Tl 6 2 the impact of ojt on the trainer orgainzational commitment

The purpose of this study was to examine the causal relationships between S-OJT trainer preparation, self-efficacy as a trainer, trainers’ delivery of S-OJT, and organizational commitment as a consequence of employing S-OJT. This study proposed a theoretical model from the review of related literature and then empirically investigated the fitness of the proposed model. This study was conducted in a life insurance company in Korea. A questionnaire was distributed to 334 randomly selected S-OJT trainers in Seoul. There were 235 usable questionnaires. structural equation modeling and principal factor analysis were applied to conduct a data analysis. The results showed that the chi-square was significant, along with good model fit indices. As a result, the causal links in the proposed model were established and these results fully supported the study hypotheses. Finally, the study discussed some implications for HRD, focusing on S-OJT.

The impact of structured on-the-job training (S-OJT) on a trainer’s organizational commitment

Daeyeon Cho

Received: 8 April 2008 / Revised: 23 January 2009 / Accepted: 11 February 2009 / Published online: 10 June 2009

Ó Education Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea 2009

Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine the causal relationships between S-OJT trainer preparation, self-efficacy as a trainer, trainers’ delivery of S-OJT, and organizational commitment as a consequence of employing S-OJT This study proposed a theoretical model from the review of related literature and then empirically investi-gated the fitness of the proposed model This study was conducted in a life insurance company in Korea A ques-tionnaire was distributed to 334 randomly selected S-OJT trainers in Seoul There were 235 usable questionnaires structural equation modeling and principal factor analysis were applied to conduct a data analysis The results showed that the chi-square was significant, along with good model fit indices As a result, the causal links in the proposed model were established and these results fully supported the study hypotheses Finally, the study discussed some implications for HRD, focusing on S-OJT.

Keywords S-OJT
S-OJT trainer
Organizational commitment
Self-efficacy

In the field of human resource development (HRD), employee development has been used to improve employee competence, allowing them to perform better on the job and in turn enhance organizational performance (Swanson and Holton2001) Traditionally, most planned employee development in organizations takes place in off-the-job settings (Jacobs 2002) Concurrently, knowledge and understanding can also be further advanced through

planned ‘‘teaching and learning’’ in the actual work setting (Fuller and Unwin2002).

For those reasons, an efficient on-the-job training (OJT) program is vital for developing the highly skilled employees needed for a business’ success In this regard, structured on-the-job training (S-OJT), as a form of plan-ned training on the job, has recently received much atten-tion from HRD researchers and practiatten-tioners alike (Jacobs

2003) S-OJT has many advantages as a planned training program, such as predictable training outcomes and a manageable process.

At the same time, there is an increasing interest among HRD professionals in the integration of learning with working on the job (Ellstrom 2001) Because S-OJT incorporates not only the characteristics of planned training programs, but also learning in the actual work settings, it is evident that S-OJT can enhance organizational perfor-mance more effectively than other training programs Empirically, some researchers (e.g., Bennett and Calvin

2002; Jacobs and Osman-Gani1999; Stolovitch and Ngoa-Nguele2001) have reported that S-OJT has helped to make valuable contributions in terms of increasing the produc-tivity of an organization With this attention to S-OJT, some studies (e.g., Jacobs 1996; Jacobs et al.1992) have demonstrated the effectiveness and efficiency of S-OJT compared with mainly off-JT and unstructured OJT in terms of its financial benefits, high satisfaction rating, and fewer quality errors.

However, relatively limited attention has been given to the S-OJT trainer Viewing S-OJT as a system, trainers can be regarded as an important component of that system A system view of S-OJT represents the interaction of several components, such as the training inputs, the training pro-cess, the training outputs, and the organizational context (Jacobs2003) In particular, an experienced employee who D Cho (&)

Department of Education, College of Education, KoreaUniversity, Anam-Dong, Seongbuk Gu, Seoul, Koreae-mail: chodae@korea.ac.kr

DOI 10.1007/s12564-009-9037-9

acts as the trainer is an important component of the S-OJT inputs Furthermore, the training process focuses on a trainer’s actions Nevertheless, the training outputs that can be produced from the interactive and iterative combination of the training inputs and the training process have only been highlighted from the aspect of the trainees In other words, any consequences of S-OJT on the trainer have not yet been empirically reported.

In general, experienced employees who serve as trainers tend not to be teaching and learning professionals Being an S-OJT trainer can be viewed as a challenge that enables experienced employees to dedicate themselves to the development of their fellow employees Consequently, trainer preparation activities like train-the-trainer courses can assist them to be effective adult educators in the workplace.

