Structural model of employee involvement in skill development activity: The role of individual differences

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.10.010Get rights and content

Abstract

We extend prior research on involvement in employee development activity by including prominent individual difference constructs that have been previously ignored in this area of research. These include two important personality characteristics (conscientiousness and openness to experience), mental ability and goal orientation constructs. We tested both mediated and direct effects of the variables. The sequence of relationships observed in the model was: general personality traits → development domain individual and situational variables → development domain motivational variables → involvement in development. Personality had indirect (mediated) effects on motivational and involvement constructs while goal orientation, as a development domain individual variable, had direct effects on motivational constructs. Mental ability had no effects. The study also replicated core relationships from prior research, but did so using an Internet sample and response medium. The model presented provides the most complete picture of behavior in this area to date. Important implications for advancement of theory, research and practice in the area of employee development behavior are discussed.

Introduction

Employee involvement in learning and development activity has become of increasing interest in vocational behavior for a great variety of important reasons ranging from employee effectiveness and career progression (Davenport and Prusak, 1997, Hall and Mirvis, 1995) to employee organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Mikkelsen, Saksvik, Eriksen, & Ursin, 1999). Maurer, Weiss, and Barbeite (2003) proposed and tested a new model of employee involvement in learning and development activity that constitutes the most detailed treatment of this area of behavior to date. While being a potentially valuable way to summarize and organize predictors of this behavior, the comprehensive model was tested in only one sample/setting and the model did not include some of the more prominent, general individual difference constructs in the literature that are theoretically-relevant to employee development behavior. In the present study, we conducted a constructive replication in which we replicated and significantly extended that prior study through directly addressing its limitations.

As Eden (2002) asserted, “there have been many, many calls for replication research as an indispensable ingredient in the scientific process (cf. Amir & Sharon, 1990). Constructive replication involves testing the same types of relationships among constructs, but in a different way than the original study (Eden, 2002, Lykken, 1968). Good science, it is argued, is built in this way and not by conducting “one shot” studies and then moving on to something else. When important, influential and theoretically-relevant constructs have been omitted from prior research, it would seem that constructive replication might particularly be called for to not only test the impact of the omitted variables but also to determine if the established relationships hold when the previously missing variables are present. The current study follows in line with these suggestions in the literature: Some important core relationships are replicated in a new type of sample and setting in a model that has been updated to include new and important, theoretically-relevant variables that were previously neglected. This study therefore not only replicated the prior findings but also added new and important information to this literature about effects by key constructs. We first explain both the replication aspect of the current study (i.e. testing core variables) and the extension aspect (i.e. inclusion of critical missing constructs in prior research).

In both the prior and the current study, individual differences of the employees and differences in employees’ perceived situations were posited to influence motivational variables relevant to employee development, and differences in these motivational variables were then hypothesized to influence employees’ involvement in development. Consistent with Maurer et al. (2003), involvement in development in the present study includes possessing favorable attitudes toward participating in development activity and having high interest in it as well as having specific intentions to participate in various types of development activity. The general sequence of relationships posited in the model tested by Maurer et al. (2003) and in the present study is: employee individual and situational variables → Motivational variables for development → Involvement in development (see Fig. 1 for hypothesized paths and structural model and Fig. 2 for observed effects for comparison with hypothesized effects).

Although a number of variables in the study by Maurer et al. (2003) had significant relationships in the model, many of the effects were rather small (i.e., less than .20) and given the large sample size in that study the probability of significance of even small effects was high. In order to focus on the most important, core constructs as identified in that research, variables were chosen for inclusion in the present study if they had significant indirect or direct effects on the outcome variables of interest (i.e., involvement in development) in the prior study and had significant direct effects that were consistently above at least .20, and/or had effects on some variables in the model that were at least .30.

