The primary “take-away” message demonstrated by the Smith-Jentsch et al. reading is basically that, with more motivation during training, a trainee tends to perform better post-training.
The reading also puts emphasis on the fact that there is a relationship between specific negative pre-training events that a training program is designed to prevent, and post training performance of the trained skill in a behavioral exercise.
Taylor (67) stated that negative events have been described as those that have “the potential or actual ability to create adverse outcomes for the individual”.
Quinones (226) demonstrated that “the manner in which a training assignment is framed (i.e., advanced or remedial) can influence training motivation and ultimately training outcomes through self-efficacy and perceptions of fairness”.
The reading also shows evidence that conceptually relevant pre-training negative events, account for individual differences in learning and retention, and that these experiences affect training outcomes through their influence on motivation or willingness to learn.
Several factors have been hypothesized to affect training outcomes through motivation to learn. Suggestions by Noe (736) are that diverse factors that a trainee perceives, give them the motivation required to perform well.
Therefore, the aim of this reading is to show that high levels of career planning and job involvement are directly related to higher training motivation and training outcomes.
This theory is applicable in the initial and most vital of stages of training in that, creating a perceived need for training in an apprentices mind should be the first step in the process of training.
A trainee’s post training performance is greatly influenced by previous experiences, since the trainee had increased motivation to learn during training. Mathieu, Tannenbaum & Salas (828) stated that pre-training motivation is projected to ready trainees to learn by enhancing their attention and increasing their receptivity to new ideas.
Therefore, trainees who are motivated to perform well in training are more likely to grasp the content or principles of a training program than the less motivated trainees
There are two main features of experimental designs namely the use of a control group and the assignment of evaluation participants to either intervention or control groups through randomization. This is a practice in which participants are assigned to groups in an unbiased way.
Quasi-experimental design has several strategies. These include adding a control group, taking measurements prior to and subsequently to the intervention implementation and then staggering the introduction to the interventions amid the groups. Addition of a turnaround of the intervention and use of the additional outcome measures is the closing strategy (Martin 273).
The advantages of the quasi design are that by adding a non-randomized control group to the simple before and after design, this automatically reduces some of the threats to internal validity.
Interference by external circumstances is reduced because they will often apply to both the control group and the intervention group though instrumentation and placebo effects may still remain as issues and should be not be disregarded.
After demonstrating the effects of the intervention reversal, one is then free to reinstate the intervention. “It has been suggested that effective team performance-related assertiveness is a complex skill as well as an important team-related attitude” (Smith-Jentsch, Jentsch & Salas 111).
However, the downside to the reversal design feature is that repetitive changes in safety programming may possibly craft confusion, stress and resentment amid those affected. Also, if the intervention has looked promising following its introduction, subsequent removal could be considered unethical thus use of this aspect should be closely monitored.
A quasi-experimental or experimental design is more likely to give a more realistic estimation of the effect of the intervention than a non-experimental design. By altering a non-experimental design to quasi-experimental, one can augment and strengthen the design and ease or eliminate threats to internal validity.
Coaching has developed into one of the contemporary performance-led culture of employment rather than the old model of job security. This is a process that fits the current times.
It’s a mechanism for enabling organizations as well as individuals meet competitive pressure, plan for succession and bring out change, Wilkinson, Redman & Shell (162). Therefore if a colleague considers the use of an executive coach, I would give the following recommendations.
There are several benefits of the use of the service as it will enable one learn how to solve their own problems as well as those of other contemporaries. Enhancement of managerial and interpersonal skills is somewhat noticeable leading to career escalation and maturity.
This leads to better self relationships with all your colleagues and one can also learn how to categorize and act on development necessities. Self esteem is built thus greater confidence in all duties is granted.
An individual becomes more effective and assertive when dealing with people. There is improved positive impact on performance and self awareness as well as gain of new perspectives.
The coaching can be of assistance to all individuals who are having a change in job roles i.e. moving to a new job that requires different skills and abilities. This can be a short term intercession to help people acclimatize and deal with the role change.
Developing skills of ‘valuable’ technical experts where an employee has high levels of specific skills and experience is imperative. Thus the organization has difficulty replacing human capital (Martin162). In such a situation, it’s more appropriate to receive coaching to improve and develop skills to progress within the organization.
In holding up for future leaders or senior executives, coaching can be an apt intercession, as it is a confidential, personal and ‘safe’ development option where one uses an objective, external person to help them with their development.
Conversely, despite coaching being a very valuable tool, as with any learning intervention it can be maximized when a legitimate need for it is primarily acknowledged and when it is deemed the preeminent progression tool for the specific role.
Although there has been dramatic progress in the development of the science and practice of training, quite a number of issues still need to be resolved.
Regarding future training research, the three key suggestions according to Aguinis and Kraiger are that first, the gains of training may well have a surging result such that individual-level gains such as a person’s performance, influences team-level gains namely team performance, consequently affecting organizational (returns) and societal (human capital) results.
However, to comprehend the factors that make possible a smooth cross-level shift of benefits, future research is required.
Secondly, on the subject of utilization of cycle time as an inconsistency to appraise training efficiency, there exists a vacuum amid applied and scholarly literature.
Thirdly, affect has the probability of playing a more fundamental task in the general training procedures, although its role has been accredited in quantifying of responses to training.
In a synopsis, training and development in organizations is thriving, underpinned by the approaches developed from strategic human resource management as well as organizational psychology, labor economics and industrial relations.
Works Cited
Martins, Paul. Applied Psychology. New Jersey. Wiley-Blackwell publishers. 2011. Print.
Mathew, John, Tannenbaum, Scott. & Salas, Eduardo. The influences of individuals and situational characteristics on measures of training effectiveness. Academy of management Journal, 35 (81), 828-847. 1992. Print.
Noe, Raymond. Trainees attributes and attitudes: Neglected influences on training effectiveness. Academy of management review, 11 (1), 736-749. 1986. Print.
Quinones, Miguel. Pretraining Context Effects: Training assignment as feedback. Journal of applied psychology, 80 (4), 226-238. 1995. Print.
Smith-Jentsch, Kimberly, Jentsch, Florian & Salas, Eduardo. Can Pretraining Experiences Explain Individual Differences in learning? Journal of Applied Psychology, 10 (1), 110-116. 1996. Print.
Taylor, Shelley. Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events. The mobilization minimization hypothesis. Psychological bulletin, 110 (2), 67-85.1991. Print.
Wilkinson, Adrian, Redman, Tom & Shell, Scott. Handbook of Human Resource Management. California. Sage Publishers. 2011. Print.