In addition, the delivery of S-OJT is based on various forms of widely mutual interactions between the trainer and trainee, such as discussions, dialogs, and non-verbal behaviors Such interactions can be called developmental and learning interactions (D’Abate et al.2003) By having a social process between the trainer and trainee in S-OJT, development and growth opportunities can be provided to trainers These opportunities play a significant role as an antecedent of organizational commitment (Cho and Kwon

According to a system view of S-OJT in relation to the trainer, S-OJT trainer preparation through train-the-trainer programs can be viewed as an input Trainer self-efficacy is regarded as its output At the same time, these constructs play a role as the S-OJT inputs, and trainers’ delivery of S-OJT is viewed as the training process Finally, the organizational commitment of trainers can be an output of the dynamic interactions between input and process components Nev-ertheless, little is known about this causal relationship.

Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the causal relationships between S-OJT trainer preparation, self-efficacy as a trainer, trainers’ delivery of S-OJT, and organizational commitment as a consequence of employing S-OJT Specifically, based on viewing S-OJT as a system, how S-OJT trainer preparation, self-efficacy as a trainer, and trainers’ delivery of S-OJT influence trainers’ organi-zational commitment was highlighted In order to address this purpose, this study proposed a theoretical model from the review of related literature and then empirically investigated the fitness of the proposed model regarding the relationships between the main variables.

Literature review

This section provides a review of S-OJT research, includ-ing its definition and unique features, S-OJT trainer

preparation through train-the-trainer programs, and the delivery of S-OJT It presents literature related to trainer self-efficacy and organizational commitment, and proposes three research hypotheses based on the relationships among the variables of this study.

Definition and features of S-OJT

On-the-job training refers to training that takes place at a trainee’s regular workstation OJT as a form of individu-alized training can be designed and delivered using two basic approaches: structured OJT and unstructured OJT (Jacobs2003) S-OJT differs from unstructured OJT in that a systematic planning process is used to design and carry out the training (Stolovitch and Ngoa-Nguele 2001), and work behaviors are separated into manageable units and documented in modules (Jones and Jacobs 1997) Unstructured OJT occurs on the worksite but is not logi-cally sequenced As such, learners are expected to learn by watching what experienced workers do or by actually doing the work Unstructured OJT is often ineffective and inefficient as compared with S-OJT (Johnson and Leach

On the other hand, S-OJT is a form of individualized training that allows a novice employee in need of train-ing to receive the necessary knowledge, develop the required skills, and improve his or her performance on the job The objectives of S-OJT are clearly outlined, the content is precisely described, training processes are intentional, and evaluation is based on performance on the job (Bjorkquist and Murphy 1996) Those functions of S-OJT are closely associated with improving trainees’ performance as an expected outcome of S-OJT Jacobs (2003, p 28) defined S-OJT as ‘‘the planned process of developing competence on units of work by having an experienced employee train a novice employee at the work setting or a location that closely resembles the work setting.’’ Consequently, the core elements of S-OJT include a knowledgeable trainer, a prepared trainee, and good documentation.

There is an agreement on two distinct features of S-OJT compared with classroom training First, the amount of time between the instructional events can be reduced A trainee has an immediate opportunity to use and practice what she or he has learned on the job (DeSimone and Harris 1998) Therefore, a trainer can achieve learning objectives more efficiently Second, the transfer of learning is enhanced in S-OJT environments, especially in the match between the training setting and work setting (Jacobs 2003) Because the learning environment is the same as the work environment in S-OJT, a trainee is able to use the same equipment and tools that he or she is meant to use to perform his or her actual work Thus, S-OJT has a

greater potential to achieve a transfer of training compared to classroom training.

The delivery of S-OJT

Training processes are described by trainers’ delivery of S-OJT The determination of what happens in the training process is based on the trainers’ actions Therefore, the trainers’ various actions to deliver S-OJT should receive much attention In regard to the delivery of contents, S-OJT focuses on trainers’ actions related to the preparation of the training, the use of a training module, and an evaluation of what the trainee has learned Based on Jacobs’ work (2003), this study addresses five training events to describe trainers’ actions.

1 Prepare the delivery The trainer should decide on the most appropriate time and location to deliver the training Training resources have to be secured and the S-OJT module should be reviewed.

2 Prepare the trainee The main purpose of this event as a trainer’s first action is to prepare the trainee to learn The trainer establishes comfort, explains the context, and describes the purpose and rationale of the training 3 Present the training This event requires the trainer to demonstrate a set of behavioral actions to the trainee In other words, the trainer should explain and show each step at a time (Johnson and Leach2001) 4 Require a response The trainee must participate and

respond actively The trainer prompts the trainee to perform In other words, the trainee needs to be encouraged to try units of work and describe them as the trainer has demonstrated.

