Writing King ONLY - Week 3 assignment

The use of a personal development plan and the undertaking of learning activities, expertise-growth, flexibility and performance: the role of supporting assessment conditions

Simon Beausaert*, Mien Segers and Wim Gijselaers

Department of Educational Research and Development, School of Business and Economics, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands

(Received 24 December 2010; final version received 1 September 2011)

In the current search for tools that encourage and assess learning and development, personal development plans (PDPs) are being used ever more frequently by organizations. A PDP is an assessment tool used by the employee to reflect on, to document the competencies s/he has been working on and to present his/her plans for further development. This study conducted among employees working in a governmental organization in the Netherlands (N ¼ 287) focused on the PDP practice as conceptualized by three supporting conditions: learning and reflection, information and feedback and the motivating supervisor. It examined which of these features enhance the undertaking of learning activities, expertise- growth, flexibility towards changing circumstances and performance. Results from the hierarchical regression analyses indicate that a motivating supervisor, information and feedback and reflection by the employee on the basis of his/her PDP affect whether or not a PDP contributes to the four measured output variables. Next, by conducting mediation analyses evidence is found for the mediating role of undertaking learning activities in the relation between the PDP practice and two output variables.

Keywords: personal development plan (PDP); reflection; feedback; supervisor; workplace

Organizations in general have been facing and dealing with a variety of challenges. The current labour market is characterized by a growing number of short-term contracts, a shortage of skilled workers in some industries, an ageing workforce and increasing employee mobility. In the meantime organizations are confronted with the speed of technological advancements and increasing global competition. The influx of technologies and new knowledge present a challenge to keep up-to-date on these matters. In order to keep on delivering high-quality performance, it is of vital importance to invest in the employees by enabling and encouraging them to continuously reflect, learn and develop. To accomplish that, organizations need to support their employees’ expertise development in terms of adapting to fit new parameters, new scenarios and new challenges.

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Human Resource Development International Vol. 14, No. 5, November 2011, 527–543

ISSN 1367-8868 print/ISSN 1469-8374 online ! 2011 Taylor & Francis http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2011.620782 http://www.tandfonline.com

In this respect, organizations have been looking for human resources (HR) tools that encourage knowledge workers to maintain and improve their expertise (Ericsson et al. 2006). With respect to the latter, tools such as 3608-feedback, self- and/or peer- assessment and personal development plans (PDPs) have been argued to be successful in stimulating learning and development (e.g. Evans et al. 2002; Wildy and Wallace 1998). However, the small amount of often contrasting evidence has shown that implementing these tools does not guarantee effectiveness in terms of fostering employees’ learning and development and, in turn, advancing their performance (e.g. Austin, Marini, and Desroches 2005; Beausaert et al. 2011). In order to make the tools effective, they have to be facilitated by various supporting conditions (Beausaert et al. 2011; Pham, Segers, and Gijselaers 2010).

This study will focus on the use of PDPs as learning tools and the role of supporting conditions when using a PDP. PDPs are used in assessment cycles to present information about the competencies the employee has been working on and is planning to further develop. A review study on the effectiveness of PDPs, including 54 empirical studies, was recently conducted (Beausaert et al. 2011). The findings of the review indicated that the way employees react to a PDP is influenced by various supporting conditions. First, given the reflective nature of the PDP, the extent to which the employee experiences the PDP as a learning and reflection tool, is a necessary individual condition. Second, the PDP is the basis for conversations with the supervisor or coach who provides the employee with feedback, stimulates the employee’s reflection and motivates the employee to learn. Therefore, the role of the supervisor as feedback provider and motivator is a relevant contextual condition for a PDP to be effective.

In order to better understand the conditions for using a PDP in supporting employee development we combined insights from different domains of study. Moreover, our research study is framed within two related research fields. First of all, the research is framed within adult learning theories. The learning cycle of Kolb (1984) has been widely used to understand professional learning. It shows the different phases in the learning process of adult learners and is thus a valid theoretical framework to study the effects of PDPs on professional learning. Next, in order to scaffold the aforementioned adult learning process, many adult learning theories (e.g. Knowles 1975) point to the importance of giving the learner autonomy. More concretely, it is stressed that a motivating supervisor, who gives responsibility to the employee and lets him take his choice, is an import factor in adult learning. Second, an extended body of research in the field of feedback (Kluger and DeNisi 1996) has indicated the pivotal role of feedback to enhance learning.

To study the effects of using a PDP, we took professional expertise research as a theoretical framework. More precisely, we took the work of Van der Heijden (2000) as a starting point. Based on earlier work in this field, Van der Heijden defined and validated the construct professional expertise as a multidimensional construct, consisting of five dimensions: knowledge, meta-cognitive knowledge, skill require- ment, acquiring social recognition, and growth and flexibility. The developmental purpose of a PDP refers especially to the latter dimension of growth and flexibility. As Van der Heijden (2000, 12) explains: ‘individuals who are capable of acquiring more than one area of expertise within adjacent or radically different fields, or who are capable of acquiring a strategy to master a new area of expertise or expert performance in another territory can appropriately be termed experts. These are people who are both flexible and in the possession of expertise. They are, for

528 S. Beausaert et al.

example, good at adjusting flexibly to technological changes and able to demonstrate that they know how to respond quickly and alertly at times, when there are opportunities in related areas’.

In addition to expertise development (growth) and flexibility, we have measured performance of PDP-users. It is assumed that, stimulated and scaffolded by the PDP, the employee intentionally undertakes learning activities, consequently shows growth and flexibility and successively improves his performance. Although these different outcome variables are theoretically strongly related, working conditions might jeopardize this theorized cascade effect.

