BUS 680 Week 1 Work

Three Learning, Motivation, and Performance

Learning Objectives After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

Explain the value and importance of understanding theory.

Identify the major factors that determine human performance and their relevance to training.

Describe how motivation and self-ef�icacy relate to the effectiveness of training.

Describe the cognitive and behavioral approaches to learning and their contradictory implications for instructional practices.

Describe how social learning theory integrates cognitive and behaviorist perspectives.

Describe how the processes and components of social learning theory relate to training.

Describe the causes of resistance to learning.

Explain the effect of group dynamics on learning and the transfer of training.

Explain why different people need different training methods to learn the same things.

Identify the characteristics of training design that motivate learning and accommodate trainee differences.

3.1 Case: The Wilderness Training Lab Claudia, a successful 33-year-old corporate marketing executive, found herself in the mountains preparing to climb a rope ladder attached to a tree. When she reached the top of the ladder, she would fall off backward. It wouldn’t be an accident. No, she wasn’t suicidal or deranged. She was participating in an executive development program called Wilderness Training Lab.

Back at the corporate of�ice she was known as an independent, smart, and tenacious businesswoman. She quickly moved up the corporate ladder from product research assistant to brand manager. Claudia had a reputation for micromanaging her subordinates and for being a loner. When asked about these issues, Claudia replied, “When I was in college, I had a lot of group projects. At �irst I went along with group decisions and trusted others to do a good job. Even though I felt anxious about putting my grade in the hands of someone else, it seemed to be a good way to get along in the group. Those projects received mediocre grades, and I’m only satis�ied with being the best. Then I started to take over the leadership of every group I was in. I developed the plan, decided who would do what, determined the timelines, and always took on the most dif�icult and complex parts myself, all the time making sure the others were doing what they were assigned. From then on my group projects always got an ‘A.’ I carried those lessons with me into the workplace and I’ve had good success here, too. Maybe it rubs some people the wrong way, but it works for me. The only trouble I’m having is keeping up with all my projects. Some of the other brand managers want to work with me on joint projects, but I do not have time. Besides, they probably just want me to do their work for them or steal my ideas. The VP of marketing will be retiring soon and only one of the seven brand managers will get that job. What’s in it for me if I collaborate with them? Let each of us sink or swim on our own merits.”

A few months ago, the VP of marketing, Sandy Cines, discussed career plans with Claudia. Sandy had always praised and encouraged Claudia’s work, but this time he was a little reserved. He suggested, in rather strong terms, that she attend an executive development “wilderness” program. Claudia hesitated because of her workload and upcoming deadlines. Sandy said, “Well, I’ll leave the decision up to you. The director of training and I have looked at your strengths and what you’ll need for the next level as an executive. Technically you’re very strong, but more important at the next level is building good interpersonal relationships. The training director recommended this program for you, but, as I said, I’ll leave the decision up to you.” Claudia wondered what he thought was wrong with her interpersonal relationships. She had great relationships with customers and outside vendors, and in her personal life. Relationships with her subordinates and peers needed to be different. She needed to be �irmer and less �lexible with them, did she not? She did not think she had bad relationships with her subordinates or peers. They never complained to her. However, Claudia decided it was pretty clear that Sandy wanted her to attend the wilderness program.

She found a diverse group of men and women executives from all over North America when she arrived for the training. Many con�ided that their organizations had sent them to “learn how to be more effective in groups.” Most of them indicated they were interested and eager but a little nervous about what was expected of them. They soon found out. They were divided into groups of 10 and taken out on the “course.”

The �irst training exercise was climbing the “trust ladder.” Doug, the program director, explained that the group members would have to rely on each other quite a bit during the coming week. To demonstrate that the group could be trusted, each person was to climb to the top of the ladder and fall backward into the group, which would catch the person in the proper manner. Doug showed them how. After everyone had completed the exercise, they discussed risk taking, building and trusting one’s support systems, being part of a support system, and communicating one’s needs. Then came more challenging exercises, such as building and using rope bridges to cross a stream, white-water rafting, and—the most physically challenging of all—scaling a four-meter wall. The front of the wall was sheer and smooth. A platform was on the other side, on which two people could stand at about waist level with the top of the wall and from which extended a ladder to the ground.

Everyone had to scale the wall, and no one could stand on the platform until he or she had scaled the wall. It was a timed event, and the groups were in competition with one another. The �irst thing a group had to do was develop a plan. Strong and tall people were needed to boost the others to a point where they could pull themselves over. Some stood on the platform and helped those who were not strong enough to pull themselves over. It was clear that the �irst people over also had to be strong. Another problem was the last person over. Everyone, except the last pair, would have “spotters” in case of a fall. Also, the last person could not be boosted to the top. Someone would have to act as a human rope, hanging down from the top so that the last person could climb up the person and over the wall. Therefore, the last person would have to be strong enough to boost the second-to-last person up, but light enough to climb over the human rope. To determine the order, the group members needed to share with one another their strengths and weaknesses. Claudia wanted to be the last person so that she could make sure everyone was doing what they were supposed to, and also because, as the last person over the wall, she would represent the group’s successful completion of this exercise. Two of the strongest men in the group confessed to having injuries that would hamper their performance. Claudia realized that her tennis elbow would be a great liability. When it came to her turn to discuss her strengths and weaknesses, she was honest about her injury and indicated that she would �it best somewhere in the middle where many people could help her.

When Claudia’s turn to climb came, she called out to those on top what to expect—where she couldn’t put much strain and how she would indicate that someone was pulling too hard. Then she was being pushed up with spotters all around her, and the next thing she knew she was over the wall.

Later, when the members discussed the event, Claudia asked what impact her limitations had caused in the group. Those who had been pullers replied, “None.” They said they knew what to do because she had told them about her problem ahead of time.

While packing to go home, Claudia thought about how much she had learned about herself and her relationship to other people, especially at work. She recognized that she generally failed to trust others to do their part and so she was not as effective as she would like to be. Her success came at a high price because of the extra workload she imposed on herself. In addition, she wondered, “What is the price my subordinates pay? How have my actions affected their attitudes and performance? Do I need to be so competitive with my peers? Is that really in the company’s best interest? Is it in my best interest?” She knew she would have a lot to think about on the trip home.

3.2 A Few Words about Theory Theories are speculative road maps for how things work. In fact, most of us develop our own theories to explain how the world around us works. The child yells, “I want an ice cream cone.” He is told, “No, not until you ask properly.” After several such incidents, the child begins to see that when he says “please,” he is more successful than when he says “gimme” or “I want.” The child develops a theory of how to get things he wants; he must always say “please.” “Good” theories assemble a number of facts, show the relationship among those facts, and develop a logical rationale for what is likely to be true, given those facts. From theory, predictions or hypotheses can be generated and tested. If the tests show that the predictions are correct, the theory is supported. If the new facts are inconsistent with the predictions, the theory is revised or discarded. Suppose the child in the previous situation takes his theory to the extreme. When he says “please” but is denied his request, he continues to badger the person, saying “pleeeease, pleeease.” If he soon �inds that this approach does not work, he might revise the theory. The new theory says: “Please” works more often than not, but if you have to say it over and over, it does not work. In fact, it makes the person annoyed. This process of developing, testing, and reformulating a theory is the basis of science. It is how new knowledge is created. A good theory is also practical because it

explains facts as simply as possible,

predicts future events, and

provides information on what can be done to prevent undesirable things from happening.

A theory (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch03_001) is an abstraction that allows us to make sense out of a large number of facts related to an issue. Effective training practices are developed from theories and theoretical constructs that describe how learning occurs and what motivates people. This chapter is about theory, so it is necessarily somewhat abstract. Unfortunately, some people may see little value in wading through the complex logic and rationale of theories. It is easier to follow a set of instructions like a recipe. But, in training, as in business, a single recipe will not work. Recipes require standardized ingredients—businesses do not have standardized ingredients. Each organization is unique, with different missions, strategies, environments, technologies, and people. The interaction of these elements creates a different “chemistry” in each organization, thus making a “one best way for everyone” approach ineffective. Theories provide the guidelines, principles, and predictions that allow organizations to create the right recipe for their situation. Successful people in business pay attention to theory.

Firms in all industries from manufacturing to telecommunications, from energy production to health care (e.g., Ford, 3M, Microsoft, Motorola, Toshiba, Toyota, and Xerox), jumped ahead of the competition because they understood and applied theories. Some of these theories concern the product; others concern how the product is made, and still others how the �irm is managed. Rather than copying others, these companies understood the underlying theories related to what they were trying to do and applied those theories to meeting their goals. As the quality guru W. E. Deming indicated, experience teaches nothing without theory. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_001) He warned that unless you understand the theory behind someone’s success, copying can lead to chaos. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_002) A survey of Fortune 1000 companies engaged in programs to improve quality (e.g., total quality management, ISO 9000) and involve employees in decision making supports this view. The companies that applied the underlying models and theories correctly were getting the best results; those that simply put programs into place were getting the worst results. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_003)

Consider pay systems. Suppose a company pays its employees on the basis of how much they produce (i.e., a piece-rate system). The company is successful and the employees make a high wage. You decide to institute the piece-rate system in your company. Will it work? It might, but it might not. Its success will depend on the total reward system, what the company is trying to accomplish, and what the employees value. For example, employees might turn out a high volume of the product but at the cost of many problems with quality. They might produce

1

2

3

more than can be sold. Piece-rate systems can create a “norm” in the work group that prohibits them from producing more than a speci�ied amount (to avoid increases in the product/ money ratio or to protect slower workers). In other words, the differences in the people and work environments affect the success of the piece-rate system.

As a manager, your understanding of motivational theory allows you to improve employee performance levels by applying the principles of motivation to your �irm’s unique circumstances. The same is true with training. Whether one company’s training program will work in another’s will depend on the needs of each company, its employees, and the training system used. Copying without understanding is like taking someone else’s prescription drugs. Even though they might have made someone else better, they could kill you.

What theories are important to the success of the training enterprise? If trainees do not learn, then training has failed, so theories of learning are certainly important. If trainees learn but do not try to transfer the learning to the job, then training has failed. Add theories of motivation to the list. If the trainees learn and try to transfer the learning to the job site, but obstacles in their work environment prevent them from making the transfer, then again training has failed. It failed because the changes in the work environment that needed to support the desired behavior were not considered. Thus, to design and implement effective training programs, you need to understand how people learn, what motivates learning and performance, and how the learning and work environment affect motivation and performance. This chapter focuses on these topics. The theories, models, and concepts discussed here serve as a foundation for the rest of the book. We will refer to these theories and their implications for training throughout the text because they are related to each phase of the training process.

3.3 Understanding Motivation and Performance Your job performance and your behavior in general are a function of what you know, what you are able to do, and what you believe (knowledge, skills, and attitudes [KSAs]). If you do not have the requisite KSAs, you cannot perform. However, additional factors are important in determining your performance. Figure 3-1 depicts a general performance model (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch03_002) . This model indicates that a person’s performance (P) depends on the interaction of motivation (M), KSAs, and environment (E). Motivation arises from your needs and beliefs about how best to satisfy those needs. Both motivation and KSAs are part of your memory and thinking systems (i.e., cognitive structure (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch03_003) ). Environment (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch03_004) refers to the physical surroundings in which performance must occur, including barriers and aids to performance. Environment also includes the objects and events (cues) that you might see as indicating that your performance will be rewarded or punished.

Figure 3-1 Factors Determining Human Performance

Think back to the wilderness training case. Which of Claudia’s KSAs allowed her to reach her current position? Recall that her boss felt that she lacked the interpersonal skills necessary for developing good relationships. Did she lack these skills or was she not motivated to use them? Apparently, she had the skills, because she was able to develop good relationships with others with whom she was not directly working. The training director probably understood this, because he suggested the wilderness training rather than an interpersonal skill-building workshop. The wilderness training did not teach people how to develop good interpersonal relationships as much as it broke down barriers that prevented those relationships from developing. The program worked on the motivation and attitudes of the trainees. What barriers in Claudia’s work environment might keep her from developing these

relationships? How about the upcoming retirement of the VP and that open position? What criteria could be used to evaluate managers that would encourage them to develop positive relationships with peers and subordinates?