5 Provide feedback and evaluate performance Based on the trainee’s responses, the trainer should try to correct errors The trainer should give appropriate feedback and encouragement with assessing the adequacy of the trainee’s responses Finally, the S-OJT trainer evalu-ates whether the trainee has achieved the training objectives.

The delivery of S-OJT is an interactive process based on one-on-one communication between the trainer and trainee (Osman-Gani and Zidan2001) All events used to deliver S-OJT are based on widely mutual interactions between the trainer and trainee in more meaningful ways, including discussions, dialogs, and performance evaluations (Stein

2001) Although trainees are novice employees who lack the appropriate competence to fully perform their jobs, they have some degree of experience and knowledge derived from their lives The trainee may often have information that the trainer does not currently know S-OJT allows the trainer to work with a trainee who has a different background and different personal experience.

The trainer uses discussions to show how tasks could be done or what she or he would like the trainee to do These discussions offer opportunities for both the trainer and trainee to explore alternative ways of tackling parts of a job (Harris et al 2000) As such, trainers also have opportu-nities to acquire new knowledge and skills through inter-actions with the trainee during the delivery of S-OJT For example, Fuller and Unwin (2002) found that experienced and inexperienced employees taught a wide range of knowledge and skills to each other Consequently, the delivery steps of S-OJT are something greater than just describing trainers’ actions to deliver the training module.

S-OJT trainer preparation and self-efficacy as a trainer

As the use of S-OJT is increasing in industry, there is a greater need for effective S-OJT trainers At the same time, the use of experienced employees as S-OJT trainers tends to be increased (Williams 2001) However, we cannot be expected to have expert workers possessing higher levels of expertise to perform the job and the competencies required to effectively share their knowledge with others (Walter

1998; Williams 2001) Because of this, recently, many organizations have come to recognize the importance of any training program to prepare effective S-OJT trainers (Jacobs2003).

Prospective S-OJT trainers need to complete train-the-trainer courses to understand good training techniques and how to best facilitate learning In other words, prospective trainers are expected to develop training-related skills and instructor-related skills through a train-the-trainer course (Johnson and Leach2001) It is evident that the basics of design and delivery, such as conducting needs assessment, developing objectives, creating an agenda, developing instructional events, and evaluating learning outcomes, still need to be included as core components of any train-the-trainer program (Meyer and Marsick2003).

Through an empirical study, Burkett (2002) demon-strated the effect of train-the-trainer programs: participants indicated their enhanced confidence and competence after the train-the-trainer program More specifically, there are intangible benefits received by participants from train-the-trainer programs, including increased productivity, increased morale, and improved training quality Through train-the-trainer programs, trainers absorb adult learning theory and training techniques to adequately train others Without those knowledge and skills, trainers will have difficulty maximizing the effectiveness of training delivery Viewing S-OJT as a system, the trainer is a critical input component The S-OJT process can be described by trainers’ actions along with the instructional events For S-OJT to be more effective, trainers should be well prepared to obtain appropriate competencies As such, their

preparation to serve as S-OJT trainers affects their various actions in delivering S-OJT.

Swanson and Falkman (1997) surveyed 371 novice trainers and asked them to recall training delivery problems they had experienced Their study found that fear from a lack of confidence, feeling anxious, and a lack of personal experiences as a trainer were the most common difficulties for novice trainers Therefore, programs used to train S-OJT trainers make it possible for S-S-OJT trainers to reduce such common fears and anxieties Through these programs, S-OJT trainers often have higher expectations to be suc-cessful trainers.

This study focused on S-OJT trainers’ self-efficacy as a consequence of train-the-trainer courses The concept of self-efficacy contains an individual’s belief of what she or he can do This study defined self-efficacy as an individ-ual’s judgment of the likelihood that they have the capacity to successfully perform their tasks as an S-OJT trainer.

Some empirical studies have revealed that there is a positive relationship between training or learning activities and self-efficacy Self-efficacy can be increased as a result of learning and feedback (Washington2002) For example, Prieto and Meyers (1999) tested the effect of a formal training program for graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) on self-efficacy toward teaching and found that GTAs receiving training possessed a greater sense of self- effi-cacy Orpen (1999) also indicated that financial service employees who received more formal training had higher levels of self-efficacy in their ability to do their jobs.

Before delivering S-OJT, trainers have various learning opportunities, which can be from train-the-trainer courses Based on these experiences, S-OJT trainers should be able to explain and demonstrate perfectly, in front of a trainee, the work content that they have done for many years Therefore, such positive experiences enable S-OJT trainers to feel that they have much higher capacities to perform their jobs as trainers.