The study presented here addresses which of the aforementioned conditions in terms of features of the PDP practice are related to employees’ positive reactions to this tool. Research into 3608-feedback (e.g. Atwater and Brett 2005; London and Smither 1995) points to the importance of people’s reactions to feedback with respect to cognitive and emotional evaluations, since the reactions significantly influence how managers will ultimately respond. As Atwater and Brett (2005, 533) argue: ‘The immediate reactions managers have to 3608-feedback are important because the ways an individual ‘‘feels’’ about and reacts to the feedback may influence how or whether the individual changes his or her behaviour in response to the feedback’. Therefore, in our study the reactions to PDP were conceptualized (following Atwater and Brett 2005) as the undertaking of learning activities, expertise-growth, and flexibility and perceived improvement in performance as a result of using a PDP.

PDP: a definition

PDPs are increasingly implemented as a learning tool in assessment cycles, consisting of development-, follow-up- and performance appraisal interviews. Moreover, based on our literature review (Beausaert et al. 2011), the PDP can be characterized as a tool that:

. gives an overview of the competencies the employee worked on in the past and the competencies the employee is planning to work on in the future;

. is composed and written by the employee himself (self-direction by the employee) although the structure of the PDP is mostly set;

. is used as a basis/structure for conversations with the supervisor or coach who provides the employee with feedback and stimulates the employee’s reflection and

. serves as a decision-making tool, from planning an individual training- programme to assessing the suitability of a promotion.

In the PDP, four major questions are put forward: ‘What have I done so far?’, ‘What do I want to achieve?’, ‘How am I tackling that?’ and ‘What is the next step to take?’ When a discrepancy is detected between the competencies an employee possesses and the competencies the employee is required to possess, it suggests that learning needs to be stimulated (Hattie and Timperley 2007). This indicates that the core purpose of the PDP is to support the development of the professional in order to improve his/her performance. A distinction has commonly been established between professional development and certification/selection/accountability (Smith and Tillema 2001). When a PDP is used to support development, learning and receiving feedback take a central part. Conversely, when a PDP is used for

Human Resource Development International 529

certification, presenting oneself is more important (Bunker and Leggett 2004; Smith and Tillema 2001).

The PDP practice: the role of supporting conditions

Condition 1: the employee’s learning and reflection

Austin, Marini, and Desroches (2005, 181) describe a PDP as an instrument that requires ‘an idealized type of individual who knows how to self-reflect, is open to change, interested in her/his own development and knows how to organize her/ himself and her/his environment to support learning’. Reflection is considered a key element in professional development. Reflection signifies a critical analysis of previous experiences and aims at intensifying cognitive elaboration on those experiences; ideally, it leads to behavioural changes in due course (Anseel, Lievens, and Schollaert 2009; McMullan et al. 2003; Smith and Tillema 1998). In other words, reflecting provides insight into the employee’s processes of learning (McMullan et al. 2003). This process of individual learning can best be explained by referring to Kolb’s model of experiential learning, in which reflection on personal experiences plays a central role (Kolb 1984). According to this theory learning occurs through ‘concrete experiences’. Afterwards the employee reflects on what s/he experienced by using a PDP. By thinking over what happened, the learner is able to draw a more general conclusion (abstraction) and build up concepts (conceptualization). Finally, the learner can use previous experiences and what he learned from those experiences as a basis for new active experimentation, and, ultimately, an improved performance. Research has indicated that when an employee does not reflect and learn (e.g. through completing and using a PDP), s/he will not undertake subsequent learning activities. This in turn will hinder expertise-growth, including flexibility and high-quality performance (Anseel, Lievens, and Schollaert 2009; McMullan et al. 2003; Smith and Tillema 1998).

In line with previous research the following work hypotheses are formulated:

H1. Learning and reflecting within a PDP practice is positively related to employees’ reaction to the PDP. H2. The relation between the learning and reflection within a PDP practice and the employees’ reaction to the PDP is mediated by undertaking learning activities.

Condition 2: information and feedback

Motivating employees to use PDPs and to take advantage of their use requires clear information on how to use the tool on the one hand and feedback during the use of it on the other.

Transparency is a key feature of any assessment practice. This implies that supervisors provide their employees with an explicit and clear purpose, a formal framework (including meetings), specific guidelines and standards or criteria. Many authors have argued that the effects of PDPs would be larger if employees received this information (e.g. Noe 1996; Van der Heijden and Nijhof 2004).

In addition to providing transparent information, feedback plays a crucial role in stimulating PDP-users to undertake learning activities and to develop their competencies (e.g. Maurer, Mitchell, and Barbeite 2002). Feedback gives

530 S. Beausaert et al.

information about the employee’s work (Ashford 1986) with the purpose of improving learning and performance (Shute 2008). For feedback to be effective, it has to meet some requirements (Kluger and DeNisi 1996).

First, London and Smither (1999) have indicated the importance of providing employees with non-threatening performance feedback (London and Smither 1999). This means that the feedback focuses on the employee’s tasks, giving constructive suggestions on what might be needed or changed to better fulfil the task’s goals (Gibbs and Simpson 2004). In other words, feedback focuses on the employee’s performance behaviour and learning and not on the employee as a person or on how his/her performance compares with that of colleagues (Tillema and Smith 2000). If employees are able to link the feedback to their performance and the supervisor’s expectations of their performance, the feedback will be meaningful and employee effort will increase (Gibbs and Simpson 2004; Ilgen, Fisher, and Taylor 1979). In contrast, by focusing on the individual or comparing the employee with his/her colleagues, the employee’s motivation and self-efficacy are undermined, which is undesirable since the latter is related to the employee’s effort and task persistence (Gibbs and Simpson 2004).