Each of the factors M, KSA, and E in Figure 3-1 can in�luence performance, but the combination of these factors determines the person’s performance. The weakest factor, then, limits the likelihood of engaging in any activity. For instance, no matter how knowledgeable or skilled you are, if you are not motivated to perform the activity—or worse, are motivated to not perform it—then you will not. If the environment does not support the activity or blocks it, then it does not matter how motivated or knowledgeable you are, you will not do it. For example, if necessary tools are not working or equipment is missing, you won’t attempt the activity. Likewise, if the environment is sending signals that your performance will be punished, you won’t perform. In Claudia’s case, she seemed to want to stay at work and not attend the training. However, her boss gave strong indications that staying would be viewed negatively. Her environment changed, signaling that old ways of performing would not be rewarded and new ways would.

The model in Figure 3-1 is important for determining employee training needs. It helps us understand whether poor job performance is a result of KSAs or other factors. It is also important in the design of training. When putting together the learning modules and training methods, the trainer must consider how they will affect the trainees’ motivation to learn. Similarly, when selecting the training facility and materials, we must consider how they will interact with trainee motivation. When we ask trainees to use their new knowledge and skills back on the job, we must make sure that the environment is supportive of this new way of performing. A deeper understanding of these three determinants of performance will increase your ability to design and implement effective training programs. First, we look at motivation, presenting the most prominent theories and clarifying their relationship to the training enterprise.

Motivation: Why Do They Act Like That? Motivation is part of a person’s cognitive structure and is not directly observable. Thus, it is typically de�ined in terms of its effects on behavior, which are observable. Most of the scienti�ic literature de�ines motivation (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch01_028) as the direction, persistence, and amount of effort expended by an individual to achieve a speci�ied outcome. In other words, the following factors re�lect a person’s motivation:

What need(s) the person is trying to satisfy

What types of activities the person engages in to satisfy the need

How long the person engages in the activity

How hard the person works at the activity

Go back to Claudia’s situation. What need is she trying to satisfy: the growth need or the need to achieve and get ahead in the company? To answer this, look at the types of activities she is involved in. She takes on extra projects, volunteers to work on task forces, works late, and so forth. How long has she been doing it? For about two years. How hard does she work at it? Well, it seems pretty hard: She works 12-hour days and often goes in on Saturday.

Motivation is goal-directed and derived from both personal needs and the decision processes used to satisfy those needs. Separate theories evolved to explain the relationship between needs and motivation, and between decision processes and motivation. Needs theories attempt to describe the types of needs people have, their relative importance, and how they are related to one another. Process theories attempt to describe and explain how a person’s needs are translated into actions to satisfy the needs.

Needs Theory Our needs are the basis of our motivation and the reason for almost all of our activity. Understanding a person’s needs helps you understand his behavior. From Maslow’s early work, (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_004) Clayton Alderfer

4

developed a needs theory (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch03_006) of motivation called ERG theory (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch03_007) . (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_005) The initials ERG represent the three basic needs of the theory: existence, relatedness, and growth. Existence needs (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch03_008) correspond to Maslow’s lower-order physiological and security needs. They are the immediate needs required to sustain life— needs for food, shelter, and the like—and the need for some security in the future for a safe and healthy life. Relatedness needs (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch03_009) re�lect people’s need to be valued and accepted by others. Interpersonal relationships and group membership (work, family, friends, etc.) act to satisfy these needs. Growth needs (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch03_010) include feelings of self-worth and competency and achieving our potential. Recognition, accomplishment, challenging opportunities, and a feeling of ful�illment are outcomes that can satisfy these needs. Even though some disagreement exists in the scienti�ic community about the relationships among these needs and their relative importance at any given point in life, few dispute the idea that these needs exist for everyone.

People work to satisfy their needs. Understanding the types and strengths of employee needs is important to the training process. It can help identify some of the causes of poor performance and therefore determine training needs. Consider the employee who has strong relatedness needs but whose job is structured so that he must work alone most of the time. He might be unable to complete the required quality and quantity of work because he spends too much time socializing with others in the workplace. Additional technical KSAs will do little to improve his job performance. Performance improvement would more likely result from some other type of training (perhaps time management) or some nontraining intervention (such as job redesign or counseling).

Understanding needs is also important in designing training programs and facilities. Trainers need to make sure that the environment and training methods—that is, how the training is conducted and where it takes place—meet the trainee’s physical, relationship, and growth needs. We discuss these issues in depth in the chapters covering training design, development, and implementation. Think back to the wilderness training case to get a sense of how training methods, materials, and environment in�luence trainee motivation.

Although she was motivated to attend the training because of her boss’s pressure, was Claudia motivated to learn when she �irst arrived, or was she skeptical about the value of the training? What if she had attended a series of lectures on the importance of developing strong interpersonal relationships instead of the outdoor group experiences? Would she have been as motivated to absorb the lessons and apply them to her work? How strong do you think Claudia’s relatedness needs were? How effective would the training be if it focused on showing her how changing her behavior would result in increased acceptance by her peers? It seems apparent that Claudia did have high growth needs. The outdoor training presented her with a series of physical and psychological challenges, �itting in with her growth needs and motivating her to become an involved participant in the training.

The few empirical studies conducted on this topic tend to support Alderfer’s notion that people can experience needs in all three areas simultaneously. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_006) The relative satisfaction level in each area determines the importance of the needs. Unsatis�ied needs motivate us, and motivation decreases as needs in an area are satis�ied. However, needs in these three basic areas tend to renew themselves; they can also expand. Although you might have a good job that provides you with food, shelter, and security, you might start to feel the need for better food, a larger and more comfortable home, a larger savings account, or an investment portfolio. Similarly, even though your relationships with family, friends, and coworkers may at �irst satisfy your relatedness needs, you might begin to feel that you would like the relationships to be better or closer, or that you want to develop additional relationships.

Sometimes our needs con�lict with one another, or one type of need might become more important than the others. Then we feel we must choose one over the other, which is what happened with Claudia. We cannot be sure

5

6

how strong her relatedness needs are, but we do know that she saw them as con�licting with her ability to satisfy her growth needs at work. The wilderness training was designed to satisfy the trainees’ needs for growth and relationships at the same time. Step by step, the training demonstrated how building strong interpersonal relationships could not only satisfy relationship needs, but also make greater accomplishments possible.

This example illustrates a central point about motivating trainees to learn. The best training incorporates opportunities to satisfy all three categories of needs. The training facility and accommodations address, in part, existence needs. How much trainees learn is affected by the trainees’ physical comfort, level of hunger, and so on. Demonstrating how the training will improve the trainee’s competencies and, in turn, increase job security and ful�ill existence needs will also motivate the trainee. Building a network of positive relationships among trainees and between trainees and the trainer will address relatedness needs. Using methods that provide challenging experiences that lead to the attainment of the target KSAs will address growth needs. By having training address all three types of needs in some way, you can be assured that all trainees will �ind at least one need that can be satis�ied. This will go a long way toward motivating all trainees, because you offer something for everyone. Needs theory leads to implications for the training process even after completion of the training. Trainers must make sure that trainees can see how learning ful�ills their needs. In Claudia’s case, her boss provided some of that linkage when he told her how important relationship building is to her current and future job success (i.e., security needs). What could the trainers at the Wilderness Training Lab do to create these links? We discuss this issue more in the next section, because these links are the focus of the process theories.

Process Theories Needs are only one part of the motivation equation. Deciding how to go about satisfying those needs is the other part. Process theories (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch03_011) of motivation describe how a person’s needs translate into action. Although many types of process theories exist, we will focus on the three with the most direct implications for training: classical conditioning, reinforcement theory, and expectancy theory.

Classical Conditioning Classical conditioning (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch03_012) is the association of a generalized response to some signal in the environment. It typically involves learning to emit a nonvoluntary response to some signal that in the past did not produce that response. For example, when an optometrist examines your eyes, she may put you in front of a machine that blows a puff of air into your eyes. This puff of air causes you to blink your eyes. If a red light came on just before the puff of air, you would probably learn to associate the puff of air with the red light and begin blinking whenever the red light comes on. At that point, you would have learned to blink (generalized response) in response to the red light (signal).

The most widely known example of this type of learning involves Pavlov’s dogs. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_007) Pavlov was not studying learning; he was examining the physiology of digestion by measuring the amount of salivation produced by various substances placed on the tongues of dogs. As the story goes, Pavlov observed that the dogs began to salivate on his entering the laboratory, thus playing havoc with his desire to determine the amount of saliva produced by various substances. He speculated that over time his entrance was followed so often by substances placed on the dogs’ tongues that the dogs learned to salivate on his entrance.

Table 3-1 shows how the classical conditioning process works. Step 1 re�lects the state of affairs before conditioning takes place. Certain factors in the environment (unconditioned stimuli) produce automatic responses (unconditioned responses) in animals and people. If we place an unconditioned stimulus such as meat powder on a dog’s tongue, an unconditioned response would be the dog’s salivation. That is, the dog need not be trained (conditioned) to salivate when meat powder is put on its tongue. However, this salivation response does not occur with every stimulus that might be in the dog’s environment, such as a buzzer. If, however, you sounded that buzzer just before putting meat powder on the dog’s tongue, over a number of trials the buzzer would become a

7

conditioned stimulus. The dog is learning (being conditioned) to associate the buzzer with the meat powder. However, you are still putting meat powder on the dog’s tongue, so the salivation is really a response to the meat powder and remains an unconditioned response. This situation is re�lected in step 2 of Table 3-1. In step 3, you stop putting meat powder on the dog’s tongue after sounding the buzzer. If the dog salivates at the buzzer, you have created a conditioned response (salivation) to a conditioned stimulus (the buzzer). Continually sounding the buzzer without offering the meat powder will extinguish (remove) this response. Over time, the conditioned response gradually disappears. Through conditioning, a response to one stimulus can be transferred to another, unrelated stimulus.

Table 3-1 Classical Conditioning Process

Step 1

Unconditioned stimulus (Meat powder) → Unconditioned response (Salivation)

Step 2

Conditioned stimulus paired with unconditioned stimulus (Buzzer followed closely in time, over many trials, by meat powder)

→ Unconditioned response (Salivation)

Step 3

Conditioned stimulus (Buzzer alone) → Conditioned response (Salivation)

Classical conditioning occurs frequently in the workplace, though it typically receives little attention. The noon whistle blows at the factory, and the worker’s digestive juices begin to �low. Sparks �ly from the welding machine and your eyes blink, even though you are wearing goggles. As you will see later, this type of learning can affect the learning environment.

Reinforcement Theory Reinforcement theory (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch03_013) is relatively simple on the surface but can be dif�icult to apply. It does not provide all the answers for how needs are translated into action, but its major points are essential for understanding human behavior. The foundation for reinforcement theory comes from the work of E. L. Thorndike. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_008) Thorndike’s law of effect (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch03_014) states that behavior followed by satisfying experiences tends to be repeated, and behavior followed by annoyance or dissatisfaction tends to be avoided. B. F. Skinner used this principle in developing the operant conditioning model and reinforcement theory. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_009)

The basic components of learning in operant conditioning (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch03_015) are illustrated in Figure 3-2. A person is faced with an object or event in the environment (stimulus) and behaves in a certain way (response). That behavior results in an outcome (consequence) to the individual that is positive or negative. In the illustration, the man has seen a book of great interest (environmental stimulus) while on the way to work. He purchases the book and reads it (response) while continuing to walk to work. You can imagine the consequence. The environment provides stimuli that elicit behaviors and consequences that reinforce or punish them.