Hypothesis 1 S-OJT trainer preparation through train-the-trainer programs has a positive impact on a trainer’s delivery of S-OJT and self-efficacy as a trainer.

Hypothesis 2 Self-efficacy as a trainer has a positive influence on a trainer’s delivery of S-OJT.

Organizational commitment

According to Bartlett (2001, p 336), ‘‘organizational commitment can be thought of as the level of attachment felt toward the organization in which one is employed.’’ In general, organizational commitment refers to an individ-ual’s feelings about the organization as a whole (Ensher et al 2001) Of all the forms of organizational commit-ment, affective commitment has shown the strongest

correlation with desirable outcomes; hence, organizations typically strive to foster this type of commitment among their employees (Meyer and Allen 1997) Affective com-mitment refers to ‘‘the employee’s emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organiza-tion’’ (Meyer and Allen1991, p 67) If employees have a strong affective commitment, they will stay in an organi-zation because they want to do so.

Researchers have theoretically and empirically posited the relationship between organizational commitment and its antecedents Some studies have focused on its rela-tionship to workplace learning (Cho and Kwon 2005) Consistently, findings have shown that participation in training programs provided by an organization enhances participants’ organizational commitment Employees’ per-ception of learning and growth opportunities in the work-place plays a significant role in enhancing organizational commitment.

In S-OJT cases, as trainers are deeply and sincerely engaged in the train-the-trainer program, they themselves have the opportunity to acquire new knowledge and skills that enable them to be effective S-OJT trainers In addi-tion, since the social processes between the trainer and trainee are distinctive features of S-OJT, mutual learning and development interactions between them are more likely to occur In other words, S-OJT is based on social processes and close contact between the trainer and trai-nee Therefore, there are a variety of opportunities for S-OJT trainers to acquire or update their knowledge and skills Black et al (1996) also indicated that one of the strengths of S-OJT is that there are a great number of developmental opportunities for S-OJT trainers Conse-quently, both the delivery of S-OJT and trainer prepara-tion focusing train-the-trainer courses can be viewed as learning and developmental opportunities for trainers themselves and play a role as an antecedent of S-OJT trainers’ organizational commitment.

Organizational commitment can be developed through a social exchange mechanism as a result of positive work experiences (Meyer and Allen 1991; Bartlett 2001) For instance, if organizations provide employees with useful opportunities to improve their capabilities and meet their individual needs, the employees in turn are more likely to feel a stronger organizational commitment Such an opportunity may be seen as a reward for and recognition of their effort (Unwin and Fuller 2003) Being an S-OJT trainer means that an organization acknowledges the trai-ner’s level of competence In addition, S-OJT enables trainers to develop their reputation as a leader and an expert with knowledge and wisdom to share Consequently, such positive opportunities given from organizations are valued by trainers In turn, they can be committed to the organization that provided these experiences.

Hypothesis 3 Both trainers’ delivery of OJT and S-OJT trainer preparation has a positive impact on trainers’ organizational commitment.

This study was conducted in a life insurance company in Korea where S-OJT is being implemented to provide tech-nical training for new employees In this company, new financial consultants (FCs) receive 40 days of field training with experienced FCs An experienced FC conducts S-OJT for the new FC The length of each S-OJT session is approximately 8 h During the field-training period, new FCs should complete at least 10 S-OJT sessions.

The population consisted of all S-OJT trainers who were working in Seoul, Korea The total population trainers in Seoul are 2498 According to the table for determining sample size from a given population (Krejcie and Morgan

1970, p 608), the appropriate sample size for this study is 334 trainers A questionnaire was distributed to 334 ran-domly selected S-OJT trainers from 20 divisional offices of the company in Seoul Finally, 246 questionnaires were returned Among them, 11 questionnaires were returned uncompleted or nearly uncompleted These 11 were elim-inated from further analyses As a result, there were 235 usable questionnaires, yielding a response rate of 70.35% A check was made to identify any out-of-range values by examining stem and leaf diagrams and frequency tables All of the items did not have any extreme outliers.

Demographic information was collected on the respon-dents’ age, education level, and length of service as a FC at the organization The population of this study consists solely of females, because in Korea FC is a strictly female occupation as a long-term career Thus, gender was con-trolled in this study The average age of the respondents is 42.29 years (SD = 5.08) The average length of service as a FC in the organization is 7.44 (SD = 3.37) Of the respondents, 68.5% have completed high school, 13.2% have a 2-year college degree, 14.4% have a 4-year college degree Nearly 4% did not provide information about their education level.

