The Influence of Perceived Characteristics of Management Development Programs on Employee Outcomes

Transcription

1 The Influence of Perceived Characteristics of Management Development Programs on Employee Outcomes Joost C. A. Ardts, Mandy E. G. van der Velde, Todd J. Maurer Employees perceptions of Management Development (MD) programs is the topic of this study. The purpose is to examine the influence of three important perceived characteristics of MD programs on relevant MD outcomes. The MD characteristics are: availability of role models, perceived control, and understanding the MD program. Outcomes are: participation in development activities, MD and job satisfaction, affective organizational commitment, perceived benefits of development activities, average salary growth, innovative behavior, and critical opinion sharing. Data are collected from 453 MD participants of seven organizations in the Netherlands. Findings show that perceived control has a positive relationship with MD satisfaction and extrinsic and organizational benefits of development activities. Understanding the MD program positively influences MD satisfaction and extrinsic benefits. Availability of role models has a positive relationship with intrinsic and organizational benefits. Introduction Management development (MD) is defined as any education or development activity specifically designed to foster the professional growth and capability of persons in or prepared for management and executive roles in the organisation (Swanson & Holton, 2001, p. 52). Many organizations invest in highpotential employees via such management development programs with the We would like to thank the editors and three anonymous reviewers for their many constructive comments on previous drafts. Also, we thank Dr. Matthijs Bal for his contribution. HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, vol. 21, no. 4, Winter 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: /hrdq

2 412 Ardts, van der Velde, Maurer intention of enhancing their managerial skills and competencies. The current tight labor market in the Western world is an important impetus for employers to attract, motivate, and retain (future) managers by means of management development. The research literature suggests that investments in MD provide a payoff for the employer in terms of increased productivity, knowledge, loyalty, and contribution to the organization (Collins & Holton, 2004; Huselid, 1995; Paradise & Patel, 2009; Swanson, 1994; Ulrich, 1997). However, it is unknown which factors within MD programs cause the positive outcomes that reflect a payoff for organizations. Organizations spend little time evaluating the effectiveness of MD programs (Collins & Holton, 2004); there are few studies on the perception of general characteristics of MD programs, as opposed to studies on one specific training or intervention, on a variety of outcomes (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). Moreover, previous studies rarely examine MD characteristics that are theoretically underpinned (Arthur, Bennet, Edens, & Bell, 2003; Haccoun & Saks, 1998; Hertenstein, 2001). Also, because most studies used small sample sizes and are based on one organization (Collins & Holton, 2004), our knowledge on the factors within MD programs that cause positive outcomes is limited. The present study fills this gap by examining the relationship of relevant MD characteristics as perceived by participants in relation to a variety of important MD outcomes with the use of MD characteristics that are theoretically well underpinned and a large sample of MD participants from a large variety of MD programs. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework Studies on the psychological processes influencing MD participants development, or on their appreciation of a MD program, are scarce (Arthur et al., 2003; Haccoun & Saks, 1998; Hertenstein, 2001). Most studies focus only on one specific type of training or development intervention and not on the characteristics of MD programs (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). This is a shortcoming of the present literature because learning/development and other positive outcomes of MD programs seem the result of a potentially complex process, influenced by a variety of individual, organizational, and training design characteristics (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Morrison & Brantner, 1992; Wang & Wang, 2004; Warr & Bunce, 1995). Another complicating factor is the wide variation of MD interventions and MD content used in practice, making the number of interventions to be studied very large. Examples of MD interventions are training, mentoring, performance review, job rotation, international assignment, counseling, coaching, career development, project groups, and outdoor programs (Cullen & Turnbull, 2005; Garavan, Barnicle, & O Suilleabhain, 1999; Jansen, van der Velde, & Mul, 2001). Examples of MD content are communications skills, analytical