Figure 3-2 Behaviorist Model of Learning

8

9

In similar situations, the consequences of past behavior affect future behavior. How will the man in Figure 3-2 respond to books while walking in the near future? Operant learning theory says that due to the negative consequence of falling into the hole, the man will learn to avoid reading and walking at the same time. A person’s motivation (i.e., direction, magnitude, and persistence of behavior), then, is a function of her reinforcement history. Unfortunately, reinforcement theory provides no explanation of the processes involved in storing, retrieving, or using the lessons of past reinforcement. The model leaves us wondering how future behavior becomes in�luenced by previous reinforcement history. Nevertheless, the theory does convincingly predict the various effects on future behavior caused by the consequences of past behavior.

Skinner identi�ied four types of consequences that can result from behavior:

1. Positive reinforcement

2. Negative reinforcement

3. Punishment

4. Extinction

When behavior results in either positive or negative reinforcement, the likelihood that the behavior will occur in similar future circumstances is increased. Positive reinforcement (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch03_016) occurs when your behavior results in something desirable happening to you—either tangible (such as receiving money), psychological (such as feeling pleasure), or some combination of the two. Negative reinforcement (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch03_017) occurs when your behavior results in removing something you �ind annoying, frustrating, or unpleasant. This “good” outcome increases your likelihood of repeating the behavior. For example, if you have a headache, take an aspirin, and the headache goes away, the “aspirin-taking response” is negatively reinforced. Nothing is inherently desirable about taking the aspirin; its reinforcing power comes from its ability to remove the pain. Either the environment or the person can provide reinforcement. For example, when a person receives his pay, the environment provides positive reinforcement (pay). When a person feels a sense of pride and accomplishment after completing a task, the person is positively reinforcing himself.

Your behavior is punished when it results in something undesirable happening to you. Punishment (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch03_018) decreases the likelihood of the response occurring in the future. Like reinforcement, punishment can be tangible, psychological, or both and can come from the environment or be self-administered. In Figure 3-2, the environment provides the punishment. However, when we do things that violate our personal values and beliefs, and therefore experience negative feelings, we are self-punishing that behavior. Punishment exists when you receive something unpleasant or when you lose something desirable. The latter form of punishment is called extinction (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch03_019) . For example, you might buy books by a certain author because of the positive feelings you experience as you read them. However, while reading the last two books by this author, you did not experience those positive feelings. Therefore you stop buying this author’s books. When a person’s behavior (like buying and reading the books) no longer produces the desired outcomes, the behavior is less likely to occur in the future. Figure 3-3 depicts the various types of behavioral consequences.

Figure 3-3 Types of Consequences That May Follow Behavior

A few examples here should clear up any misunderstandings or confusion created by these de�initions. First, think back to the Wilderness Training Lab case. What kind of reinforcement history did Claudia experience from working in groups? Her �irst group experiences in college resulted in the negative outcomes (for her) of mediocre grades. Because her cooperative behavior in groups was punished, she stopped it. When she changed her behavior to become more directive—monitoring and doing more of the important work—two consequences resulted: (1) she was positively reinforced by good grades and (2) she avoided the negative feelings of anxiety about the other group members not doing their assignments well and the resulting mediocre grades. Her new group behavior was both positively and negatively reinforced over a number of years. It is no wonder, then, that she continued to work this way in groups. Is it possible that Claudia avoided working in groups with her peers because she couldn’t control those groups in the same way she could her subordinates? The training she received provided her with new group situations in which she was positively reinforced (e.g., recognition, accomplishment) for using a new set of group behaviors. This new set of outcomes seems to have changed her beliefs and attitudes about how to work effectively in groups.

In another example, after working for a few hours, Jon, a machinist, suddenly hears a loud unpleasant screeching noise coming from the exhaust fans near his work area. He �inds the electrical switch and turns the fans off; he later switches them on again, and they work for the rest of the day. The same thing happens over the next two days. On the fourth day, when he takes his break, he turns the fans off before the noise begins. When he returns from his break, he turns them on, and they operate normally for the rest of the day. This behavior becomes a daily habit with Jon. Jon does not know that plant maintenance repaired the fan the evening before he began his “turning it off at the break” behavior. Jon maintained his behavior because it was negatively reinforcing. By “giving the fans a rest,” he

avoided the loud, unpleasant noise. As this worked every time, it was self-reinforcing. This is how superstitious behaviors develop.

Reinforcement versus Punishment Punishment can eliminate undesirable behavior in the workplace. However, several problems make it undesirable as a management or training tool.

It does not motivate people to do things, only not to do things. It does not indicate what the desired behavior is, only what is not desired.

If the undesired behavior is punished only sometimes, people will learn the situations in which they can get away with it. The saying “While the cat’s away, the mice will play” neatly captures one problem with this technique; punishment requires constant vigilance on the part of a supervisor and encourages employee efforts to “beat the system.”

If a person’s undesired behavior is rewarding, the punishment must be severe enough to offset the behavior’s reinforcing properties. Escalating negative outcomes to employees can raise ethical, moral, and commonsense objections.

Someone must do the punishing. This person becomes someone to be avoided. Supervisors avoided by subordinates experience leadership problems.

Positive and negative reinforcement are better tools for motivating and especially for training employees. Negative reinforcement can cause the desired behavior to become self-reinforcing, like Jon’s turning off the fans. When the person continually performs the desired behavior, negative outcomes are avoided. If the desired behavior is then also positively reinforced, the person not only avoids the negative outcome but also receives a positive outcome. As with Claudia in the opening case, the result is a strong maintenance of the behavior.

With reinforcement, the person doing the reinforcing does not always need to be present for the desired behavior to occur. The employee actively seeks to make the reinforcing agent (e.g., supervisor or trainer) aware of her behavior. When punishment is used as the motivational or learning mechanism, the employee attempts to hide behavior so as to avoid the consequences. Obviously, a trainer or supervisor’s job is much easier when employees are attempting to communicate what they are doing rather than hiding it.

Thus, either positive or negative reinforcement is preferred over punishment as a strategy for motivating learning and behavior change. Used in combination, positive and negative reinforcement appear more effective than either used alone. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_010) For those interested in �inding out more about how to implement positive, humanistic, and effective work environments, we would encourage you to read Dick Grote’s Discipline Without Punishment. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_011)

Reinforcement theory suggests that any training must be concerned not only with teaching the KSAs but also with the consequences that are attached to the following:

the learning process,

the old way of doing the job, and

the new way of doing the job.

These factors play a key role in determining how much is learned and how much is actually used back on the job.

As noted earlier, many unanswered questions arise when using reinforcement theory to describe the motivational process. Expectancy theory, however, provides some additional explanation and leads to many more implications for training.

10

11

Expectancy Theory In 1964, Victor Vroom published a theory of work motivation called expectancy theory (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch03_020) . (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_012) This theory describes the cognitive processes involved in deciding the best course of action for achieving our goals (i.e., satisfying our needs). A cognitive process (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch03_021) is a mental activity such as information storage, retrieval, or use. Thinking and decision making are cognitive processes. In its most basic form, expectancy theory proposes that a person’s motivation can be explained by the relationship among three conceptually distinct elements:

1. The level of success expected by the individual (e.g., how well she will be able to do what she sets out to do), which is termed Expectancy 1.

2. The individual’s beliefs about what the outcomes will be if she is successful. The expected outcomes and their likelihood of occurrence make up Expectancy 2.

3. The individual’s feelings about the various outcomes’ positive or negative value. An outcome’s subjective value is referred to as its valence (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch03_022) .

In combination, these elements determine the individual’s motivation (i.e., effort) to engage in a particular course of action. When situations allow different courses of action, as most do, the one with the highest motivation level is chosen. The motivation level for a particular course of action can be calculated mathematically with the following formula:

Although this formula is useful for those conducting research on motivation, it is not particularly useful in the day- to-day activities of most people. It does, however, present some important implications for training and learning, which we discuss shortly.

To gain a better understanding of the expectancy theory framework, let’s go back to Claudia at the point at which she was trying to decide whether to attend the executive development seminar as suggested by her boss. Today is the last day she can register for the seminar, which starts in two weeks. She postponed the decision as long as possible and now must decide. She feels con�ident about her ability to complete this training successfully, but she holds some doubts about whether it will teach her anything useful about running her marketing operation or working more effectively in a group. She knows that during her week of training, the marketing strategies for �ive important accounts will arrive on her desk, and she will need to review and �inalize them before forwarding them to top management. They are due on the Wednesday following training. In addition, her normal work will continue to pile up. Claudia faces the choice between incompatible courses of action. Her cognitive processes, in expectancy theory terms, are illustrated in Figure 3-4.

Figure 3-4 Illustration of Expectancy Theory

12

Examining Claudia’s situation in terms of expectancy theory, we see that her expectations of success (Expectancy 1) are high for both behaviors. The expectancy of 1.0 means that she is 100 percent sure that she would successfully be able to complete either course of action. The Expectancy 2 links re�lect the outcomes that Claudia anticipates if she successfully completes the seminar or stays at the of�ice and completes her workload. If she turns down the training and stays on the job, she believes that there is a 50 percent chance her boss will see her skills as inadequate. It would be higher, but she believes that if she can do a superior job on these strategies, he will not think that those relationship skills are so important. She believes that it’s 90 percent likely that she will have feelings of pride and accomplishment for getting all her work completed on time. However, if she turns down the training, she believes that there is only a 30 percent chance that her boss will recommend her for promotion.

Conversely, if she goes to the training, she believes that the likelihood is 60 percent that her boss will evaluate her as having a more complete set of managerial skills. However, she will fall behind in her work, and it is a certainty (1.0) that she will feel harried, overloaded, and depressed. Yet she sees the chances of being recommended for a promotion increasing to 60 percent if she goes to training. As the valences in Figure 3-4 show, she values her boss’s recommendation for promotion the most. She views having her boss evaluate her skills as being inadequate and the feelings associated with being behind in her work as the least desirable of the outcomes.

How would you use the formula to calculate Claudia’s motivation to stay on the job rather than go to training? By multiplying each Expectancy 2 by its respective outcome valence and summing the values, you would get 9.8.

Then you would multiply that total by Expectancy 1, which is 1.0, and you would arrive at a force of 9.8 for nonattendance at the seminar.

Using the same procedure for the alternative goal—attending the seminar—you would arrive at a force of 11.2. Thus, for Claudia, the motivation to stay at work is less than the motivation to attend the seminar.

Even though the actual values of expectancies and valences are interesting from a scienti�ic perspective, from a practical standpoint it is the relationships among the elements of the model that are useful. This example illustrates the cognitive processes that link a person’s goals, possible courses of action, and likely outcomes. These connections determine the person’s motivation and are what is missing from the reinforcement theory. Of course, we simpli�ied the situation considerably from what Claudia would actually face in the real work setting. She had many other alternatives. She could delegate someone to cover most of the normal work coming across her desk (though she was not especially comfortable with delegating). She could arrange for the marketing strategies to be sent to her at the training facility and work on them at night, after training, and over the weekend. Each of these alternatives would present its own expected outcomes and associated valences.

Faced with the situation Claudia faced, what would you do? It is unlikely that you would place the same value (valence) on the outcomes or give them the same likelihood of occurring. You might identify more or fewer outcomes. One of the things that make this theory so useful is that it takes into account the fact that people view the world differently and are motivated by different things. The lesson from expectancy theory is that you need to know what the person expects and what they value in order to understand their motivation.

Few people would consciously go through the formal math or mapping of expectancy theory, but it is interesting to note that most training programs that teach decision making use a model similar to this one. More typically, we go through these processes unconsciously and in a less systematic fashion. We choose a particular way of behaving because of our expectations about the costs and bene�its of that action. Relationships between our past behavior and its consequences are combined with current information to make inferences about the consequences of our future behavior. Some implications for training become rather obvious here.