In the model depicted in Fig. 1, the individual difference variables that predict development motivation constructs are learning preparedness and career constructs that help enable or orient employees to pursue development of work-related skills (Maurer et al., 2003). The variables included in the present study as predictors of motivation for development based on the criteria outlined above were: (1) previous participation experiences in development, (2) possession of a development-oriented self-concept or perception that one possesses the characteristics needed for learning and development, (3) perception of a need for development, or the belief that one’s skills are in need of improvement, and (4) perception that one’s work situation supports development. The latter includes perceiving support for learning and development by supervisors, coworkers, and subordinates, along with the availability of development and learning resources and policies that support/encourage development. These individual and situational constructs were the major predictors of the development motivation and involvement constructs in prior research by Maurer et al. (2003) and they were also included here. Each construct has been shown to predict self-efficacy for development (confidence that one can develop and improve skills) and/or perceived benefits of development activity (perception that favorable outcomes will result from involvement in development). They also had indirect effects on involvement in development (attitudes, intentions, participation).

The Maurer et al. (2003) study included age differences as a focus, and therefore the selection of variables for the model was influenced by the likelihood of age differences on the constructs. (Ironically, age effects in that study turned out to be rather small.) As a result, there were several individual difference constructs that are very important and theoretically-relevant to learning/development behavior, but not being particularly related to age, were also excluded from that study. Therefore, we do not have data to reflect effects of these theoretically-relevant but missing constructs and we do not know whether the individual variables studied in the prior model were the direct causal determinants of development behavior or whether those variables were spuriously related to behavior because the missing constructs were unmeasured in the prior research. The present study extends prior research by explicitly including very important constructs that were neglected in prior research. We test both mediated and direct effect models involving trait variables as will be explained below.

One construct that has considerable promise as a predictor of motivation for development but which has not received attention in this research is goal orientation. Given the central features of this construct to learning and development motivation, this represents a major gap in this past research on development activity. Within the goal orientation heading, several dimensions have been identified and treated as distinctly important. Those who possess a ‘learning goal orientation’ tend to strive to understand new things and to increase their competence and skills through pursuing challenging, developmental activities. They are attracted to learning opportunities and maintain a positive, confident composure during challenging experiences. Individuals who possess a ‘performance goal orientation’ strive to demonstrate their competence via task performance (i.e. performance prove goal) or to avoid negative judgments of their performance (i.e. performance avoid goal; Dweck and Leggett, 1988, Elliot and Harackiewicz, 1996). Those people who are learning-oriented will perceive greater benefit from participation in development activity and will be more self-confident about their success in them and those who are performance oriented (i.e. possess prove or avoid goals) will be less confident and will perceive less benefit (Colquitt & Simmering, 1998). Therefore, these constructs should be included along with the other individual learning preparedness variables, and we expect them to influence both self-efficacy for development and perceived benefits of development.

In contrast to more general and immutable traits such as personality and mental ability, Elliot and Church (1997) considered goal orientation to be a proximal, “mid-level construct,” hierarchically situated between more distal dispositions and specific behaviors or outcomes. More general and immutable trait variables such as mental ability and personality should predict the more domain-specific and mutable variables that are directly relevant to motivation for employee development (Locke & Latham, 2004). Along these lines, goal orientation was included with other individual variables to be predicted by the general and immutable traits, ability and personality.

Conscientiousness and openness to experience are constructs that are highly relevant to learning and development behavior and are theoretically and empirically most promising as predictors of motivation and involvement in development. Barrick, Mount, and Strauss (1993) suggest that conscientiousness may be the most important trait-motivation construct in the work domain. Conscientiousness has been linked to a variety of positive work outcomes (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991), including self-efficacy in training (Martocchio & Judge, 1997) and motivation to learn (Colquitt & Simmering, 1998). Those who are more conscientious should perceive themselves as possessing the qualities needed for learning due to their knowledge of themselves as being diligent and hardworking (Colquitt and Simmering, 1998, McCrae and Costa, 1987), their constant striving for success, and their tendency to set challenging goals and do what it takes to succeed (Barrick et al., 1993, Colquitt and Simmering, 1998). Because of these qualities, they are more likely to have taken time to invest in training and learning efforts and to perceive the need for and value of expanding one’s capability which can allow them to be even more effective in future work endeavors. They are likely also to be attracted to and to choose situations that will provide to them the resources and support they need to be effective over situations that do not provide those resources. Therefore, conscientiousness should be positively related to learning self-concept, past participation in development and perceived support for development in the existing work environment. What is less clear is the expected relationship with perceived need for development. In prior research, employees high in conscientiousness deceived themselves into believing their achievements were greater than they actually were, which had a negative effect on learning (Martocchio & Judge, 1997). Therefore, there is reason to believe that conscientiousness could be negatively related to perceived need for learning, which is the opposite prediction from the literature cited above which suggests a positive effect by conscientiousness. We therefore did not make a directional prediction about the link between conscientiousness and perceived need for development.