3 Perceived Characteristics of Management Development Programs 413 skills, decision-making skills, people skills (Perren & Burgoyne, 2002; Rausch, Sherman, & Washbush, Given the current state of the literature, it would be very helpful to study the characteristics of MD programs in relation to valued outcomes of such programs. Such research should be carefully based upon theoretical considerations to help understand psychological processes and constructs that are relevant (Arthur et al., 2003; Haccoun & Saks, 1998; Hertenstein, 2001). Therefore, this study uses theories on psychological processes to select relevant MD characteristics that are expected to influence outcomes. In the following sections, we begin with a discussion of outcomes of management development and proceed to discuss perceived characteristics of management development programs. Outcomes of Management Development. Management development programs are intended to enhance managers learning and development and to prepare employees for managerial roles (e.g., Jansen et al., 2001; Swanson & Holton, 2001). Also, they are intended to enhance employees willingness to invest in their development (Collins & Holton, 2004; Wang & Wang, 2004). In the process of examining whether MD programs achieve these goals, it is possible to bring to bear several different types of evaluation models from the literature. A variety of models address different levels or types of evaluation. For example, individual, team, organization, and society levels have been addressed (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009), as have the four levels of evaluation introduced by Kirkpatrick (1959, 1976) reaction, learning, transfer, and results, and the distinction made by Collins and Holton (2004) between learninglevel outcomes (i.e., individual results such as knowledge, expertise, and behavior) and performance-level outcomes (i.e., organization results such as reduced costs and improved quality). These various models suggest different outcome variables or evaluation criteria, such as attitude toward the program or one s job, behavior in the workplace, learned skills, acquired knowledge, perceived utility of what s learned, and performance results. The literature suggests at least four categories of outcomes: affect, behavior, utility, and performance (e.g., Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009; Collins & Holton, 2004; Ford, Smith, Weissbein, Gully, & Salas, 1998; Maurer, Weiss, & Barbeite, 2003; Maurer, Lippstreu, & Judge, 2008; Noe, 1986). With respect to the use of categories of evaluation to study the effectiveness of learning and development programs, the literature suggests that satisfaction with the development program (reaction outcome) tells little about how much is learned (learning outcome), changes in job-related behaviors or individual performance (transfer or behavioral outcome), or the utility of the program to the organization (results outcome) (e.g., Arthur et al., 2003; Colquitt, Lepine, & Noe, 2000). In addition, it appears that in order to understand fully the effectiveness of development interventions, it seems that a wide variety of outcome variables, covering several levels of evaluation, should be used that is, using only one or a few outcome variables might lead to a limited understanding

4 414 Ardts, van der Velde, Maurer of the effect of the development program, whereas a study using a wider variety of outcome variables of the same development program might lead to richer conclusions (Arthur et al., 2003; Maurer et al., 2003; Pool & Pool, 2007). Therefore, it seems that research should ideally include several MD outcome variables relevant to these various categories or levels of outcomes. In the present study, MD outcomes were selected to cover four levels of evaluation (i.e., affect, behavior, utility, performance). The outcomes relevant to affect were affective commitment, job satisfaction, and MD satisfaction. The outcomes included to evaluate the perceived utility of the MD program were perceived extrinsic benefits (traditional tangible outcomes like better pay or job promotion), perceived intrinsic benefits (interesting or stimulating outcomes as a result of participating, such as having more interesting work, enjoyment, or reaching one s potential), and perceived organizational benefit (having to do with outcomes of development activities that benefit others than the participant, for instance, subordinates or the supervisor or the team). The outcomes included to evaluate behavior were actual participation in development activities, critical opinion sharing (being critical toward others/processes within the organization), and innovative behavior (searching for ways to improve processes and apply innovations). Finally, the MD outcome used to measure performance was average salary growth, which served as an indicator of job performance and career success. Perceived Characteristics of Management Development Programs. Important characteristics of MD programs are those triggering the psychological processes enhancing participants learning and attaining of MD outcomes. The literature suggests several important theories of psychological processes that are particularly relevant to participant learning (e.g., Bateman & Crant, 2000; Colquitt et al., 2000; Hegstad & Wentling, 2004; Maurer et al., 2003; Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001; VandeWalle & Cummings, 1997). These include Bandura s (1965, 1986) social cognitive theory, the Deci and Ryan (1985) self-determination theory, and Locke s (1968, 1996, 2001) goal-setting theory. Based on these theories, we emphasize three MD characteristics expected to enhance participants learning and attaining valued MD outcomes. These are availability of role models (i.e., learning through interaction and observation), perceived control (i.e., participants perceived influence on the content of the MD program), and understanding the MD program (i.e., the extent to which participants have a clear understanding of the program, its content, purpose, and sequence of learning experiences). Figure 1 displays the study s conceptual framework. The model assumes that the three perceived characteristics of MD programs influence relevant MD outcomes. The demographics and person characteristics also influence MD outcomes, but they are regarded as control variables, for the purpose of this study was to examine the influence of the three perceived characteristics of MD programs on relevant MD outcomes. We discuss each of the perceived MD characteristics in turn in the next subsection.