As suggested by Miller and Smith (1983), respondents were divided into two groups to control non-response error Early respondents were those who responded to the first mailing Late respondents were defined as those who responded to the second mailing The two groups were compared with a couple of variables t-tests indicated no statistical difference between early respondents and late respondents on organizational commitment (t = -.597,

d.f = 232, p [ 05) and self-efficacy (t = 813, d.f = 229, p [ 05).

The instrument was developed based on either established construct scales (for example, organizational commitment and self-efficacy) or new construct scales This study developed new construct scales after an extensive review of the related literature In addition, the existing scales were revised to fit into the context of this study For example, to measure self-efficacy as a trainer, this study used the teacher efficacy short form scale developed by Hoy and Woolfolk (1990) The researcher modified some wordings After developing the instrument, it was reviewed for content validity by a panel of seven experts Also, the instrument was field tested with a group of S-OJT trainers During the field test, suitability and face validity were established All items were linked to a six-point Likert scale ranging from 6 = ‘‘strongly agree (or always)’’ to 1 = ‘‘strongly disagree (or never)’’ with the exceptions of trainers’ participation in training and learning activities and previous experience as an S-OJT trainer.

S-OJT trainer preparation

This construct was measured by the trainer’s perception about the extent to which knowledge and skills that are learned in the train-the-trainer program were useful to their current S-OJT practice S-OJT trainer preparation through the train-the-trainer program was evaluated using an average score comprised five related items, including understanding the importance of S-OJT, use of appropriate instruction events, trainees’ learning evaluation and so on.

S-OJT trainer’s delivery of S-OJT

This latent construct consisted of six variables Jacobs (2003) identified the three basic actions of trainers to pre-pare to deliver S-OJT, along with five instructional events and the 17 actions to deliver S-OJT A 20-item scale was developed to identify trainers’ actions to deliver S-OJT.

Self-efficacy as an S-OJT trainer

This variable represented the respondent’s belief about whether she/he can successfully deliver S-OJT by using her/his skills and knowledge This study employed a scale used by Hoy and Woolfolk (1990) According to them, self-efficacy as a trainer represented an independent factor from other similar self-efficacy scales The alpha coeffi-cient of reliability was 84 in their study Also this instru-ment was translated into Korean In order to validate the

translation, a consensus Korean-translated version was developed with four panel members who are fluent in both Korean and English and have enough experience in trans-lating English documents and books Then, the backward translation was conducted with a Korean bilingual profi-cient in both languages Although some wordings were not equivalent, the comparison showed both versions had the same meaning.

Affective organizational commitment

This variable refers to the respondent’s emotional attach-ment to, identification with, and involveattach-ment in the organi-zation This study used the eight-item Korean version of the Affective Commitment Scale (Cho and Kwon2005) Meyer and Allen’s model includes three components: affective, normative, and continuous domain In terms of construct validity issues, however, affective commitment is the most widely studied, as it has consistent relationships with orga-nizational outcomes such as performance, attendance, and retention (Meyer and Allen1997) In particular, the reli-ability estimate was found to be remarkably similar to those of studies that were using the Korean version of the Affective Commitment Scale: Cronbach’s alpha = 87 (Cho and Kwon 2005), 84 (Lee et al 2001), and 86 (Jung 2000), respectively.

Following the data collection, structural equation modeling (SEM) was applied to conduct a data analysis This study

followed a two-step procedure proposed by Hair et al (1995): conducting confirmatory factor analysis and then analyzing the structural model SPSS and AMOS were adopted as the tools for analyzing the data In order to handle missing values, this study used the most common imputation technique, which is the replacement of missing values with the variable mean that was computed using the complete case This procedure replaced missing values with the variable means.

In terms of validity, principal factor analysis using SPSS was employed to test whether the participants in this study made distinctions among six domains of the delivery of S-OJT Along with varimax as the rotation method, five factors were identified, unlike the expected number of factors proposed by Jacobs (2003) Through repeated factor analyses, five items were excluded from the original scales because their factor loading was under 5 In general, this criterion (factor loading = 5 above) can be used to make a strict interpretation regarding relationships between items and a factor (Hair et al.1995) As a result, the five factors were extracted These five factors explained 66.93% of the total variance in trainers’ delivery of S-OJT These validity statistic results are provided in Table1.

Following the principal factor analysis, this study con-ducted a confirmatory factor analysis using the structural equation model (SEM) on five factors The model showed a reasonable fit to the data for sample, v2 (80, N = 235) = 176.222, p \ 001; CFI = 907; IFI = 909; GFI = 906; RMSEA = 073 In addition, validity issues on self-efficacy as an S-OJT trainer and affective organi-zational commitment employed results manifested by the

Table 1Result of principal

previous research (Hoy and Woolfolk1990; Cho and Kwon

2005, respectively).