First, to be willing to try, a person must expect that there is a reasonable chance of success. Expectancy 1 exerts the most in�luence on our behavior because we do not waste our time trying to do things we believe we cannot do. Sometimes this belief makes people reluctant to go to training, so trainers must demonstrate that success is likely for the participants. Second, and related to needs and reinforcement theory, trainers must make sure that the right outcomes are attached to the successful completion of training. Trainees should be able to see clear connections between the content of training and important organizational and personal outcomes. Third, the training outcomes must be made as desirable as possible for the trainees rather than just for the organization, the supervisor, or the trainer.

Self-Ef�icacy and Motivation Feelings about our own competency are re�lected in the concept of self-ef�icacy (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch03_023) , which is one of the better-researched constructs related to motivation. High self-ef�icacy is associated with a belief that we can and will perform successfully. Individuals with low self-ef�icacy are preoccupied with concerns about failure. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_013) Research supports the belief that the higher the self-ef�icacy, the better the performance. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_014) Not only is performance better, but in dif�icult situations, those with high self-ef�icacy also try harder, while those with low self- ef�icacy tend to reduce effort or give up. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_015) In a training context, research shows that those with high self-ef�icacy beliefs are more motivated to learn and are more likely to transfer that learning. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_016)

There are four main factors that combine to provide employees with an estimate of their ability to be successful:

1. Prior experience: The person’s past successes and failures and their consequences

2. Behavioral models: Successes and failures of others observed attempting the behavior

3. Others’ feedback: The encouragement or discouragement provided by others

4. Physical and emotional state: The physical or emotional conditions the person believes will affect their ability to perform

Self-ef�icacy, therefore, is the primary factor in the person’s Expectancy 1 evaluation. The employee’s feelings of self-ef�icacy are translated into behavior. If success is expected, the employee works harder, longer, and more creatively, anticipating the positive consequences of a successful effort. If failure is expected, the employee acts to minimize the negative consequences of failure. For example, withdrawing from the activity (refusing to try) moves the person away from proven failure to simply “I did not try.” It also allows the person to say, “At least I did not put a lot of energy into it,” or make some other rationalization. The point is that the employee’s self-ef�icacy sets up the

13

14

15

16

person’s behavior to ful�ill the self-ef�icacy beliefs. In expectancy theory terms, if I do not believe that I can successfully do something, I won’t exert the effort to do it; instead, I’ll do something else.

What can be done speci�ically to improve an individual’s self-ef�icacy? The supervisor can provide the employee with con�idence through persuasion. Convincing her that she is quite capable of succeeding in the training will help. Also, seeing others who are similar to the employee succeed will improve the employee’s self-ef�icacy.

Training can improve self-ef�icacy either directly or indirectly, as a by-product. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_017) If the employee experiences low self-ef�icacy regarding her abilities to perform the job, but evidence indicates that she possesses the requisite KSAs, a program of improving self-concept and con�idence is needed. When low self-ef�icacy results from a true lack of required KSAs, attaining competency in these KSAs should increase the employee’s self-ef�icacy if the training allows the trainee to demonstrate mastery on a continuous basis. In this case, the training needs to be designed so that the trainee begins with easily mastered tasks and moves to more complicated tasks after the easier components have been mastered. Trainers can also emphasize what the objectives are and the success of similar sets of trainees in the past.

Self-ef�icacy is very powerful in terms of facilitating trainee success. It seems to be a good predictor of both learning in the training environment and transfer of the behavior to the job. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_018) So determining a trainee’s self-ef�icacy before training and, if low, providing means to improve the trainee’s self-ef�icacy would seem to be a worthwhile endeavor.

17

18

3.4 Understanding Learning Theories of learning are important in the development of training. We examine the essential elements of learning theories and identify their relationship to training. Speci�ic applications of the theories are provided in subsequent chapters.

What Is Learning? To understand the differences among learning theories, it helps to understand the dif�iculties of simply de�ining the concept of learning. Learning is not directly observable, but it is something that almost everyone says they experience. People “feel” that they have learned. It is clear from physiological evidence that learning is related to changes in the physical, neuronal structure of the brain and its related electrochemical functioning. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_019) However, how or why these electrochemical changes take place is still unknown. Learning is closely tied to memory; whatever is learned must be retained if it is to be useful. Electrochemical changes created during learning apparently create a relatively permanent change in neural functioning that becomes what is commonly termed memory. Again, relatively few de�initive answers exist about how or where learning is stored in the central nervous system.

Two De�initions of Learning Because we cannot observe learning, we must infer that it occurs by looking at its observable effects. What things, in�luenced by learning, can we observe? The answer is: the learner’s behavior. For instance, in school, tests are given to determine what has been learned. The way questions are answered is the observable behavior. In the workplace, your supervisor might look for ways you perform your job differently after training. Because learning is measured in terms of relatively permanent changes in behavior, this becomes the operational de�inition of learning for many theorists. Behaviorists in particular adopt this de�inition.

Cognitive theorists, however, insist that even though learning can be inferred from behavior, it is separate from the behavior itself. By examining the ways in which people respond to information and the ways in which different types of behavior are grouped or separated, cognitive theorists developed theories of how information is learned. For cognitive theorists, learning represents a change in the content, organization, and storage of information (see the section, Example of Cognitive Theory). The term used to refer to the mental processing of information is cognition (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch03_024) . For cognitive theorists, learning is de�ined as a relatively permanent change in cognition occurring as a result of experience. These theorists discuss learning in terms of mental infrastructures or schema rather than in terms of behavior. Learning is seen as the building and reorganization of schema to make sense of new information. Bruner, (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_020) Gagné, (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_021) and Piaget (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_022) are among the cognitive theorists.

Implications of Behaviorist versus Cognitive Approaches At �irst, the differences in the de�inition of learning might not seem important. It might seem to be a simple difference of whether learning is synonymous with behavior or of how information is processed, organized, and stored. However, these differences create widely different approaches to how education and training are conducted.

One obvious and important difference is where control of learning is believed to occur. The behaviorist approach suggests that the environment controls learning. Certain external stimuli are present, the person responds to them, and certain consequences result. It is the model of learning implied in Figure 3-2 and discussed earlier as part of reinforcement theory. In the behaviorist approach, the trainer controls learning by controlling the stimuli and consequences that the learner experiences. The learner depends on the trainer to elicit the correct associations

19

20

21

22

between stimulus and response. Note that this model does not include the brain or any mental activity. Skinner’s explanation of learning perhaps clari�ies why he was sometimes referred to as a radical behaviorist. He de�ined learning as “a relatively permanent change in behavior in response to a particular stimulus or set of stimuli.” (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_023) In other words, we perceive things a certain way because of the consequences of perceiving them that way. Learning occurs when new consequences are experienced.

In contrast, the cognitive approach suggests that the learner controls learning. Prospective learners come to training with their own set of goals and priorities. They possess a set of cognitive structures for understanding their environment and how it works. They even develop their own set of strategies about how to learn. The learners decide what is important to learn and go about learning by applying the strategies they developed and with which they feel comfortable. For cognitive theorists, the learner controls both what is learned and how it is learned. The trainer and the learning environment facilitate that process to a greater or lesser degree. Adoption of one approach or the other leads to implications for how training is conducted and the resulting atmosphere of the training environment. Table 3-2 lists some of the instructional implications of these two positions. For some learning situations, a behaviorist approach is better, and for others a cognitive approach works better. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_024) We discuss this issue again later in the chapter.

Table 3-2 Some Training Implications of Cognitive and Behaviorist Learning Theories

Issue Cognitive Approach Behaviorist Approach

Learner’s role Active, self-directed, self-evaluating Passive, dependent

Instructor’s role Facilitator, coordinator, and presenter Director, monitor, and evaluator

Training content Problem or task oriented Subject oriented

Learner motivation

More internally motivated More externally motivated

Training climate Relaxed, mutually trustful, respectful, and collaborative

Formal, authority oriented, judgmental, and competitive

Instructional goals

Collaboratively developed Developed by instructor

Instructional activities

Interactive, group, project oriented, and experiential

Directive, individual, and subject oriented

Example of Cognitive Theory Piaget identi�ied two cognitive processes critical for learning: accommodation and assimilation. Accommodation (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch03_025) is the process of changing our construction (“cognitive map”) of the world to correspond with our experience in it. Piaget indicated that accommodation occurs through the creation of new categories, or schemata, to accommodate experience that does not �it into existing categories. Assimilation (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch03_026) is the incorporation of new experience into existing categories. In cognitive map terms, accommodation changes the map,

23

24

whereas assimilation �ills in the detail. These two processes are most clearly evident in young children but exist in adults as well. Suppose Mike (age eight) is in the rear seat of the car with his younger brother Brandon (almost two and learning to talk) as Dad drives through some farmland. As they pass a pasture where horses are grazing, Mike points and says, “Look Brandon, horses.” Brandon responds hesitantly, “Horsies?” Mike excitedly replies, “Yes, that’s right, horsies!” Dad glances back and says, “Good work, Brandon, you now know a new word!” Brandon is pleased and repeats the word several times to himself. As they continue driving, they pass another pasture with cows grazing. Brandon yells, “Look Mike, horsies!” Mike or Dad is now faced with teaching Brandon the difference between horses and cows.

What is the learning process that took place? Brandon started out with no understanding of horse or cow. When presented with a new perceptual experience and a label, Brandon created a new cognitive category that might include the following parameters: large, four-legged, brown, moving thing with a tail. So, when Brandon saw the cows, they �it enough of the parameters that he attempted to assimilate this new experience into the category “horsies.” If Mike and Dad do a good job of teaching Brandon the differences between horses and cows, he will learn to discriminate between these two and create a separate category for cows (accommodation). What he does not know yet is that later in life he will be taught to create new categories such as mammals and species and that both horses and cows are included in some categories but not in others.

The processes of assimilation and accommodation re�lect the way we organize our experience and the meanings we attach to the world as we encounter it. Our behavior depends on how we accommodated or assimilated previous stimuli.

Integration of Cognitive and Behavioral Approaches We believe that the cognitive and behavioral approaches must be integrated to provide a full de�inition of learning. Learning (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch01_018) , as we use the term throughout this text, is de�ined as a relatively permanent change in cognition resulting from experience and directly in�luencing behavior. A fairly obvious implication of this de�inition is that changes in cognition and related behavior that result from things other than experience (e.g., effects of drugs, fatigue, and the like) would not be considered learning. The de�inition also implies that changes in cognition and behavior that are short-lived have not been learned. For example, memorizing a phone number long enough to walk from the telephone directory to the phone and dial the number would not �it into our de�inition of learning. However, learning mnemonic techniques that allow you to do that would be learning, if they were retained over a relatively long period of time.

Learning, as de�ined here, is not dependent on behavior. Relatively permanent cognitive changes (new KSAs) can occur in the absence of observable behavior. However, only the learner would know whether the learning took place. For example, think of courses you took in which the material was presented in a lecture or audiovisual form. If it was effective, you changed your way of thinking about the topic or came to a deeper understanding of the material—even though you did nothing other than pay attention and think about what was presented. However, until you engage in some activity related to the topic, no one other than you would know that learning had taken place. This phenomenon could also happen with skills. Suppose you are a chef and you attend a seminar on preparing a dish. You observe the presenter enhancing the �lavor of a dish using a technique of which you had no previous knowledge. You go back to your kitchen, try the technique, and are successful on the �irst try. You acquired the “�lavoring” skill through observation rather than behavior. However, you might not be sure you had acquired the skill until after you engaged in the behavior. Additionally, the more you use the technique, the more permanent (i.e., resistant to forgetting) it would become. Thus, behavior is both an important measure and means of learning.