Second, feedback that is not specific (e.g. complimenting someone by saying ‘Well done’, without specifying what exactly was well done) induces uncertainty in responding to the feedback and requires greater cognitive processing to understand. As a consequence, the feedback is perceived as useless, evokes frustration and inhibits the employee’s motivation (London, Larsen, and Thisted 1999; London and Smither 1999; Shute 2008). Providing corrective, negative or too extensive feedback can be ineffective as well. Corrective feedback leads to resistance when given too frequently (Butler and Winne 1995). Negative feedback appears to be accepted and followed less easily than positive feedback and too extensive feedback inhibits the employee’s feeling of control on the task (Shute 2008), while both feelings of control and of competence have to be high in order for an employee to be intrinsically motivated (Ilgen, Fisher, and Taylor 1979). Finally, lack of feedback can cause anxiety, lead to inaccurate self-evaluations and a diversion of effort towards feedback-gathering activities (e.g. performance interviews; Taylor, Fisher, and Ilgen 1984).

Third, feedback timing has been addressed in former feedback research. However, it showed conflicting results on the relationship between feedback timing and learning and performance. While many field studies found positive effects of immediate feedback, laboratory studies showed the positive results of delayed feedback (Shute 2008).

In line with previous research the following work hypotheses are formulated:

H3. Information and feedback given about a PDP positively influences the employees’ reaction to the PDP. H4. The relation between information and feedback given within a PDP practice and the employees’ reaction to the PDP is mediated by undertaking learning activities.

Condition 3: motivating supervisor

Former research has elaborated on the role of the supervisor. Based on a comparison of different types of PDPs, Tillema (2001) concludes that the power of the PDP lies in the support it provides for stimulating professional development, more than the

Human Resource Development International 531

support for certification or selection purposes. In order to stimulate the employee’s professional development, it is crucial to have an involved supervisor who provides sufficient support and leaves room for autonomy. Moreover, supervisors who leave room for autonomy do not monitor the employees’ behaviour too closely, involve employees when taking decisions, leave the employees the choice, are concerned for employees’ feelings and needs, encourage them to voice their own concerns and do not put too much pressure on their employees (London and Smither 1999). This in turn will lead to increased intrinsic motivation, as employees experience a sense of self-competence and feel they are controlling their own behaviour (Deci and Ryan 2000; London, Larsen, and Thisted 1999; London and Smither 1999). Therefore a supervisor has to be available and has sufficient contact with the employee. For example, the contact with the supervisor can be established through fixed meetings. The lack of interaction with the supervisor is mostly due to time limitations, incompatible work schedules and physical distance (Noe 1988). For example, research found that dentists who received help from a supervisor [tutor] in developing a PDP undertook more learning activities (Bullock et al. 2007). Similarly, it was found that employees are more likely to engage in developmental activities such as training when they have supervisors who are supporting their employees’ efforts (Noe and Wilk 1993).

In line with previous research the following work hypotheses are formulated:

H5. Having a supervisor who motivates an employee within a PDP practice is positively related to the employees’ reaction to the PDP. H6. The relation between having a motivating supervisor within a PDP practice and the employees’ reaction to the PDP is mediated by undertaking learning activities.

Figure 1 gives an overview of the different hypotheses.

Method

Participants

Participants were employees of a regional government office in the Netherlands. This office employs 1400 people in five different offices, located in four different cities.

Figure 1. Hypothetical model for the effect the PDP practice conditions on the outcome variables. Note: The dashed lines represent the direct relations under research between the PDP practice conditions and the outcome variables.

532 S. Beausaert et al.

Despite the relatively high number of employees working in different departments, the organization is perceived by the employees as an organization of medium size. The average age of the employees was 49 in 2009 and the office has a very low turnover of staff, which make it a very stable organization.

Employees of the Dutch government office undergo an annual assessment cycle. The assessment cycle consists of a development interview, an in-between interview and a performance appraisal interview with the supervisor. During that assessment process the supervisor and the employee can make use of a PDP. The tools are not used strictly by every supervisor.

Out of the 1400 employees that were contacted, a total of 287 (response rate 21%, 187 men and 72 women; 28 missing values) participated in the research, spread over at least six different departments and four office locations. Of the 259 employees who provided us with their highest level of education, 27 took WO (university), 81 HBO (non-academic higher education), 16 VWO (academically oriented secondary education), 47 HAVO (higher secondary education), 55 MBO (secondary vocational education) and 8 VMBO degrees (lower secondary vocational education). The average employee was 49 years old (SD ¼ 7). The average number of years of experience in the organization was 21 years (SD ¼ 12) and the average number of years of experience in the current role was 10 years (SD ¼ 9). These numbers are in line with the statistics that are available for the total group of employees.

Measures

The different variables were measured with a digital questionnaire. The ques- tionnaire consisted of three sections. The first section collected demographic data and the second section asked for the employee’s perceptions of the PDP practice (the 3 supporting conditions). Section 3 measured the employees’ reaction to the PDP with regard to the outcome variables. All questions were answered making use of a five-point Likert scale, ranging from totally agree to totally disagree or from always to never (undertaking learning activities).

The supporting conditions of the PDP practice

To measure the employee’s perception of the PDP practice we used the validated PDP Practice Questionnaire (PPQ; Beausaert et al. 2011). The questionnaire drew inspiration from the Assessment Experience Questionnaire and its theoretical basis (Gibbs and Simpson 2004).