5 Perceived Characteristics of Management Development Programs 415 Figure 1. Conceptual Model MD outcomes Control variables Demographics - Organization - Age - Tenure - Gender - Education - Work experience Person characteristics - Self-efficacy for development - Learning goal orientation - Proactive Personality Perceived MD characteristics - Availability of role models - Perceived control - Understand MDP Affect - MD satisfaction - Job satisfaction - Affective commitment Utility - Extrinsic benefits - Intrinsic benefits - Organizational benefits Behavior - Participation in development activities -Organizational benefits - Critical opinion sharing Performance - Average salary growth Availability of role models. Bandura s social cognitive theory suggests that role models may be an important characteristic of MD programs. According to Bandura s (1986) social cognitive theory, people learn via observation of the social actors in their environment. If people observe positive, desired outcomes of the target behavior, they are more likely to model, imitate, and adopt the behavior themselves. This theory stresses the importance of role models (i.e., social actors the learner wishes to emulate) as part of the learning environment of the learner (i.e., MD participant) (Gibson, 2004). Lankau and Scandura (2002) found the presence of a mentor to be an antecedent of personal development. Further, studies show development interventions like coaching, mentoring, and counseling to be predictors of job satisfaction (Allen & O Brien, 2006; Hegstad & Wentling, 2004; Verbruggen & Sels, 2008). These studies show the importance of developmental relations for the participant, even though some of the results refer to the attainment of outcomes other than learning (i.e., career success instead of personal learning). This literature leads to the following hypothesis: HYPOTHESIS 1. Availability of role models is positively related to MD outcomes. Perceived control. The Deci and Ryan self-determination theory (1985) suggests that perceived control may be an important MD characteristic that enhances learning and attaining outcomes. The theory focuses on the degree to which an individual s behavior is self-endorsed and self-determined; it is concerned with the choices people make with their own free will and full sense of choice, without any external influence or interference. The theory explains why people do what they do, and describes intrinsic (i.e., initiating an activity because it is interesting and satisfying in itself ) and extrinsic motivation (i.e., doing something for the sole purpose of achieving a reward or avoiding a punishment) as drivers of human behavior. Situations undermining intrinsic motivation do not offer the