Conscientiousness also predicts goal orientation as shown in a study by Zweig and Webster (2004) involving students performing academic-related activities such as studying and handing in papers. Those authors suggested that the achievement-oriented nature of conscientiousness maps well onto those characteristics of individuals who are learning-oriented, being motivated to achieve, succeed and persevere on difficult tasks. Also, in a meta-analysis of the goal orientation literature, Beaubien and Payne (1999) found that conscientiousness correlated positively with learning orientation. In addition to these relationships involving conscientiousness and the learning goal dimension, people who are high on the “performance prove” dimension or the “performance avoid” dimension are also achievement-oriented in their motive to demonstrate their ability to perform (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996) and this should cause linkages with conscientiousness. People with a performance prove or performance avoid orientation are determined to demonstrate competence on relevant performance domains either by showing their ability in a positive light (prove) or avoiding situations that will reflect negatively on their ability (avoid). This keen interest in performing well and in attaining relevant performance standards implies a strong theoretical reason to expect a relationship between these “prove” and “avoid” goal orientation constructs and conscientiousness: Conscientiousness should have a positive relationship with performance prove and a negative relationship with performance avoid (Zweig & Webster, 2004). We expected conscientiousness to be positively related to learning orientation and performance prove and negatively related to performance avoid.

Similarly, the construct of openness to experience has been linked to work-related behavior, including success in training/learning settings and favorable attitudes toward learning (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Barrick and Mount (1991) note that openness includes characteristics such as being curious, broad-minded and intelligent which are attributes predictive of attitudes toward learning experiences. Individuals with a high level of openness to experience appreciate variety and intellectual stimulation and are better at grasping new ideas (Costa & McCrae, 1988). By definition, those who are high in openness to experience are attracted to new experiences and opportunities. They will be more likely to recognize the value or need for developing their skills and will perceive themselves as being the type of person who possesses the qualities needed for learning. They should, by definition, be more likely to have been involved in past training and learning efforts and should be attracted to and to choose situations that will provide to them the opportunity to be involved in novel learning and development experiences. Therefore, openness to experience should be positively related to learning self-concept, past participation in development, perceived need for development of one’s skills and perceived support for development in the existing work environment. In addition, given the desire of people high in openness to experience to pursue new and challenging activities, there should also be a positive relationship between openness to experience and possessing a learning goal orientation (Zweig & Webster, 2004). Zweig and Webster (2004) also found a negative relationship between openness and performance avoid orientation. They pointed out that people who are low in openness tend to be “unadventurous, behaviorally rigid, socially conforming and conventional in their reasoning (McCrae & Costa, 1987). These characteristics are similar to those of a performance avoidance goal orientation…” (pp. 1697–1698). Although those authors did not posit a relationship with performance prove goals, it stands to reason that those who are very open to experience and seek out novel and challenging activities may very well enjoy trying out situations in which they can prove their competence on various tasks. Costa & McCrae (1988) suggest that people with a high level of openness to experience like variety and intellectual stimulation and are better at grasping new concepts or ideas. It seems quite reasonable to expect them to be more likely to be attracted to situations in which they can prove their ability in various domains.