The questionnaire consists of the following scales: learning and reflection scale, information and feedback scale and the motivating supervisor scale. First, the learning and reflection scale measures to what extent employees perceive the reflection and learning value of a PDP. Second, the information and feedback scale asks for the employees’ perception of the supervisor’s guidelines on how to work with the PDP and his/her feedback about the PDP. It asks whether the criteria are clear and whether the feedback is specific, timely, providing constructive suggestions and given on a regular basis. Third, the motivating supervisor scale asks for the employees’ perception of the extent to which their supervisors leave room for autonomy and are involved (Deci and Ryan 2000; London and Smither 1999).

To assess the validity of the three PDP practice conditions, a confirmatory factor analysis was performed with the EQS 6.1 software (Bentler 1989). The software

Human Resource Development International 533

showed a strong model fit for the PPQ (w2/df ¼ 1.99; SRMR ¼ .067, RMSEA ¼ .059; CFI ¼ .93). Cronbach’s as were, respectively, .89 for the learning and reflection scale, .77 for the information and feedback scale and .74 for the motivating supervisor scale.

Employees’ reactions to the PDP

Undertaking learning activities. To measure the different types of learning activities undertaken we developed, based on our literature review (Beausaert et al. 2011), the learning activities scale (6 items). The scale measures to what extent employees undertake learning activities as a result of working with a PDP on a behavioural level. More specifically, on a five-point Likert scale ranging from never to always it was asked how often different types of learning activities were undertaken because of the PDP (i.e. trainings, courses, workshops, conferences, supervisions, internships and/or self-study).

Maximum likelihood analysis resulted in one factor with item loads of .67 and higher. The component had an eigenvalue of 3.98 (corresponding to 66% of the explained variance). All items that tagged the scale undertaking learning activities loaded on this component. The Cronbach’s a was .90.

Expertise-growth and flexibility. To measure the employee’s expertise-growth and flexibility, we made use of the Van der Heijden (2000) validated growth and flexibility scale. The scale (n ¼ 19 items) was adapted to the context of using PDPs. For example, the item ‘During that particular period, I concerned myself with the latest developments in the domain of my work’ was reformulated as ‘Since I started making use of a PDP, I keep myself up-to-date with the latest developments in the domain of my work’.

Initially the maximum likelihood analysis showed the existence of three factors. However, only two items loaded on the third component. When forced to two components, the analysis with oblimin rotation resulted in two factors with item loads of .41 and higher. Eleven items loaded on the first component which had an eigenvalue of 7.26 (corresponding to 38% of the explained variance) and was labelled the employee’s expertise-growth scale. Seven items loaded on the second component which had an eigenvalue of 3.30 (corresponding to 17% of the explained variance) and was labelled the employee’s flexibility scale. One item had a low loading [7.28; ‘I think it is possible that if I did not have all the information I needed, I would feel restricted in my work’ (R)] and was deleted. The Cronbach’s as were .90 and .80.

Performance. To measure the perceived performance we adapted the validated output of transfer behaviour scale of Xiao (1996), consisting of six items. Originally the scale was used to measure the effects of transfer of training. We adapted the questionnaire in order to measure employees’ reaction to the PDP in terms of improved performance. For example, the item ‘Using the new knowledge skills and attitudes (KSA) has helped improve my work’ was reformulated as ‘Using a PDP has helped me to improve my work’. This scale was originally in English and translated into Dutch for this research.

Maximum likelihood analysis resulted in one factor with item loads of .87 and higher. The component had an eigenvalue of 5.23 (corresponding to 87% of the explained variance). The Cronbach’s a was .93.

534 S. Beausaert et al.

For an overview of the different scales, example items, descriptives and Cronbach’s as, we refer to Table 1.

Method of analysis

First, descriptives and correlations between the variables were calculated. Second, we conducted hierarchical regression analyses to focus on the relative contribution of using a PDP in the prediction of employees’ reaction to the PDP with regard to undertaking learning activities, expertise-growth and flexibility, and improved performance, controlling for background variables. Third, based on the regression analysis, the mediation analyses were put forward. To verify the mediation hypotheses, regression analyses were executed using a procedure that is based on the four steps of Kenny, Kashy, and Bolger (1998).

Results

Preliminary analysis

Table 2 shows the means and the standard deviations and correlations between the three subscales of the PDP practice (learning and reflection, information and feedback and the motivating supervisor) and the four dependent variables (undertaking learning activities, expertise-growth, flexibility and performance). All scales correlate significantly and positively, except for the scale information and feedback which does not correlate with the scales undertaking learning activities and flexibility.

Table 1. Overview of the different scales and their descriptives.

Scale N M SD a Example item

The PDP practice Learning and reflection 8 2.79 .81 .89 Making the PDP really set me

thinking. Information and feedback 5 3.12 .62 .70 No matter what kind of feedback

I am receiving, I receive it too late to be useful.

The motivating supervisor 4 3.41 .67 .74 My supervisor leaves me enough space to determine the content of the PDP and the related meetings.

Outcome variables Undertaking learning activities 6 2.41 .87 .90 Since I am using a PDP I look up

things in books, journal or on the internet.

Expertise-growth 11 2.63 .61 .90 Since I am using a PDP, I am focused on new challenges as far as my work is concerned.

Flexibility 7 3.49 .69 .80 I consider myself able to deal with future automation flexibly.

Performance 6 2.54 .86 .93 Since I am using a PDP and have related meetings, the quality of my work has improved.

