizational effectiveness
Amah, Edwinah; Ahiauzu, Augustine. The Journal of Management Development; Bradford Vol. 32, Iss. 7,
(2013): 661-674.
Abstract
Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the extent to which employee involvement influences
organizational effectiveness and to examine the extent to which employee involvement influences profitability,
productivity, and market share. Design/methodology/approach - The correlational study was conducted as a
cross-sectional survey. Research questionnaires were administered and interviews were held with managers in the
organizations studied. A total of 388 managers were randomly drawn from a population of 13,339 managers of all
the 24 banks in Nigeria. The independent variable, "employee involvement" was measured by empowerment,
team orientation, and capacity development. The dependent variable, "organizational effectiveness" was
measured by profitability, productivity, and market share. The measures all used a five-point Likert scale (ranging
from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree) and Spearman's rank correlation statistical tool was used to test
the hypotheses. Findings - The descriptive statistics of the study variables indicate that employee involvement
positively influences organizational effectiveness. The result (Rho=0.515, p
Purchase answer to see full
attachment