In terms of internal consistency, this study calculated Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the delivery of S-OJT scale, usefulness of the train-the-trainer program scale, affective organizational commitment scale, and self-effi-cacy as an S-OJT trainer scale in Table2 All reliability coefficients were quite high and reflected the internal consistency of each instrument.

Table3shows the correlation matrix among the variables The results indicated that all of the variables were weakly or moderately correlated with each other Also, no nega-tively correlated variables existed.

The model to confirm the relationships between latent constructs and factors was tested using SEM with the AMOS program In order to evaluate the adequacy of the fit of the proposed model to the data, a combination of fit indices was examined The results for the proposed model showed that the chi-square was significant, v2(33, N = 235) = 40.060; p = 002, along with good CFI = 94; IFI = 94; GFI = 96, AGFI = 93, RMSEA = 07) indices Figure1

presents the standardized solution for the structural model All the hypothesized coefficients and factor loadings are significant (CR [ 1.96) More specifically, the causal effect of self-efficacy as an S-OJT trainer on trainers’ delivery of S-OJT was relatively high (b = 44), followed by the rela-tionship between trainers’ delivery of S-OJT and organiza-tional commitment (b = 34) S-OJT trainer preparation also predicted self-efficacy as an S-OJT trainer (b = 28), train-ers’ delivery of S-OJT (b = 22), and organizational com-mitment (b = 20).

As shown above, the causal links in the proposed model were established The results indicated that S-OJT trainers who held positive experiences of being an S-OJT trainer through the train-the-trainer program felt a stronger belief that they could be a successful S-OJT trainer, delivered more thoroughly work contents based on five instructional events compared to trainers who did not, and felt stronger organizational commitment In this model, self-efficacy served as a significant mediator: self-efficacy mediated the relationship between S-OJT trainer preparation through the train-the-trainer program and trainers’ delivery of S-OJT In particular, S-OJT trainer preparation through train-the-trainer programs was more important in terms of predicting self-efficacy than predicting trainers’ delivery of S-OJT Self-efficacy as an S-OJT trainer mediated between S-OJT trainer preparation and trainers’ delivery of S-OJT How-ever, the causal influence of S-OJT trainer preparation through train-the-trainer programs is relatively high for self-efficacy as an S-OJT trainer compared to trainers’ delivery of S-OJT and organizational commitment.

The results show that S-OJT trainers who perform their delivery of S-OJT according to five instructional events and who learn knowledge and skills that are needed to be S-OJT trainer were more organizationally committed Also, trainers’ delivery of S-OJT mediated between trainer preparation and organizational commitment and between self-efficacy and organizational commitment Conse-quently, these results fully supported the study hypotheses Table 2Cronbach’s alpha coefficients

Self-efficacy as an S-OJT trainer.86

Table 3Correlation matrix among variables

Prepare the delivery

Prepare the trainee

Present the training

Conclusions and implications

A model was postulated suggesting that causal relation-ships exist between S-OJT trainer preparation through the train-the-trainer program, trainers’ delivery of S-OJT, self-efficacy as an S-OJT trainer, and organizational commit-ment Findings confirm the study’s conceptual model and support all the hypotheses The model provides a good fit to the data.

The results of the study further showed the under-standing of how mutual interaction between the trainer and trainee allows S-OJT trainers to learn and develop their professional competences and in turn produces unintended consequences, such as trainers’ organizational commit-ment Also, this study reveals that S-OJT trainer prepara-tion through train-the-trainer programs can directly influence self-efficacy as an S-OJT trainer At the same time, these variables are directly and indirectly able to affect the actions performed by trainers to deliver S-OJT In other words, when S-OJT trainers are well prepared through the train-the-trainer program, S-OJT trainers are more likely to feel stronger self-belief that they can per-form well as an S-OJT trainer and to utilize essential actions to deliver S-OJT along with the instructional events.

Previous research pointed mainly to the effectiveness of S-OJT on trainees and empirically showed a separate link between ‘‘input’’ and ‘‘output’’ or ‘‘process’’ and ‘‘output’’ based on a system view of S-OJT This study provides a possible research issue by proposing a path model under-lying a systematic link, including input (S-OJT trainer preparation and self-efficacy as a trainer), process (trainers’ delivery of S-OJT), and output (organizational commit-ment of trainers) simultaneously in the S-OJT system.