Human Resource Development International 535

The influence of the PDP conditions on the outcome variables

To determine the relation between the independent PDP practice conditions and the undertaking of learning activities, expertise-growth, flexibility and performance, we executed hierarchical regression analyses; controlling for the background variables gender, education, office, department (within the office) and experience in the employee’s current role. The findings show that the PDP condition learning and reflection relates significantly positively to all outcome variables, the undertaking of learning activities (b ¼ .38; p 5 .001), expertise-growth (b ¼ .52; p 5 .001), flexibility (b ¼ .21; p 5 .01) and performance (b ¼ .48; p 5 .001). Support is gathered for hypothesis 1.

Furthermore, information and feedback relates significantly positively to the employee’s expertise-growth (b ¼ .22; p 5 .01) and performance (b ¼ .20; p 5 .01). It does not relate significantly to the undertaking of learning activities (b ¼ .11; ns) or flexibility (b ¼ 7.00; ns). It can be concluded that information and feedback given in relation to the PDP is beneficial for the employee’s expertise- growth and performance. Since information and feedback does not relate to the two other outcome variables, support for hypothesis 3 is only partially found.

Finally, similar to the learning and reflection condition, the motivating supervisor relates significantly to all outcome measures: undertaking learning activities (b ¼ .22; p 5 .01), expertise-growth (b ¼ .19; p 5 .01), flexibility (b ¼ .21; p 5 .01) and performance (b ¼ .30; p 5 .001). Therefore, it can be concluded that when the supervisor supports and motivates the employee within a PDP practice, the employee will undertake learning activities, show expertise-growth and flexibility and an improved performance. Support for hypothesis 5 is gathered.

Table 3 illustrates the analyses conducted for one of the conditions, learning and reflection.

The mediating role of the extent to which employees undertake learning activities

First, the mediating role of the undertaking of learning activities between the learning and reflection condition and the three outcome variables (expertise-growth, flexibility and performance) was researched. To that end three different mediation analyses were conducted. As mentioned in the preliminary analysis, there is a significant and positive relation between learning and reflection (independent variable) and the outcome variables (dependent variables; step 1). In step 2 a significant relation between the independent variable and the undertaking of learning activities (mediating variable) is found. In step 3 significant relations between the

Table 2. Correlations.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Learning and reflection – 2. Information and feedback .48** – 3. Motivating supervisor .30** .40** – 4. Undertaking learning activities .39** .14* .20** – 5. Expertise-growth .50** .25** .19** .40** – 6. Flexibility .22** .06 .23** .38** .32** – 7. Performance .50** .23** .28** .44** .69** .23** –

Note: *p 5 .05, **p 5 .01.

536 S. Beausaert et al.

mediating variable (undertaking learning activities) and the dependent variables are found, while controlling for the independent variable. When the mediating variable is taken into account in step 4, a significant decrease of the relation between learning and reflection and expertise-growth and between learning and reflection and performance are found. The decrease of the relation between learning and reflection and flexibility is not significant. The Sobel test (Sobel 1982) shows that the indirect effect of learning and reflecting by using a PDP through undertaking learning activities on expertise-growth and performance is significant. Therefore, we can conclude that the relation between the learning and reflecting within a PDP practice and the employee’s expertise-growth and performance is partially mediated by the undertaking of learning activities (Table 4). This result partially supports hypothesis 2.

Table 4. Mediation analysis with the learning and reflection condition as independent variable.

Independent variable Mediator

Dependent variable Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Sobel R2

Learning and reflection

Undertaking learning act.

Expertise- growth

.50*** .38*** .24*** .41*** 3.73*** .30***

Flexibility .22*** .38*** .35*** .08 4.48*** .15*** Performance .50*** .38*** .29*** .39*** 4.29*** .32***

Notes: Step 1 ¼ Pad from the independent variable (learning and reflection) to the dependent variable (expertise-growth, flexibility or performance). Step 2 ¼ Pad from the independent variable to the mediating variable (undertaking learning activities). Step 3 ¼ Pad from the mediating variable to the dependent variable (controlled for the independent variable). Step 4 ¼ Pad from the independent variable to the dependent variable (controlled for the mediating variable). ***p 5.001.

Table 3. Hierarchical regression analyses of the learning and reflection condition on the outcome variables.

Undertaking learning activities

Expertise- growth Flexibility Performance

PDP practice condition b DR2 b DR2 b DR2 b DR2

Step 1 Gender .03 .07 7.01 .02 Education 7.11 7.10 .08 7.14* Office .07 .08 .13 .11 Department 7.08 7.06 7.02 7.16* Experience in role 7.04 .01 7.18 7.02

.02 .02 .05* .04 Step 2 Gender 7.03 7.02 7.04 7.06 Education 7.12 7.11 .07 7.15** Office .02 .01 .10 .05 Department 7.00 .05 .02 7.06 Experience in role .01 .06 7.16 .03 Learning and reflection .38*** .52*** .21** .48***

.13*** .25*** .04*** .21***

Notes: The reported regression coefficients are standardized coefficients. *p 5 .05, **p 5 .01, ***p 5 .001.

Human Resource Development International 537

Second, the mediating role of the undertaking of learning activities between the motivating supervisor condition and the outcome variables was researched. These analyses show similar results as the previous mediation analyses. It can be concluded that the relation between the motivating supervisor within a PDP practice and the employee’s expertise-growth and performance is partially mediated by the under- taking of learning activities (Table 5). This result supports hypothesis 6 partially.

The relation between the information and feedback condition and the undertaking of learning activities is not significant. Hence, no mediations are calculated with the information and feedback condition as independent variable. Support against hypothesis 4 is gathered.