Each of these two approaches produces valuable insights about learning. Learning theories that integrate the substantiated aspects of both approaches explain learning more completely than either one alone. We discuss such a theory next.

3.5 Social Learning Theory Social Learning Theory (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_025) (also known as observational or vicarious learning), includes behaviorist principles, but has an important principle that differentiates it from the purely behavioral approach. This principle, that learning can occur without any overt behavior by the learner, has been substantiated by considerable research. So, from the Social Learning Theory (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch03_028) perspective, events and consequences in the learning situation are cognitively processed and can in�luence behavior even if the learner does nothing but observe. As in reinforcement theory, the consequences of behavior (reinforcement or punishment) in�luence the likelihood of that behavior in the future, but they do so as a result of how they are perceived, interpreted, and stored in memory. Thus, a person can learn by observing the behavior of other people and the resulting consequences to those other people. This process is called observational learning (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch03_029) (or sometimes referred to as vicarious learning). This theory contradicts the strict behaviorists, who claim that learning can occur only as a result of a person’s own behavior and its consequences. The cognitive processes that are a part of social learning theory are motivation, attention, retention, and to some extent behavioral reproduction. Figure 3-5 illustrates the relationships among these cognitive processes. The discussion that follows covers each aspect of the model.

Figure 3-5 Cognitive Processes Involved in Social Learning

Motivation Although motivation was discussed at length earlier in this chapter, it is useful to see how it �its in with social learning theory. As the model indicates, motivation both in�luences and is in�luenced by the other processes. The learner’s needs determine what things receive attention and are processed for retention. As shown in the model, social learning theory incorporates the reinforcement theory concept that the consequences of behavior affect the likelihood of future behavior. By observing someone else’s behavior, the observer can learn something about how to perform the behavior and also something about the consequences of the behavior. Thus, the learner’s future behavior is in�luenced by the how other people behave and the reinforcement or punishment that follows their behavior.

25

However, the model of learning processes illustrated in Figure 3-5 is more than just observational learning. It combines concepts from various learning theories into a comprehensive set of integrated learning processes. By examining these processes we are able to derive principles for effective training. After discussing each of the processes, we will show how they align with nine instructional principles that lead to effective training.

Attention Before we can learn, we need to focus our attention (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch03_030) on what is to be learned. For most of our waking hours we are in an environment that bombards us with a multitude of sights, sounds, smells and so on. However, we only notice some of all that is around us and pay attention to only part of that. The things we pay attention to are those that stand out for some reason (loud, bright, unusual, etc.) and which we believe have important consequences for us.

The chapter on training design addresses in great depth the issues related to capturing and maintaining trainee attention. However, let’s examine a few methods here to illustrate how managing trainee attention can increase the effectiveness of training. One way to garner attention is to let participants know the purpose of the training and why it has important consequences for them (the bene�its of learning and the costs of not learning). You can also get trainee attention by making key learning points stand out so that the trainees will focus attention on them. Eliminating distractions, such as electronic communication devices, keeps trainees’ attention focused on the training. Making learning exercises fun and interesting keeps attention focused on the learning topic. However, exercises that are fun but not related to the learning objectives focuses attention away from what trainees are expected to learn. Getting trainees to pay attention is just the �irst step in facilitating learning. Once you have their attention you need to help them retain the information.

Retention Once attention is focused on an object or event, the incoming information is processed for possible retention (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch03_031) . Some of the information will be retained, and some will be lost. The more you design your training to facilitate the retention processes, the more your trainees will learn. As Figure 3-5 shows, there are three key retention processes; symbolic coding, cognitive organization, and symbolic rehearsal. The retention process begins with symbolic coding (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch03_032) , which is the translation of the external world into internal symbols that are used to understand and retain the information. These symbols are then organized into the person’s existing cognitive structure by linking up with previously stored information. This “linking up” process is called cognitive organization (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch03_033) . It is what we previously discussed as assimilation and accommodation (putting information into already existing categories or creating brand new categories for the information). It can be facilitated in training by asking the trainees to provide examples of how the new information relates to what they already know and how it differs from what they already know. Doing this serves two purposes: It allows the trainee to code and store the information more easily, and it allows the trainer to see whether the desired associations are being made. Our earlier discussion of Brandon learning the concept “horsie” and the difference between cows and horses is a simple example of how this process works. First Brandon learned the new concept “horse” which he symbolically coded into his memory as a large animal with four legs. He created a new category (cognitive organization) which he label1ed “horsies.” Later he sees a cow which he calls a “horsie”. Let’s say dad and brother Mike tell him “No, that’s a cow.” Brandon isn’t likely to be able to understand the difference. If, when they get home, dad shows Brandon pictures of cows and horses and explains how they are different he will have facilitated Brandon’s learning. To see if Brandon really knows what distinguishes a cow from a horse dad should ask him to pick out the picture of the cow and show him what makes it different than the horse. It is through this question and answer cycle that dad will be able tell if Brandon really has learned to distinguish between the two. There are additional ways to facilitate retention beyond questioning and

these are discussed in Chapter 5 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i68#ch05) .

To anchor the learning and increase its retention, the learner can “practice” the learned material through visualizing or imagining how the knowledge or skill will be used. This is called symbolic rehearsal (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch03_034) . If the focus is on skill building, the trainee imagines using the skills in different situations. This is usually fairly easy to do because a skill is generally associated with particular situations in which it is used. When the focus of learning is knowledge, it is sometimes more dif�icult to imagine how it can or will be used. For example, think back to when you were learning the multiplication tables. Most of us memorized these through constant repetition over many months, and to help us remember them we were given multiplication problems to solve. Each year, as we advanced to the next grade, we were given more multiplication problems to solve. This repetitive use of the multiplication rules allowed us to retain them. In contrast, storing information without any personal use—in other words, just memorizing— typically results in only short-term retention. Students who have ever crammed for an examination are probably familiar with this phenomenon. In the case of cramming for an exam, little time is spent trying to understand how the information can be used in the “real world” while a great deal of time is spent developing systems for memorizing the words. Once the exam is over, there is no perceived need to retain the information and it is lost. However, associating the information with its uses enhances the storage and retrieval processes, increasing long term retention. The symbolic rehearsal process is one kind of mental practice. Observing others use the knowledge or skill provides additional opportunities for symbolic rehearsal because as you watch them, you can put yourself in their place. Symbolic rehearsal also increases the ability to generalize learning to novel situations. As with the other retention processes, Chapter 5 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i68#ch05) discusses many additional ways to enhance retention through symbolic rehearsal.

Behavioral Reproduction Behavioral reproduction (�ilegloss01.xhtml#glossch03_035) is repeated practice. The more a person practices using new information, the more it is learned and retained. The effectiveness of practice depends on how the practice is designed and reinforced. This will be discussed in detail in Chapter 5 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i68#ch05) . Figure 3-5 shows the behavioral reproduction process as being both a part of the learner’s internal cognitive processes and the external environment. This is done to show that the person’s internal processes initiate the behavior (retrieving the knowledge/skill from memory and directing the body to perform) while the behavior actually occurs in, and becomes part of, the external environment.

We already spent considerable time discussing the importance of behavioral consequences. One additional point is worth making, however. If consequences are to affect behavior, the individuals must be aware of the consequences and their connection to behavior. For example, assume that a supervisor has not yet told an employee that he has recommended him for a bonus because of superior performance. Obviously, the recommendation will not in�luence the employee’s behavior until the supervisor informs him. Even when aware of a consequence, the person may misinterpret its connection to performance. The supervisor may tell the employee “I’ve recommended you for a bonus.” However, the employee may think “Well I guess my getting him coffee every morning has paid off.” Thus, for consequences to have the desired effect the person must know the outcomes and correctly connect them to the behavior that produced them. Effective training programs need to provide learners with the opportunity to practice new behaviors, but in addition need to call attention to the desirable consequences of learning and of using the learning back on the job.

3.6 Aligning Training Design with Learning Process We have discussed various processes involved in how individuals learn and some things effective training programs should do to enhance learning. From these learning processes Gagné and his associates (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_026) have developed a sequencing of instructional events that should be designed into any training program so as to facilitate the trainee’s learning process. Table 3-3 lists these and what the effect of the event is on the trainee.

Table 3-3 Gagné–Briggs Nine Events of Instruction (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_027)

Instructional Event This Event Causes the Trainee

Gaining attention To focus on trainer and/or training materials

Informing the trainee of goal (objective)

To begin to focus on the goal

Stimulating recall of prior knowledge (learning)

To retrieve prior learning to working memory

Presenting the material To selectively perceive important parts of training

Providing learning guidance To consider how the new material �its into the trainee’s overall schema and clarify where it belongs for ease of retrieval

Eliciting the performance To do it

Providing feedback To perform more effectively by reinforcing correct responses and assisting when incorrect

Assessing performance To demonstrate what has been learned by completing some predetermined activity

Enhancing retention and transfer

To use the concept in more complex and varied ways accompanied by feedback

This Micro Theory of Instructional Design (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch03_036) provides nine steps (sets of events) to follow in developing training. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_028) Gagné and his associates say:

26

27

28

“These events of instruction do not invariably occur in this exact order, though this is the most probable order . . . by no means are all of these events provided for every lesson. . . . Their role is to stimulate internal information processes . . . sometimes an event will be obvious to the learner and not needed . . . or provided by the learner themselves. . . . In using the checklist the designer asks, “Do these learners need support at this stage for learning this task?” (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_029)

So, one should not interpret the nine steps as applying to an entire training program that consists of multiple modules. Rather, these steps apply to each module in a training program. For example, if a training program has four modules and each module has its own learning objective, then the nine steps would apply to each module. But, perhaps not in the same order or even all of them in each module. We provide an example of how to apply the nine steps to a training module in Chapter 5 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i68#ch05) . Our purpose here is just to familiarize you with how the theory of learning is translated into practical steps for the design of training.

29

3.7 Motivation to Learn We have now discussed both motivation and learning theory. Here we discuss how these integrate into a model of trainees’ motivation to learn as they enter and progress through a training program. In addition to designing training to align with learning processes, the design must also address the trainee’s motivation to learn. Motivation to learn is de�ined as the intensity and the persistence of the trainee’s learning-directed activities in relation to the training program. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_030) There is a signi�icant amount of research evidence to show that motivation to learn in�luences the outcomes of training (knowledge and skill acquisition, transfer of KSAs to the job and resulting job performance). (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_031) Thus, training professionals need to understand the factors affecting motivation to learn and how to address these in the design of training. In this chapter, we focus primarily on understanding the factors and only brie�ly touch on training design implications. We will cover the design issues more fully in Chapter 5 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i68#ch05) .

Figure 3-6 shows how various individual and organizational factors affect motivation to learn. The relationships shown in the �igure have been supported by numerous research studies. While the relationships among all the variables are much more complex than depicted, we have taken a few liberties in the interest of clarity to show how individual characteristics and the organizational context interact to in�luence the trainee’s motivation to learn. As Figure 3-6 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_032) shows, the trainee’s motivation will be determined by individual factors (self-ef�icacy, valence, anxiety, and cognitive ability) and environmental factors (climate for learning and transfer and supervisor/peer support). These are the shaded areas in the �igure. We will discuss the environmental factors �irst.

Figure 3-6 Factors Affecting Motivation to Learn and Transfer of Training

Environmental Factors and Resistance Resistance to learning occurs when the trainee’s motivation to learn is not high enough to overcome other forces acting on the trainee that discourage learning. Learning, like eating, is one of the most fundamental processes of survival, so why do trainees resist it? Trainers and managers continually complain about trainees who do not pay attention, are disruptive, and demonstrate a general resistance to learning new material. If learning is a basic human process, why are so many complaints of this type made?