Mental ability has been a major predictor of job performance and other behavior in the work place and is sometimes regarded as the most important trait predictor of performance within this domain (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). Noe and Wilk (1993) point out that mental ability has not received much research attention in employee development, and that mental ability may influence behavior in this area. They suggested that research should examine whether employees with higher levels of cognitive ability are more likely to be involved in development activity than employees with less cognitive ability. Maurer et al. (2003) did not include actual measures of mental ability; rather, they examined perceptions of the extent to which one possesses the characteristics needed for learning and perceptions of one’s own intelligence (the latter variable was not particularly predictive). These measures are obviously not the same as actual ability. Therefore, mental ability should be included along with the other individual learning preparedness variables in the present study. Learning is highly dependent on mental ability (Hunter, 1986), and those who possess greater mental ability should have a greater belief in themselves as possessing the qualities needed for learning. Therefore, we expected a positive relationship between mental ability and possessing a learning self-concept.

As described above, the sequence of relationships posited in the present study comes from theory and research which suggests that general and immutable trait variables such as mental ability and personality should predict the more domain-specific and mutable variables that are directly relevant to motivation (Elliot and Church, 1997, Locke and Latham, 2004, Zweig and Webster, 2004). The present study was designed to directly test whether: (a) the individual and situational variables identified in prior research—along with goal orientation included here—are indeed the direct predictors of motivation to develop, and (b) whether the personality and ability constructs are exogenous predictors (whose effects are mediated through the domain-specific individual and situational variables) or whether they also contribute directly to the motivational variables (being only partially mediated by the individual and situational variables). Consistent with these goals, two models were tested. In the first model, the ability and personality variables were exogenous constructs being fully-mediated by the individual and situational development domain variables (see Fig. 1). In the second model, direct paths from the ability and personality variables to the motivational constructs (self-efficacy and perceived benefits) were tested along with the paths from the trait variables to the development domain variables.

Section snippets

Sample and survey administration

We sought to collect data entirely independently of respondents’ employers so concerns by respondents about how the data will be used would be eliminated, thus reducing motives to respond in a favorable manner. Also, as in the study by Maurer et al. (2003), we wanted to collect data from a sample with a wide variety of demographic and occupational background characteristics which would enhance the overall generalizability of results to a diverse working population beyond what would be obtained

Results

The means, standard deviations and intercorrelations among the study variables are provided in Table 1. A path model was tested using LISREL 8.50, with each scale in Table 1 loading as the single indicator for its construct. The error variance for each indicator was estimated by taking 1 minus the reliability of the scale and multiplying this value by the scale’s variance. See Fig. 1 for the paths tested in the model. In addition to these hypothesized paths, several other non-directional

Discussion

This study contributed to the literature on employee development in several ways. First, prior research largely ignored personality, ability and goal orientation constructs as predictors of involvement in development and these are all important and theoretically-relevant variables. This is particularly critical because not only are there not tests of the effects of those variables, but also in existing research it is not known whether it was really the variables studied that mattered as

References (45)

  • M. Barrick et al.

    Conscientiousness and performance of sales representatives: Test of the mediation effects of goal setting

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (1993)
  • Beaubien, J.M., & Payne, S.C. (1999). Individual goal orientation as a predictor of job and academic performance: A...
  • J. Colquitt et al.

    Conscientiousness, goal orientation, and motivation to learn during the learning process: A longitudinal study

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (1998)
  • P.T. Costa et al.

    From catalog to classification: Murray’s needs and the five-factor model

    Journal of Personality & Social Psychology

    (1988)
  • T. Davenport et al.

    Working knowledge

    (1997)
  • H. Doty et al.

    Common methods bias: Does common methods variance really bias results?

    Organizational Research Methods

    (1998)
  • C.S. Dweck et al.

    A social cognitive approach to motivation and personality

    Psychological Review

    (1988)
  • D. Eden

    Replication, meta-analysis, scientific progress, and AMJ’s publication policy

    Academy of Management Journal

    (2002)
  • A.J. Elliot et al.

    A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1997)
  • A.J. Elliot et al.

    Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1996)
  • W. Fletcher et al.

    Assessing the occupational self-efficacy among middle-aged older adults

    Journal of Applied Gerontology

    (1992)
  • S. Gosling et al.

    Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires

    American Psychologist

    (2004)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text