Discussion

The results of this study indicate that if the employee perceives the PDP as a reflection and learning tool, and if the supervisor is perceived as motivating, the employee will be far more likely to react positively to the PDP by undertaking more learning activities, showing more expertise-growth and flexibility and reporting improved performance.

When we researched the PDP practice in an organizational context, our results are in line with previous research conducted within a school setting (students). Tillema (2001) stated: ‘Putting PDPs [portfolios] to use essentially means setting the goals for learning and reflection first’. The supervisor can motivate the employee in this by creating a learning environment in which the learner takes control over his/ her learning. The supervisor communicates the goals of using the tool, introduces in which way it should be used, supports and motivates the employee, has meetings with the employee on a regular basis, is autonomy-supportive, takes care of the follow-up and gives high-quality feedback. Similar results were found in the portfolio literature. Tillema (2001), for example, found reflective portfolios, focusing on documenting professional growth and determining learning goals, to be effective for supporting learning and a better performance. Furthermore, Tigelaar and others (2006) found a positive relation between using a PDP and reflection in teachers. However, the research showed that this reflection is often not very profound and teachers do not easily reflect on their motivation, feelings, thoughts and their personality. The support of a coach, colleague or supervisor who stimulates the

Table 5. Mediation analysis with the motivating supervisor condition as independent variable.

Independent variable Mediator

Dependent variable Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Sobel R2

Motivating supervisor

Undertaking learning act.

Expertise- growth

.19** .20** .37*** .11* 3.13** .17***

Flexibility .23*** .20** .35*** .16** 3.07** .17*** Performance .28*** .20** .40*** .19*** 3.19** .23***

Notes: Step 1 ¼ Pad from the independent variable (motivating supervisor) to the dependent variable (expertise-growth, flexibility or performance). Step 2 ¼ Pad from the independent variable to the mediating variable (undertaking learning activities). Step 3 ¼ Pad from the mediating variable to the dependent variable (controlled for the independent variable). Step 4 ¼ Pad from the independent variable to the dependent variable (controlled for the mediating variable). *p 5.05, **p 5.01, ***p 5.001.

538 S. Beausaert et al.

reflection is necessary, for example, during a formal professional development meeting every 6 months.

Second, contrary to our hypothesis, the results show that, although the information and feedback given within a PDP practice are related to the employee’s expertise-growth and performance, there is no significant relation with the degree in which employees undertake learning activities and their level of flexibility. Various explanations for these contrasting findings are explored in the literature. Of specific interest are the studies on the effects of 3608-feedback. For example, the study of London and Smither (1995) showed that the characteristics of the feedback recipients (attitudes, personality or self-efficacy) influence their reaction to and use of the feedback. In relation to this study, one possible hypothesis is that undertaking learning activities and flexibility may be more dependent on the recipient’s characteristics. Additionally, the feedback that employees receive from their supervisors, which we addressed in our study, might be more focused on the employee’s development and performance than on encouraging employees in undertaking learning activities.

Third, the mediation hypotheses concerning the partial mediation of undertaking learning activities between the learning and reflection condition and the dependent variables (expertise-growth and performance), and between the motivating super- visor and the dependent variables, were supported. This confirms former research conducted by Davis et al. (1999). They found that when employees participate in activating learning activities, it can effect change in professional practice of physicians. Moreover, these results are in line with research evidencing the role of the supervisor in organizing a positive learning climate in which employees are stimulated to work on their professional development (Noe and Wilk 1993).

Fourth, in contrast to our hypothesis, no partial mediation effect was found for undertaking learning activities between learning and reflection and flexibility and between the motivating supervisor and flexibility. However, we believe that flexibility might be explained by the opportunity to carry out various tasks in a job, which might be a more powerful predictor of flexibility than the undertaking of learning activities. Therefore supervisors need to organize the environment in such a way that employees can learn from a variety of tasks in their job (Van der Heijden 2000).

Limitations and implications for future research

This study has some limitations which should be taken into account by future research.

First, because of this study’s cross-sectional design, changes over time cannot be determined; consequently it does not allow us to draw conclusions about causality. However, Smith and Tillema (1998) indicated that, to have high-quality PDPs, it is important that one uses the tool for a longer period of time, since that influences the effects positively. Longitudinal research could shed more light on this matter.

A second limitation concerns the generalization of the research. This research incorporated results from one organization. It is relevant for future research to validate our findings across various organizations. Supporting conditions and effects may differ according to organizational learning culture (Marsick and Watkins 2003), sectors or disciplines (e.g. Datta, Guthrie, and Wright 2005), type of organizations (market-oriented or not; Baker and Sinkula 1999), type of employees (e.g. experienced versus non-experienced) and organization sizes (small versus large-

Human Resource Development International 539

scale; Saru 2007). Often larger organizations show a more sophisticated human resources management (Guthrie 2001). Moreover, the resources and time provided for employees to invest in their PDP can vary depending on the type of organization.

Next, future research should look into the relations with other influencing environmental and personal variables which can influence the PDP practice and in turn the outcome variables; such as job pressure, job satisfaction, motivation and personality (Beausaert et al. 2011).

Third, in this study, we measured employees’ reactions to the PDP. However, questioning employees on the learning activities undertaken, expertise-growth and performance can induce socially desirable answers. A next step in the research into PDPs should focus on the extent to which these reactions lead to change in behaviour and in flexibility in terms of mobility. However, when researching employees’ behaviour related to PDP use, one has to study learning activities, expertise development and performance through using observable measures. Then again, multi-rater feedback – which uses questions from multiple sources, such as peers and supervisors – is probably not a good measure of employees’ behaviour regarding PDP use. For example, Jellema, Visscher, and Scheerens (2006) found that multisource feedback is not an efficient method for training evaluation.