30

31

32

Viewing learning as a performance outcome is the �irst step to understanding resistance to learning (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch03_037) . Most learning is not something that happens automatically or unconsciously. It is an activity we decide to do or not do. From the performance model discussed earlier (see Figure 3-1), we know that learning is determined by a person’s motivation, KSAs, and learning environment. If the trainee doesn’t have the prerequisite KSAs or the environment doesn’t allow learning to occur, then resistance occurs. If trainees are not motivated to learn the material, they will also demonstrate various forms of resistance.

There are many organizational-environment factors that in�luence how employees enter training. We will focus on three key factors: peer support, supervisor support, and the climate for learning and transfer back to the job. These have substantial research support and are factors that can be addressed by the training design.

Peer Support Peer support is the encouragement and assistance that trainees receive from their coworkers. The effects of group dynamics (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch03_038) in the work unit on individual group member behavior and motivation is signi�icant and is one reason trainees might resist new learning. The power and control of the group over its members was �irst noted in the Hawthorne studies of the 1920s and 1930s. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_033) Even though members of the group were paid a piece rate, the output from members of the group was always within a certain number of units. Examination of this study revealed that the group set a standard, rewarded those who remained within the standard, and punished those who did much more or much less. Thus, the group norm of a certain number of units was generally followed.

The power of the group comes from rewards the group gives to members who follow group norms or the punishment for those who do not. These rewards or punishments can be as simple as talking to (reward) or shunning (punishment) a group member. Punishment can also be severe, such as slashing tires or physically threatening those who do not comply. Consider the following scenario. Sarah arrives at the training center early, excited to be attending a workshop on how to communicate with customers more effectively. Fellow trainees are talking among themselves, making fun of the training. One of them says, “They are going to tell us how to do our job; I bet the trainer has never even done our job, so how could he know?” Another responds, “Yeah, these workshops are put together by those who never worked in a real job, but at least we can enjoy this as a day off work.” Then one turns to Sarah and says, “Hey, I see you managed to con your boss into sending you here for a rest too—good work.” To be part of the “in group,” Sarah will have to agree and, as a result, will be much less active in the training than she would really like. This will affect the amount she learns.

Let’s say that in spite of her (and everyone else’s) lack of participation in the workshop, Sarah did learn a few skills. Now she goes back to her workplace. There she hears coworkers (peers) comment, “Well, did you enjoy your day off ? Wasn’t that training the stupidest stuff you have ever seen?” and “Can you imagine using that ’active listening’ stuff on a real customer?” With such comments, what is the likelihood that Sarah will want to try some of these new skills? Group dynamics is a powerful force that can drastically inhibit both learning and transfer of skills. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_034)

Group dynamics can also be used to support high performance. The pajama factory experiments of the late 1940s compared employees in two groups where change was necessary in how the jobs were done. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_035) In one group employees were told about the changes, and in the other the members provided input into the changes. The no- participation group showed a drop in productivity from the baseline, and the participation group showed an increase in productivity from the baseline. The most important factor in the difference was group norms that developed either to restrict output (no-participation group) or increase it (participation group). More recent research indicates that peer support for training is a strong predictor of the likelihood that trainees will transfer what they learned to the job.

33

34

35

36

(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_036) The control the work group exerts over the individual member is a double-edged sword. It is a good thing if the norms are developed in line with the organizational goals, bad if they are not. One way of developing positive norms is to allow input from the work group on decisions that will affect them. The movement toward more teams and teamwork in organizations provides such opportunities, but to ensure that the right norms are developed, these work groups need to be nurtured and made to feel that they are a valuable part of the organization. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_037)

Supervisor Support Supervisor support is also a key factor in�luencing motivation to learn and resistance to training. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_038) Supervisors are the of�icial source of rewards in most organizations. If your supervisor doesn’t think that training is worthwhile and communicates this to you, what will your reaction be? Probably you will also think that the training is not worthwhile, and your attitude walking into the training will be negative. With this predisposition, you are likely to demonstrate one or more signs of resisting the training. For this reason, we advocate engaging the trainees’ supervisor(s) early in the training design process. This allows the supervisor(s) to have input into the training and to see how the training will be of value to the work unit.

Climate for Learning and Transfer For training to be successful, both learning and the use of that learning back on the job need to be supported. If the employee doesn’t feel that learning the new material is valued by those that matter she will make little or no effort to learn. Evidence that the organization supports learning is shown in the way it creates learning opportunities and the way it rewards learning. This “learning” climate combines with the climate for “transfer” to in�luence the employee’s motivation to learn and apply that learning to the job. While a positive climate for learning and transfer includes supervisor and peer support, it includes many other things as well. It requires aligning organizational systems and procedures to support the new job behaviors and the training process in addition to removing barriers. What sorts of systems and procedures need to be aligned? We will talk more in depth about this in the next chapter on the needs analysis phase of the training model. For now, it’s suf�icient to know that organizational reward systems, job materials and equipment, and job procedures are on the list.

Individual Factors and Resistance Differences in personality and other individual characteristics are related to trainees’ motivation and ability to learn and thus are also factors in resistance to learning. We have already discussed in some depth how a person’s self- ef�icacy and the way she values the outcomes of training (“valence” in expectancy theory terms) will in�luence her motivation. The number of personality traits that in�luence a person’s motivation to learn is far greater than can be discussed here. For the most part, an understanding of these personality traits provides little practical value for training design and implementation. This is true for several reasons. In most organizations, employee personality traits are not measured, as it is too costly and impractical. Even if these traits were measured, designing a training program that addresses all the individual differences among the trainees would be too complex and costly to be practical. The same is true for developing separate training programs for sets of trainees with unique combinations of traits. However, there are some individual characteristics that are fairly easily observed and which training can be designed to address.

Cognitive Ability refers to individual differences in information-processing capacity and the level of cognitive resources that a person can bring to bear on a problem. This is often referred to as general intelligence. It is clear that individual differences in cognitive ability relate to differences in learning. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_039) Trainees with differences in cognitive ability will respond differently to goals set for training.

37

38

39

Goal Setting Some interesting �indings came from studies regarding the learning process for low- and high-ability individuals. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_040) Goal setting as a motivational incentive does not always operate with the same magnitude for these two groups. When those with low ability are starting to learn a moderately dif�icult task, providing goals to them will inhibit, rather than enhance, learning. Although the same is true for high-ability individuals, it is not nearly as severe. High-ability individuals, it seems, have the additional cognitive capacity to focus on goals in addition to the new learning in the early learning stage. This difference disappears as the task is learned, and then goal setting enhances the performance of both low- and high-ability individuals. Even though a difference separates the two groups, results from this research suggest that generally, it is wise to design training so that dif�icult tasks are broken down into a set of simpler tasks that are more easily mastered. If this is not possible, then it is best not to introduce goal setting as a motivational device early in the training process.

KSA Base Trainees with higher levels of cognitive ability not only process information more quickly but also typically have a larger store of knowledge. Although we indicate that it is desirable to consider diversity among trainees as an opportunity, this is true only up to a point. Substantial differences in the trainees’ KSAs related to the training can create signi�icant challenges for the design of training. Those with less knowledge will need to have more training material available to them than the others. It is not only differences in KSAs that can create problems in a training group. The speed at which trainees can process the training information can also make a big difference. Those with less cognitive ability might not be able to keep up with the material, or if the material is presented at a slower pace, the more knowledgeable trainees are bored to tears.

The logic of using different approaches for trainees with signi�icant differences in cognitive ability and KSA base makes some sense here. One approach would be to design separate training programs for the two groups. Another approach would be to develop two phases for the training. The �irst phase would be for those with lower cognitive abilities. This phase would develop the KSA base and other prerequisite knowledge for the second phase. The idea here is to reduce the differences in ability to keep up with the material in the second phase. The second phase would include all trainees. Another approach would be to use electronic, self-paced training methods, allowing each trainee to move through the material at a pace consistent with their cognitive abilities.

Valences If training is perceived as leading to attractive outcomes such as better performance and better pay, there is a higher probability that the learning will take place, and transfer to the job will occur. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_041) This was demonstrated in a recent study showing that trainees who believed that the training was relevant to their job were more likely to learn and transfer that learning to the job. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_042)

However, it is important to note that even when trainees acknowledge the value of the training, they might believe that the effort required to master the learning is just not worthwhile. In Piaget’s terms, the accommodation process (developing new cognitive categories) is the most dif�icult, whereas assimilation (adding new things to existing categories) is relatively easy. Accommodation requires a learner to create new categories that then need to be linked to other related categories. The more categories that exist and the more developed they are, the more dif�icult the learning. When assimilating, the learner simply adds new elements and rearranges associations among elements within a single category. When accommodating, not only must learners create a new category and place elements into that category, but they must also associate this category with other categories. The elements within those categories must be modi�ied to create the network of associations that appropriately incorporates the new information.

40

41

42

This type of situation occurs whenever a company changes the paradigms it uses for conducting its business. For example, think about what supervisors face when companies move from a traditional, centralized, hierarchical, autocratic decision-making system to a �lexible, team-based, more consensus-based, employee-involvement system. From their experience and training in the traditional system, the supervisors developed a cognitive structure for getting things done. They learned how to make all the decisions for their subordinates and developed a system for communicating those decisions and ensuring that they were carried out effectively. These strategies were probably reinforced over many years. A new piece of equipment or a change in the work process brings new procedures that are learned and assimilated into the supervisor’s decision-making structure relatively easily. Under the new team- based decision-making structure, however, the whole process of making decisions must be relearned because the underlying organizational assumptions have changed. For the supervisor, the focus is no longer on the quality of decisions but on the supervisor’s ability to facilitate quality decisions by the team. Although some aspects of the supervisor’s old decision-making process might still be useful, his cognitive structure must be changed to incorporate the new concepts, and the useful aspects of the old concepts must be reorganized and integrated with the new. For this reason, learning the new system will be more dif�icult for supervisors with a lot of experience than for a newly hired supervisor with little experience in the traditional system.

Anxiety Anxiety is a heightened state of arousal related to feelings of apprehension or fear. High levels of anxiety interfere with other cognitive processes and cause the trainee to withdraw from or actively resist the learning process. Many trainees feel anxious as they enter training. Most trainees arrive at training with an elaborate and highly integrated cognitive structure. They already know a lot about themselves, their work, their company, and many other things. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_043) The objective of training is to change some part of that cognitive structure so that the trainee’s performance will be improved. Change creates anxiety, however, for the following reasons:

Fear of the unknown “Right now I know how things work, but I do not know how this training will affect things.”

Fear of incompetence “I do not know whether I’ll be able to learn this stuff.”

Fear of losing rewards “What will happen to my pay, status, and perks, among other things?”

Fear of lost in�luence “Will this training make me more or less valuable?”

Fear or lost investments

“I’ve spent a lot of time and energy learning to do it this way. Why change?”

These concerns deal with the trainees’ needs, their current competencies, and how training will change their current outcomes. Pretraining counseling, the setup of the training facility, and the way in which training is introduced can all reduce the level of anxiety trainees feel. Expectancy theory addresses these factors, and the trainees’ motivation to learn will depend on the answers to these questions. To the degree that the answers indicate that learning is worth the effort, the individual will be motivated to learn.

The “fear of incompetence” issue deserves more discussion. In general, the more experienced employee has a more developed, integrated, and complex cognitive structure. A great deal of effort has gone into creating that cognitive structure. Now he is being told that his KSAs are not good enough and he has to go to training. Trainees also might feel that they are being told that the trainer knows more about how to do their job than they do. Both of these situations can contribute to the trainee feeling that his competence is under attack, leading to defensive behaviors. This is especially true if the training is mandatory. These defensive behaviors can take the form of trying to show the trainer, and the other trainees, that the training is inadequate or irrelevant and that their current KSAs

43

are better than what training has to offer. They also might try to show that the trainer is incompetent. By degrading the training or the trainer, the trainee feels that he is protecting himself.