In addition to offering a path model, the results of this study may also contribute to the conceptualization of S-OJT trainers’ delivery of S-S-OJT What happens in the training process totally depends on the trainer’s delivery of S-OJT Nevertheless, trainers’ delivery of S-OJT has received relatively little attention by researchers in general This study highlights this notion and its five instructional events: prepare the delivery, prepare the trainee, present the training, require a response, and provide feedback and evaluation Furthermore, this study examines the construct validity of trainers’ delivery of S-OJT by using confirma-tory factor analysis The results support five distinct factors composed of a total of 15 items The fit of the five factor model is good Consequently, the scale proposed in this study can be used to measure the extent to which an S-OJT trainer successfully delivers work contents along with 15 essential actions.

The study outcomes, then, have some implications for HRD, focusing on S-OJT First, it seems critical that

organizations continuously examine the effectiveness of their train-the-trainer program From the results of this study, if trainers perceive that train-the-trainer programs are helpful to their current S-OJT practice, trainers’ self-belief that they can perform S-OJT by using their skills and knowledge are more likely to be increased At the same time, trainers tend to engage in the essential instructional events required for effective training Also, S-OJT trainer preparation through the train-the-trainer program can play an important role in increasing trainers’ organizational commitment.

Second, it seems critical that how trainers deliver S-OJT needs to be regularly checked In order to do this, Jacobs (2003) suggested that some consistent and standardized forms to measure trainers’ delivery of S-OJT should be developed When trainers are fully engaged in the instructional events required for effective training, they may have more opportunities to obtain unintended conse-quences, beyond a stronger organizational commitment.

Although some implications can be expected to impact S-OJT practice in the field of HRD, care must be taken when generalizing the findings into other populations This study examines one company in a Korean context Future research needs to examine the research issues proposed from this study in more diverse settings.

Bartlett, K R (2001) The relationship between training andorganizational commitment: A study in the health care field.Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(4), 335–352.doi:10.1002/hrdq.1001.

Bennett, T L., & Calvin, J (2002) Structured on-the-job training offield service engineers: Liebert global services In R L Jacobs(Ed.), Implementing structured on-the-job learning (pp 131–142) Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training andDevelopment.

Bjorkquist, D C., & Murphy, B P (1996) Structured on-the-jobtraining: Pitfalls and payoffs In C P Campbell (Ed.), Educationand training for work: Volume 1 Planning programs Lancaster,PN: TECHNOMIC Publication.

Black, J A., Zenner, F J., & Ezell, E (1996) A case study of thedevelopment and implementation of a structured on-the-job (S-OJT) training program in the coil processing industry In E F.Holton (ed.), Proceedings of the 1996 academy of humanresource development conference Minneapolis, MN: Academyof Human Resource Development.

Burkett, H (2002) Leveraging employee know-how through struc-tured OJT In R L Jacobs (Ed.), Implementing on-the-joblearning: Thirteen case studies from the real world of training.Alexandria, VA: ASTD.

Cho, D., & Kwon, D (2005) Self-directed learning readiness as anantecedent of organizational commitment: A Korean study.International Journal of Training and Development, 9(2), 140–152.

D’Abate, C P., Eddy, E R., & Tannenbaum, S I (2003) What’s in aname? A literature-based approach to understanding mentoring,

coaching, and other constructs that describe developmentalinteractions Human Resource Development Review, 2(4), 360–384 doi:10.1177/1534484303255033.

DeSimone, R L., & Harris, D M (1998) Human resourcedevelopment NY: The Dryden Press.

Ellstrom, P E (2001) Integrating learning and work: Problems andprospects Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(4), 421–436 doi:10.1002/hrdq.1006.

Ensher, E A., Grant-Valone, E J., & Donaldson, S I (2001) Effectsof perceived discrimination on job satisfaction, organizationalcommitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and griev-ances Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(1), 53–72.doi:10.1002/1532-1096(200101/02)12:1\53::AID-HRDQ5[3.0.CO;2-G.

Fuller, A., & Unwin, L (2002) Developing pedagogies for thecontemporary workplace In K Evans, P Hodkinson, & L.Unwin (Eds.), Working to learning: Transforming learning inthe workplace (pp 95–111) London: Kogan Page.

Hair, J F., Anderson, R E., Tatham, R L., & Black, W C (1995).Multivariate data analysis with readings (4th ed.) New Jersey:Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Harris, R., Simons, M., & Bone, J (2000) More than meets the eyes?Rethinking the role of workplace trainer Australia: NCVER.Hoy, W K., & Woolfolk, A E (1990) Socialization of student

teachers American Educational Research Journal, 27(2), 279–300.