Fourth, the organization indicated that the tool is used for both learning/ development and certification/selection purposes. Whether using a PDP for both purposes might have influenced employees’ reactions remains a question. Research indicated that when a PDP was used for selection purposes the employees’ sense of self-protection and fear of underachieving can lead to collecting unauthentic evidence and the construction of invalid PDPs (Smith and Tillema 1998, 2001). This in turn might jeopardize the employees’ reactions to a PDP in the sense that s/he does not use the PDP as a tool for guiding his/her professional development. Research into assessment has argued that formative (learning/development purposes) and summative assessments (certification/selection purposes) should not be combined and conducted by the same supervisor (e.g. Wolf and Dietz 1998). Therefore we suggest for follow-up research to take into account the nature of the purposes of the PDP as perceived by the employee, as well as how this influences the PDP’s effectiveness.

Fifth, no partial mediation effect was found for undertaking learning activities between learning and reflection and flexibility and between the motivating supervisor and flexibility. Future research should look into the variety of tasks the employee fulfilled in the past and their effects on flexibility.

Finally, to deepen our understanding of how the PDP practice affects the employees’ reactions to the tool, we recommend the additional use of qualitative research methods such as interviews.

Implications for practice

This study has some implications for human resource development in organizations. This study refutes the sceptics in many organizations by showing that employees can react positively to PDP assessment as long as supporting conditions are perceived. It is important for an organization to measure employees’ perceptions of the PDP practice since employees need to perceive the PDP in such a manner so that they react positively to it. When employees do not perceive the PDP as a tool that stimulates their reflection and learning, the causes need to be researched and changes

540 S. Beausaert et al.

in the implementation of the PDP need to be made. Next, an organization scores high on the Information and feedback scale if the organization communicates explicitly and clearly about the PDP. The criteria and the format that are used have to be clear. Furthermore, feedback meetings need to be explicitly planned. Finally, the supervisor (and the format) needs to provide the employee with sufficient freedom for the employee to feel responsible for his/her learning. It is important to strike a balance between guiding and providing the employee with a structure on the one hand and leaving enough room for the employee to personalize the PDP on the other. As such, a PDP will contribute to the undertaking of learning activities and, consequently, expertise-growth, flexibility and an improved performance.

The supervisor plays a pivotal role in this process, by supporting the learning and reflection by the employee. In meetings in which the supervisor discusses the employee’s PDP with the employee him/herself, particular attention should be drawn to the learning of the employee and stimulating his/her reflection on the learning process. Based on our results, we suggest setting up training sessions in which supervisors are introduced to the underlying theory of the assessment cycles and the related tools. It is only when the supervisors are aware of the underlying theory and the assumptions that it makes, that they will be able to make them explicit to their employees.

Conclusion

The results of our study contribute to the current insights into the value of PDP use: the effective use of a PDP is related to the presence of supporting conditions. Only when supervisors stimulate their employees to use PDPs as learning tools to reflect on their experiences and when supervisors motivate their employees by introducing the PDP as an autonomy-supportive learning tool, can employees be expected to undertake more learning activities and consequently show more expertise-growth, flexibility and an improved job performance.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Prof. Dr. Kari Smith from the University of Bergen, Norway for her fruitful advice on this paper and Petra Van der Jeught for her detailed corrections.

References Anseel, F., F. Lievens, and E. Schollaert. 2009. Reflection as a strategy to enhance task

performance after feedback. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 110: 23–35.

Ashford, S.J. 1986. Feedback-seeking in individual adaptation: A resource perspective. Academy of Management Journal 29: 465–87.

Atwater, L.E., and J.F. Brett. 2005. Antecedents and consequences of reactions to developmental 3608-feedback. Journal of Vocational Behavior 66: 532–48.

Austin, Z., A. Marini, and B. Desroches. 2005. Use of a learning portfolio for continuous professional development: A study of pharmacists in Ontario (Canada). Pharmacy Education 5: 175–81.

Baker, W.E., and J.M. Sinkula. 1999. The synergistic effect of market orientation and learning orientation on organizational performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 27: 411–27.

Human Resource Development International 541

Beausaert, S., M. Segers, J. van der Rijt, and W. Gijselaers. 2011. The use of personal development plans in the workplace: A literature review. In Building learning experiences in a changing world, Advances in Business Education and Training III, ed. P. van den Bossche, W. Gijselaers, and R. Milter, Dordrecht: Springer.

Bentler, P.M. 1989. EQS structural equations program manual. Los Angeles: BM Software. Bullock, A., V. Firmstone, J. Frame, and J. Bedward. 2007. Enhancing the benefit of

continuing professional development: A randomized controlled study of personal development plans for dentists. Learning in Health and Social Care 6: 14–26.

Bunker, A., and M. Leggett. 2004. Being wise about teaching portfolios: Exploring the barriers to their development and maintenance. http://www.herdsa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/ conference/2004/PDF/P047-jt.pdf (accessed September 20, 2007).

Butler, D.L., and P.H. Winne. 1995. Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research 65: 245–81.

Datta, D.K., J.P. Guthrie, and P.M. Wright. 2005. Human resource management and labor productivity: Does industry matter? Academy of Management Journal 48: 135–45.

Davis, D.M.D., M.A. Thomson O’Brien, N. Freemantle, F.M. Wolf, P. Mazmanian, and A. Taylor-Vaisey. 1999. Impact of formal continuing medical education. Do conferences, workshops, round, and other traditional continuing education activities change physician behaviour or health care outcomes? American Medical Association 282: 867–74.