This generalization is not to say that more experienced people always resist learning new things or discarding old beliefs. They frequently do not. As adults mature, they appear to go through periodic episodes of cognitive reorganization in which long standing concepts or principles are reevaluated. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_044) During these cognitive reorganizations, knowledge that is of little functional value is discarded, and new KSAs are discovered and integrated into their cognitive structure, especially in times of transition such as job or career changes. For adults, the key factor in discarding old learning and acquiring new learning is its practical usefulness. Training that seems abstract, theoretical, or otherwise unrelated to doing the job will likely be ignored or resisted. Training that can demonstrate its value and practical utility will �ind trainees eager to learn. This needs to be built into the training design.

Goal Orientation Goal orientation is a relatively new construct in the adult training literature and is not as well researched as factors contained in Figure 3-6. Nevertheless, it does seem to have a signi�icant impact on motivation to learn. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_045) Goal orientation is the degree to which an individual is predisposed toward either a “learning orientation” or a “performance orientation.” (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_046) Those with a learning goal orientation focus on the learning process. They seek challenging tasks to increase their competence, see negative feedback as important information to help them master the task, and see failure as a learning experience. One result of this learning goal orientation (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch03_039) is persistence when having problems doing a complex task; they are more motivated to continue to try and solve the problem.

Those with a performance goal orientation differ because they focus on the end result. They wish to be seen as competent and therefore desire favorable, not negative, feedback. They prefer easier tasks where they are able to demonstrate their competence rather than learning something new. A result of having this performance goal orientation (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i177#glossch03_040) is avoidance of complex tasks for fear of failure, limited persistence, and a tendency to be easily distracted. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_047)

In an organizational setting, those with a performance goal orientation have a strong desire to impress others and focus on the outcome of their performance. Those with a learning goal orientation focus on mastery of the task to develop their competence, acquire new skills, and learn from their experience. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_048) The research using goal orientation in an organizational/training setting has only been going on for a few years, but much of it concludes that it is better to have a learning goal orientation than a performance goal orientation in a training setting. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_049) In other words, the focus should be on the process of learning new things rather than on some end product performance goal. The good news is that although there is evidence that goal orientation is a trait, the trait can be in�luenced by the situation. In fact, it seems that as long as there are situational cues suggesting a focus on learning rather than performance, the situational cues will override the goal orientation trait. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_050) Furthermore, these �indings tend to be supported when the task is complex and requires new knowledge and strategies. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_051)

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

3.8 Training that Motivates Adults to Learn Learning occurs quite frequently in adults when it appears to offer practical application immediately or in the near future. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_052) For example, a study showed that IBM sales representatives averaged more than 1,100 hours a year in “new learning episodes.” (A new learning episode was de�ined as a deliberate attempt to gain and retain some signi�icant knowledge or skill for problem solving or personal change.) Professors, by contrast, averaged slightly more time (1,745 hours) on fewer episodes. Clearly, adults are not resistant to learning, but they are sometimes resistant to training offered by their companies. Why?

Training Relevance, Value, and Readiness to Learn Some of the most often mentioned reasons for adults engaging in new learning are problems on the job, job/occupational changes, home and personal responsibilities, and competency at some hobby or recreational activity. In the study mentioned previously, about two-thirds of the learning episodes were job-related. The need to know and the readiness to learn are critical aspects in the success of adult learning programs. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_053) The need to know refers to the value of the knowledge to the learner. Adults most often seek to learn when the learning is life-, task-, or problem-centered. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_054) Readiness to learn refers to the amount of prerequisite knowledge (KSAs) the trainees possess and the trainees’ belief that they can learn the material. This aspect is consistent with the principles of self-ef�icacy and expectancy theory. People’s motivation to learn a particular knowledge or skill set is directly in�luenced by their belief that if they put forth the effort, they will be successful in their learning (Expectancy 1). Beyond this expectation, they must feel that the bene�its of learning the KSAs outweigh the bene�its of not learning them (Expectancy 2).

The challenge is to provide instruction in a context that overcomes the natural resistance of adult learners to changing their cognitive structures. Making the relevance and value of the learning clear as it relates to the trainee and organizational goals addresses one source of resistance to learning. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_055) Ensuring that the trainee believes she can successfully master the training content is another important motivator. Over time, adults might develop feelings of low self-ef�icacy in certain areas and feelings of high self-ef�icacy in others. For those with a low self-ef�icacy for learning in general or for the speci�ic content area of the training, the trainer needs to change the self-ef�icacy beliefs so that trainees are more willing to attempt new learning. Doing so requires a careful match between the trainee’s characteristics (e.g., KSA level, learning-style preferences) and the design of the training. Trainers can overcome a signi�icant type of resistance to learning by demonstrating that learning in the subject area can be as easy as in areas in which trainees have high self-ef�icacy.

Allowing Trainees Control Over Their Learning As we pointed out, trainees walk into training with well-developed cognitive maps that re�lect their experiences. Since these experiences differ from person to person, any given training group is likely to differ considerably in the KSAs they possess and in their learning strategies. Trainees often view these differences as hindrances to their learning and resist training with others who are dissimilar. However, these differences can be viewed as a learning resource if the trainees are willing to share their experiences and strategies and if the training environment supports such an exchange. In fact, adult learners prefer sharing their learning experiences with others if the environment is supportive. Even though adults prefer to plan their own learning projects and to adopt a self- directed approach to learning, this preference does not imply a desire to learn in isolation. Rather, it re�lects a desire to set their own pace, establish their own structure for learning, and employ �lexibility in the learning methods. More often than not, adults seek learning assistance from others. In short, they do not mind learning from others but they want to maintain some control over the learning experience. These characteristics suggest that

52

53

54

55

training that incorporates individualized components and also makes use of shared, relevant experiences will be most effective at overcoming resistance to learning.

Although it is true that many adults are able to learn new competencies even when they are not told the signi�icance or usefulness of the training, they are much less likely to be able to apply these new competencies to their job. Research suggests that trainees receiving instruction on how to perform a set of skills show improved performance at the end of training but fail to use the skills on their own or to generalize the skill usage to similar situations. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_056) Training that provides instruction on the “how to” and includes the “why and when” results in improved performance and continued use of the skill across appropriate situations. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_057)

Involving Trainees in the Process Training, then, should take into account the motivational and cognitive processes that in�luence the trainee’s readiness and willingness to learn. Many writers emphasize the importance of participation, choice, personal experiences, critical re�lection, and critical thinking as key characteristics of adult learning. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i176#ch03biblio_058) Involving the trainees in the learning process from needs assessment to design and evaluation addresses many of these issues.

Involvement is a key part of overcoming resistance to change. You might remember from the discussion of OD principles in Chapter 2 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i19#ch02) that involving those who are affected by change in planning and implementing the change creates a sense of ownership. The result is increased commitment to the change and better implementation of the change. Supervisors and trainees should be involved in determining the training needs because both are affected by the change. Supervisors have a clearer understanding of why new KSAs are necessary, how they �it in with the overall plans for the work unit, and the consequences of their employees learning or not learning the new KSAs. The trainees, in turn, see what KSAs they need to improve and understand why those KSAs will be of value. Involving trainees in needs analysis and other parts of the training process will be discussed in more depth in the relevant chapters.

Training design issues are discussed in more detail in Chapter 5 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i68#ch05) . However, training professionals should consider the following nine principles in developing training programs for their employees:

1. Identify, where possible, the trainees’ strengths and challenges relating to motivation to learn and design the training to address as many of these as is practical.

2. Align learning objectives to organizational goals and show how learning is important to trainee and organizational success.

3. Describe program goals and objectives clearly at the start of training.

4. Engage the trainee early, thus maximizing attention, expectations, and memory.

5. Use a systematic, logically connected sequencing of learning activities so that trainees master lower levels of learning before moving to higher levels.

6. Use a variety of training methods.

7. Use realistic job- or life-relevant training material.

8. Allow trainees to work together and share experiences.

9. Provide constant feedback and reinforcement while encouraging self-assessment.

The trainer can address the diversity of characteristics trainees bring to training within the context of a group- learning environment by applying these principles to training programs.

56

57

58

Summary An employee’s performance is a function of motivation, KSAs, and environment. This is true of performance in training as well as job performance. Learning the content of a training program will depend on the motivation and KSAs the trainee brings to the training program and to the training environment. Examination of theoretical frameworks in the �ields of motivation and learning provides us with practical insights for the design of training programs. Theories of motivation fall into two categories: needs theories and process theories. Needs theories, such as ERG, explain what it is that motivates an individual. Process theories, such as expectancy theory, explain how an individual’s needs lead to goal-directed behavior. Self-ef�icacy, a person’s belief in her performance capabilities, plays a signi�icant factor in motivation.

Two historical approaches to understanding learning are the behaviorist perspective (Skinner) and the cognitive perspective (Piaget). The behavioral approach (reinforcement theory) focuses on the importance of the environment, and the cognitive approach (accommodation/assimilation) emphasizes the processes that lead to learning. Together, the two theoretical perspectives provide a more complete picture of the learning process than either can do alone. Bandura’s social learning theory provides a more integrated approach through which we can more fully understand learning. The process of learning provides the foundation for designing effective training. Gagné and colleagues provide this foundation with their theory of instructional design (nine events of instruction).

A model (Figure 3-6) was presented showing individual and organizational factors in�luencing motivation to learn and the in�luence of motivation to learn on training outcomes. The factors in�luencing motivation to learn (self-ef�icacy, cognitive ability, anxiety, valence of outcomes, climate for transfer, and supervisor and peer support) were also discussed in terms of their relationship to resistance to learning. A number of reasons explain why trainees are hesitant to learn new material, such as fear of the unknown or of not being successful at learning the new material. The concept of learning goal orientation was introduced, and how it differed from a performance goal orientation was discussed, including the rami�ications of each orientation to training.

Training design implications from the Motivation to Learn section were provided. To motivate trainees, the training needs to be relevant and valuable. Trainees need to feel con�ident of being successful in learning the training content. Goal setting will increase motivation in the later parts of the training program but will interfere with learning in the early stages for those lower in cognitive ability. Finally, trainee involvement with each phase of the training process will facilitate trainee interest and motivation in the training. The design of training will also need to consider differences in trainee traits and other characteristics within the context of what is practical. In some cases, separate training programs will be best; in other cases, counseling or prerequisite KSA training may be desirable.

Key Terms Accommodation (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i37#ch03term01)

Assimilation (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i37#ch03term02)

Attention (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i38#ch03term03)

Behavioral reproduction (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i38#ch03term04)

Classical conditioning (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i36#ch03term05)

Cognition (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i37#ch03term06)

Cognitive organization (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i38#ch03term07)

Cognitive process (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i36#ch03term08)

Cognitive structure (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i36#ch03term09)

Environment (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i36#ch03term10)

ERG theory (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i36#ch03term11)

Existence needs (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i36#ch03term12)

Expectancy theory (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i36#ch03term13)

Extinction (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i36#ch03term14)

Group dynamics (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i40#ch03term15)

Growth needs (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i36#ch03term16)

Law of effect (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i36#ch03term17)

Learning (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i37#ch03term18)

Learning goal orientation (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i40#ch03term19)

Performance goal orientation (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i40#ch03term20)

Micro Theory of Instructional Design (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i39#ch03term21)

Motivation (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i36#ch03term22)

Needs theory (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i36#ch03term23)

Negative reinforcement (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i36#ch03term24)

Observational learning (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i38#ch03term25)

Operant conditioning (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i36#ch03term26)

Performance model (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i36#ch03term27)

Positive reinforcement (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i36#ch03term28)

Process theories (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i36#ch03term29)

Punishment (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i36#ch03term30)

Reinforcement theory (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i36#ch03term31)

Relatedness needs (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i36#ch03term32)

Resistance to learning (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i40#ch03term33)

Retention (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i38#ch03term34)

Self-ef�icacy (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i36#ch03term35)

Social learning theory (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i38#ch03term36)

Symbolic coding (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i38#ch03term37)

Symbolic rehearsal (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i38#ch03term38)

Theory (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i35#ch03term39)

Valence (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS680.16.1/sections/i36#ch03term40)

Questions for Review 1. Explain the behavioral and cognitive approaches to learning. Which is most relevant to training? Explain

your answer.