Jacobs, R L (1996) Unstructured versus structured on-the-jobtraining In J Phillips (Ed.), Measuring return on investment(Vol 1, pp 123–132) Alexandra, VA: American Society forTraining and Development.

Jacobs, R L (2002) Implementing structured on-the-job learning InR L Jacobs (Ed.), Implementing on-the-job learning Alexan-dra, VA: American Society for Training and Development.Jacobs, R L (2003) Structured on-the-job training: Unleashing

employee expertise in the workplace (2nd ed.) San Francisco:Berrett-Koehler Publications, Inc.

Jacobs, R L., Jones, M J., & Neil, S (1992) A case study inforecasting the financial benefits of unstructured on-the-jobtraining Human Resource Development Quarterly, 3(2), 133–139 doi:10.1002/hrdq.3920030205.

Jacobs, R L., & Osman-Gani, A M (1999) Status, impact, andimplementation issues of structured on-the-job training: A studyof Singapore-based companies Human Resource DevelopmentInternational, 2(1), 17–24 doi:10.1080/13678869900000005.Johnson, S D., & Leach, J A (2001) Using expert employees to

train on the job Advances in Developing Human Resources,3(4), 425–434 doi:10.1177/15234220122238481.

Jones, M J., & Jacobs, R L (1997) Developing frontline employees:A new challenge for achieving organizational effectiveness InR Kaufman, S Thiagarajan, & P MacGinnis (Eds.), Theguidebook for performance improvement: Working with individ-uals and organizations San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Jung, J (2000) Reexamination of the three-component model oforganizational commitment in South Korea Unpublished Dis-sertation, Kent State University.

Krejcie, R V., & Morgan, D W (1970) Determining sample size forresearch activities Educational and Psychological Measure-ment, 30, 607–610.

Lee, K., Allen, N J., Meyer, J P., & Rhee, K (2001) The three-component model of organizational commitment: An applicationto South Korea Applied Psychology: An International Review,50(4), 596–614.

Meyer, J P., & Allen, N J (1991) A three-component conceptuali-zation of organiconceptuali-zational commitment Human Resource Manage-ment Review, 1(1), 61–89 doi:10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z.Meyer, J P., & Allen, N J (1997) Commitment in the workplace.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Meyer, S R., & Marsick, V J (2003) Professional development incorporate training In K P King & P A Lawler (Eds.), Newperspectives on designing and implementing professional devel-opment of teachers of adults (Vol 98) New Directions for Adultand Continuing Education San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Miller, L E., & Smith, K L (1983) Handling non-response issues.

Journal of Extension, 21(5), 45–50.

Orpen, C (1999) The impact of self-efficacy on the effectiveness ofemployee training Journal of Workplace Learning, 11(4), 119–122 doi:10.1108/13665629910276034.

Osman-Gani, A M., & Zidan, S S (2001) Cross-cultural implica-tions of planned on-the-job training Advances in DevelopingHuman Resources, 3(4), 442–460 doi:10.1177/15234220122238517.

Prieto, L R., & Meyers, S A (1999) Effects of training andsupervision on the self-efficacy of psychology graduate teachingassistants Teaching of Psychology, 26(4), 264–266 doi:10.1207/S15328023TOP260404.

Stein, D S (2001) Situated learning and planned training on the job.Advances in Developing Human Resources, 3(4), 415–442.doi:10.1177/15234220122238472.

Stolovitch, H D., & Ngoa-Nguele, D (2001) Structured on-the-jobtraining in developing nations Advances in Developing HumanResources, 3(4), 461–470 doi:10.1177/15234220122238526.Swanson, R A., & Falkman, S K (1997) Training delivery problems

and solutions: Identification of novice trainer problems andexpert trainer solutions Human Resource Development Quar-terly, 8(4), 305–314 doi:10.1002/hrdq.3920080406.

Swanson, R A., & Holton, E F., III (2001) Foundation of humanresource development San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.Unwin, L., & Fuller, A (2003) Expanding learning in the workplace:

Making more of individual and organizational potential ANIACE Policy Discussion Paper England: National Institute ofAdult Continuing Education.

Walter, D (1998) Training and certifying on-the-job trainers.Technical Training, March/April, 32–35.

Washington, C L (2002) The relationships among learning transferclimate, transfer self-efficacy, goal commitment, and salesperformance in an organization undergoing planned change.Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The Ohio State University.Williams, S W (2001) The effectiveness of subject matter experts as

technical trainers Human Resource Development Quarterly,12(1), 91–97 doi:10.1002/1532-1096(200101/02)12:1\91::AID-HRDQ7[3.0.CO;2-0.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner Further reproduction prohibited withoutpermission.