Deci, E.L., and R.M. Ryan. 2000. The ‘‘what’’ and ‘‘why’’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry: An International Journal for the Advancement of Psychological Theory 11: 227–68.

Ericsson, A., N. Charness, P.J. Feltovich, and R.R. Hoffman. 2006. Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Evans, A., S. Ali, C. Singleton, P. Nolan, and J. Bahrami. 2002. The effectiveness of personal education plans in CPD: An evaluation. Medical Teacher 24: 79–84.

Gibbs, G., and C. Simpson. 2004. Does your assessment support your student’s learning? Journal of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education 1: 3–21.

Guthrie, J.P. 2001. High-involvement work practices, turnover, and productivity: Evidence from New Zealand. The Academy of Management Journal 44: 180–90.

Hattie, J., and H. Timperley. 2007. The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research 77: 81–112.

Ilgen, D.R., C.D. Fisher, and M.S. Taylor. 1979. Consequences of individual feedback on behaviour in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology 64: 349–71.

Jellema, F., A. Visscher, and J. Scheerens. 2006. Measuring change in work behavior by means of multisource feedback. International Journal of Training and Development 10: 121–39.

Kenny, D. A., D.A. Kashy, and N. Bolger. 1998. Data analysis in social psychology. In The handbook of social psychology, ed. D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, and G. Lindzey. 4th ed. Vol. 1, 233–65. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Kluger, A.N., and A. DeNisi. 1996. The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin 119: 254–84.

Knowles, M. 1975. Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. Chicago: Follet. Kolb, D.A. 1984. Experiential learning. Chicago: Prentice Hall. London, M., H.H. Larsen, and L.N. Thisted. 1999. Relationships between feedback and self-

development. Group & Organizational Management 24: 5–27. London, M., and J.W. Smither. 1995. Can multi-source feedback change perceptions of goal

accomplishments, self-evaluation and performance-related outcomes? Personnel Psychol- ogy 48: 803–39.

London, M., and J.W. Smither. 1999. Empowered self-development and continuous learning. Human Resource Management 38: 3–15.

Marsick, V.J., and K.E. Watkins. 2003. Demonstrating the value of an organization’s learning culture: The dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire. Advances in Developing Human Resources 5: 132–51.

Maurer, T.J., D.R.D. Mitchell, and F.G. Barbeite. 2002. Predictors of attitudes toward a 360- degree feedback system and involvement in post-feedback management development activity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 75: 87–107.

542 S. Beausaert et al.

McMullan, M., R. Endacott, M.A. Gray, M. Jasper, C.M.L. Miller, J. Scholes, and C. Webb. 2003. Portfolios and assessment of competence: A review of the literature. Journal of Advanced Nursing 41: 283–94.

Noe, R.A. 1988. An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships. Personnel Psychology 41: 457–79.

Noe, R.A. 1996. Is career management related to employee development and performance? Journal of Organizational Behavior 17: 119–33.

Noe, R.A., and S.L. Wilk. 1993. Investigation of the factors that influence employees’ participation in development activities. Journal of Applied Psychology 78: 291–302.

Pham, N.T.P., M.S.R. Segers, and W.H. Gijselaers. 2010. Understanding training transfer effects from a motivational perspective: A test of MBA programs. Business Leadership Review 7: 1–25.

Saru, E. 2007. Organisational learning and HRD: How appropriate are they for small firms? Journal of European Industrial Training 31: 36–51.

Shute, V.J. 2008. Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research 78: 153–89. Smith, K., and H. Tillema. 1998. Evaluating portfolio use as a learning tool for professionals.

Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 42: 193–205. Smith, K., and H. Tillema. 2001. Long-term influences of portfolios on professional

development. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 45: 183–202. Sobel, M.E. 1982. Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In

Sociological methodology 1982, ed. S. Leinhart, 290–312. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Taylor, M.S., C.D. Fisher, and D.R. Ilgen. 1984. Individuals’ reactions to performance

feedback in organizations. A control theory perspective. In Research in personnel and human resources management, ed. K.M. Rowland and G.R. Ferris, 81–124. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Tigelaar, D.E.H., D.H.J.M. Dolmans, W.S. De Grave, I.H.A.P. Wolfhagen, and C.P.M. Van der Vleuten. 2006. Portfolio as a tool to stimulate teachers’ reflections. Medical Teacher 28: 277–82.

Tillema, H.H. 2001. Portfolios as developmental assessment tools. International Journal of Training and Development 5: 126–35.

Tillema, H.H., and K. Smith. 2000. Learning from portfolios: Differential use of feedback in portfolio construction. Studies in Educational Evaluation 26: 193–210.

Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M. 2000. The development and psychometric evaluation of a multi- dimensional measurement instrument of professional expertise. High Ability Studies. The Journal of the European Council for High Ability 11: 9–39.

Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M., and A.H.J. Nijhof. 2004. The value of subjectivity: Problems and prospects for 360-degree appraisal systems. International Journal of Human Resource Management 15: 493–511.

Wildy, H., and J. Wallace. 1998. Professionalism, portfolios and the development of school leaders. School Leadership and Management 18: 123–40.

Wolf, K., and M. Dietz. 1998. Teaching portfolios: Purposes and possibilities. Teacher Educational Quarterly 25: 9–22.

Xiao, J. 1996. The relationship between organizational factors and the transfer of training in the electronics industry in Shenzhen, China. Human Resource Development Quarterly 7: 55–72.

Human Resource Development International 543

Copyright of Human Resource Development International is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.