2. You are a trainer explaining expectancy theory to a group of managers so they can better understand and deal with employee motivation problems. One of the managers says, “I do not have time for this theory stuff. I want real-world training that helps me in my job.” How would you respond to the trainee? What is your rationale for your response?

3. List the nine events of instruction as outlined by Gagné and Briggs and indicate how you would use them in a training situation.

4. Explain why different people need different training methods.

5. How does a work group exert control over the performance of a worker? Provide a rationale for why this “power” is a positive or negative thing.

6. How can training be designed to motivate learning and accommodate trainee differences?

Exercises 1. The following steps provide practice in implementing a social learning strategy:

A. Consult with a friend, coworker, or fellow student to identify a target behavior that the person does not currently have but would like to have.

B. Develop a social learning strategy for the person to acquire that behavior.

C. Implement the strategy.

D. In small groups or with the whole class, describe what you tried to do and what happened.

2. In groups of four to six people, discuss the differences among you that would affect the kind of training you would prefer. Use Figure 3-6 on page 77 to start your discussion, but do not limit it to only those characteristics. What accounts for the differences and similarities among your group members?

3. Observe an introductory course in computer programming. Then observe an introductory course in art or music. Which course uses a more behavioral and which a more cognitive approach to learning? If possible, interview the instructors to �ind out why that is their approach. Describe the match between the instructional approach and the subject matter.

4. Use the following to see how expectancy theory explains differences in student motivation.

A. In a small group, discuss the most important outcome that you want to achieve in this class (it may or may not be a letter grade). Have each person indicate how valuable that outcome is by using a scale from 1 = “not at all desirable” to 10 = “extremely desirable.”

B. Ask a group member to describe the most important outcome; then ask that person to describe how strong that motivation is compared with the other goals for this term (use a scale of 1 = “not at all motivated” to 10 = “extremely motivated”).

C. Ask that same person to describe the things that must be done (performance level) to achieve that outcome.

D. Ask the person to indicate the Expectancy 1 level (the belief that she will reach the performance level). Then ask the person to describe Expectancy 2 (the likelihood that successful performance will result in the outcome). Use probabilities (e.g., 1 = “very unlikely,” .5 = “50% chance of happening,” and .9 = “very likely”) to re�lect expectancies.

E. Now examine the expectancy linkages to see how well they conform to the person’s level of motivation. Discuss any discrepancies and why they exist.

5. This exercise is for those who are working together on a project. Without conversation among members of your group, write a list of the group’s norms for performance on the project. When you are done, indicate whether you follow each of the norms and why. Once everyone has �inished the tasks above, collect all the responses and mix them up. Hand them out. Allow each person to read the responses they received and compile the responses on a �lip chart. Once all responses have been read, discuss the implications of your group’s perception of performance norms.

Web Research There are more theories of learning and motivation than have been described in this chapter. Do a search for a learning or a motivation theory that is not in the text. When you �ind one, write a summary of the theory and suggest how it could be used in training.

Conduct a search for how a business has applied one of the theories in this chapter. Write a summary of how the theory was applied and the results of the application, if this is available.

Case Analysis: Rick’s New Job Rick recently received an MBA. In university, he was known as smart, hardworking, and friendly. His good grades landed him an internship with Peterson Paper Products (PPP) to head their sales department. Near the end of the internship, Val Peterson, the president and founder of the company, asked Rick to meet him after work to discuss the future.

Peterson Paper Products Val Peterson founded PPP 17 years ago. It purchases raw paper of varying grades and produces paper stock for business, personal stationery, and greeting cards. Its annual sales topped $15 million, and it employs 80 to 90 people, depending on demand. Sales gradually declined over the last two years after steady and sometimes spectacular growth during the previous seven years. Competition increased markedly over the last three years, and pro�it margins dwindled. Although PPP is known for the high quality of its products, consumers are shifting from premium-priced, high-quality products to products with higher overall value. Through all of these changes, PPP maintained a close-knit family culture. At least half of the employees have been with the company since the beginning or are friends or relatives of the Petersons or Mr. Ball, Val’s partner.

Val Peterson, 53, holds the majority of stock in this privately held company that he founded. He began working summers in a paper company during high school. He supervised a shift at a paper plant while he went to college at night. After graduation, he worked at increasingly higher management levels, occasionally switching employers for a promotion. Eighteen years ago, he quit his vice presidency with a major paper product manufacturer to start his own company. Employees see him as charismatic, even-tempered, and reasonable. He spends most of his time and energy on company business, putting in 12-hour days.

Rosie Peterson, 50, is Val’s wife and the controller for the company. She holds 5 percent of the company stock. Rosie never went to college, and her accounting methods are rather primitive (all paper and pencil). Nonetheless, she is always on top of the �inancial picture and puts in nearly as many hours as Val. She exerts a great deal of in�luence on the operations and direction of PPP.

Walter Ball, 61, is both Mr. Peterson’s friend and business partner. He owns 25 percent of the stock and has known Val since before the start of PPP. He is VP of operations, which means that he oversees the computer information systems that run the paper production process and handles the technical side of the business. He is not current on the latest computer or manufacturing technology, but he loves the paper business. He says he will probably retire at 65, but most say they will believe it when they see it.

Diane Able, 41, is the customer service manager and is married to Steve Able, the chief engineer. Diane worked her way up in the company over the last 10 years. She is often asked to assist Mr. Peterson with projects because of her common sense, and he trusts her to keep information to herself.

Rick’s Offer When Rick met Mr. Peterson to “discuss the future,” he was nervous. He knew that Mr. Peterson liked his work so far, but did not know if it was enough to extend his internship another six months. So far, he had worked with Mr. Peterson only on special projects and did not know the rest of the management group well. He was �labbergasted when Mr. Peterson said, “I was thinking that you might like to work here at PPP full-time and help us out with our sales department.”

The two of them discussed the problems in the sales area and talked about what could be done to boost sales. Rick agreed to start the next Monday. During this conversation, Rosie walked in and suggested that they all go out to dinner. At dinner, Rosie emphasized to Rick that PPP was a family operation, down-to-earth and informal. “You probably shouldn’t try to change things too quickly,” she warned. “People need time to get used to you. You have to

remember, you’re an outsider here and everyone else is an insider.” Then Val moved the conversation back to what the future could be like at PPP.

Rick’s Awakening During the �irst few days at work, Rick spent time getting to know the plant and operations, meeting all the employees, and familiarizing himself with the problems in sales. He met with Val each morning and afternoon. He also met with the key managers, not only to introduce himself but also to convey his desire to work collaboratively with them in addressing the problems in sales. He was conscious not to �launt his university education and to convey that he recognized he was a newcomer and had a lot to learn. In the middle of his second week, Val told him that his reception by the other employees was going very well: “Your enthusiasm and motivation seem to be contagious. Having you join us shows them that things need to change if we’re going to reach our goals.”

Rick noticed, however, that the managers always went out in groups, and he had not been invited along. Also, he was not included in the informal discussion groups that formed periodically during the day. In fact, the conversation usually stopped when he approached. Everyone was friendly, he thought; maybe it would just take a little more time.

By his third week, Rick identi�ied some of the problems in the sales department. Among the four salespeople, morale and productivity were moderate to low. He could not �ind any sales strategy, mission, or objectives. The records showed that Val was by far the leading salesperson. The others indicated that Mr. Peterson “always works with us very closely to make sure we do things right. If he senses there might be a problem, he steps in right away.” After formulating a plan, Rick discussed it with Mr. Peterson. “First, I would like to institute weekly sales meetings so we keep everyone up to date. I also want to create a centralized sales database,” he told him. Mr. Peterson smiled and agreed. Rick felt he was �inally a manager. He did feel that he should have mentioned his idea for creating a sales department mission and strategy, but recalled Rosie’s caution about not moving too fast.

Rick discussed with Mr. Ball the possibility of using the centralized computer system to run word processing and spreadsheet software on terminals. Mr. Ball was concerned that outsiders could access the data in the spreadsheets. Anyway, he did not think the system could handle that task because its primary function was production. Puzzled, Rick asked if a PC could be allocated to him. Mr. Ball said that no one in the company had one.

“Well,” Rick thought, “I’ll just have to bring mine from home.” The next Monday Rick walked through the of�ice carrying his computer. Several of the other managers looked at him quizzically. Making light of it he said, “I’m not smart enough to keep everything in my head and I do not have enough time to write it all down on paper.” As he was setting up the computer, he got a call from Val: “Rick, that computer you brought in has caused a heck of a ruckus. Can you lie low with it until I get back late this afternoon?” Rick thought Val sounded strained but chalked it up to overwork. Rick agreed and left the computer on his desk, partly assembled. Five minutes later, Rosie walked into his of�ice.

“Do you think it’s funny bringing that thing in here? What are you trying to prove—how backward we all are? How much better you are with your big initials behind your name? You’re still an outsider here, buster, and do not forget it.”

Rick tried to explain how much more productive the sales department would be with a computer and that he had tried to use the company’s computer system. However, Rosie was not listening: “Did you think about checking with me before bringing that in? With Val or even Walter? Don’t you think we have a right to know what you’re bringing in here?” Rick knew argument would do no good, so he apologized for not checking with everyone �irst. He said he had a meeting with Val later to talk about it. Rosie said, “Good, talk to Val, but don’t think he calls all the shots here.”

At the meeting with Val, Val agreed that the computer would certainly help solve the problems in sales: “But, you have to be sensitive to the feelings of Rosie and the other managers. It would be best if you did not use the computer for a while until things calm down.”

The next day Walter walked into Rick’s of�ice. He told Rick that he had moved far too fast with the computer: “That’s not how it’s done here, son. Maybe you’re spending too much time listening to what Val says. He isn’t really the one to talk to about these kinds of issues. Next time you just ask old Uncle Walter.”

Rick spent the next few weeks building the database by hand and conducting sales meetings with his staff. He tried to set up meetings with Mr. Peterson, but Val was usually too busy. One day, Rick asked Diane Able about not being able to see Mr. Peterson and she said, “You know, you monopolized a lot of his time early on. Those of us who worked closely with him before you came were pushed aside so he could spend time with you. Now it’s your turn to wait.”

“Are you the one who’s been spending all the time with him?” Rick asked.

“Well, it’s been me and some of the other managers. We’ve really been taking a beating in sales, so we need to �igure out how to reduce our costs,” Ms. Able answered.

A few weeks later, Rick was called in to Val’s of�ice. Val began, “Rick, you know we’ve been going through some bad times. We’re reducing head count and I’m afraid you’re one of the people we’re going to let go. It has nothing to do with your work. You haven’t really been here long enough to have either succeeded or failed. It’s just that we had unrealistic expectations about how quickly things in sales would turn around. I feel terrible having to do this and I’ll do everything I can to help you �ind another job.”

After packing his things and loading up the car, Rick sat in his car and stared out of the window. “Welcome to the real world,” he thought to himself.

Case Questions 1. Why do you think Rick was let go? How does reinforcement theory apply to the main characters in this

situation? How does expectancy theory apply?

2. Explain Rosie’s and Walter’s reactions to Rick’s computer in terms of resistance to change. How might Rick have used the concepts in this chapter to approach the computer situation so as to gain acceptance?

3. Explain Rick’s inability to “�it in,” using social learning theory. Where did the breakdowns in his processing occur?

4. If Val hired you to develop a management training program for the senior managers at PPP, what are the key concepts from this chapter that you would use in designing the program? Provide appropriate theoretical rationale to support your position.