6 416 Ardts, van der Velde, Maurer learner possibilities to control the environment, to predict outcomes reliably, to participate actively, and to be related to others. In the realm of management development, these refer to situations in which the MD participant has no influence on the program (its content, goals, etc.), resulting in a diminished motivation. Previous research shows that motivation to learn is a robust predictor of training outcomes and is influenced by both individual and situational characteristics (Colquitt et al., 2000; Klein, Noe, & Wang, 2006; Noe, 1986; Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992). It is a key determinant of the choices individuals make to engage in, attend to, and persist in learning activities. Hence, perceived control might be a key consideration in relation to the present study. Bolstering this notion, prior research regarding voluntary participation in the training domain has shown that employees given a greater degree of choice regarding whether or not to attend training workshops had greater motivation and satisfaction than did those given less choice (Hicks & Klimoski, 1987; Mathieu, Tannenbaum, & Salas, 1992). Also, Baldwin, Magjuka, and Loher (1991) showed that trainees motivation and learning was influenced positively by being granted their first choice of training. In their study trainees were assigned randomly to one of three conditions: (a) no choice of training, (b) choice of training but choice not received, (c) choice of training with choice received. All ultimately received the identical training module. Those who were not granted their first choice or had no choice of training were less motivated and learned less than those who did. These studies point to the relevance of perceived control as an important factor in trainee learning and development. Perceived control might have an effect on motivation and was included as a relevant MD characteristic in the present study. The extent to which MD participants can control the content of the program was expected to influence MD outcomes positively. HYPOTHESIS 2. Perceived control is positively related to MD outcomes. Understanding the program. Locke s theory on goal setting (1968, 1996, 2001) provides guidance toward the third MD characteristic addressed here: understanding the MD program (its content, goals, and sequence of learning experiences). Locke examined the behavioral effects of goal setting, concluding that specific and challenging goals led to higher performance than easy or no goals, even when these goals were set by others. A goal is thus of vital importance because it facilitates individuals in focusing their efforts in a specified direction. In other words; goals canalize behavior. To illustrate, Haccoun, Murtada, and Desjardins (1997) showed that convincing trainees of a link between job survival and training acquisition led to a significant increase in learning. Further, Martocchio (1992) showed that convincing trainees that the training program is an opportunity leads to positive outcomes. Both studies suggested that being clear about the purpose of learning activities leads to demonstrable effects. In the realm of management development, this points

7 Perceived Characteristics of Management Development Programs 417 to the importance of MD programs with clear goals and a sequence of learning experiences in line with these goals. Management development participants should be able to understand why they participate in learning experiences and how they contribute to their development. The extent to which they do understand is expected to influence MD outcomes positively. HYPOTHESIS 3. Understanding the MD program is positively related to MD outcomes. Characteristics of MD Participants as Controls. In an effort to be thorough and conservative in exploring effects in the present research wherein we focused on the relationship between MD program characteristics and outcomes, we were mindful of evidence of the influence of person characteristics on outcomes. That is, we included person characteristics as control variables. Besides demographic variables, such as age, gender, and work experience, we included psychological variables as well. The three person characteristics that have been examined with great frequency and appear to have influenced participants learning-related behavior are self-efficacy, learning-goal orientation, and proactive behavior (e.g., Bateman & Crant, 1993; Chiaburu & Lindsay, 2008; Colquitt et al., 2000; Hegstad & Wentling, 2004; Maurer et al., 2003; Seibert et al., 2001; VandeWalle & Cummings, 1997). For example, Maurer et al. (2003) showed that self-efficacy positively influenced development behavior, and Chiaburu and Lindsay (2008) showed that self-efficacy had a positive influence on motivation to learn. Also, Seibert et al. (2001) showed that proactive personality was positively related to career success, and Maurer et al. (2008) showed that learning-goal orientation (i.e., striving to understand new things and increase one s competence and skills through pursuing developmental activities) had an effect on perceived benefits of development. Because of the effects of these variables in prior literature, we incorporated them as controls in the present study. Design of the Study The purpose of this study was to test if three perceived characteristics of MD programs influence relevant MD outcomes. This purpose calls for a survey research design including a variety of organizations, that is, a large variety of MDPs, and a large sample of MD participants. Organizations and respondents. Data were obtained from the MD participants in seven organizations in the Netherlands: a public transport organization, a steel company, a financial institution, a temporary staffing firm, an ICT company, a hospital, and a government agency. These organizations were selected because they have a formal MD program and on the basis of their variety in business sectors, thus enhancing the generalizability of the results. As part of their MD policy, each organization selects its MD participants from the wider population of managers and enlists them into their MD program.

8 418 Ardts, van der Velde, Maurer A total of 858 MD participants were invited to fill out an on-line questionnaire; 453 responded (a response rate of 53%). Of those, 17% held a lower managerial position, 56% were middle managers, and 27% held a higher managerial position; 59% were male and 41% were female; 19% held a middle vocational degree, 37% a higher vocational degree, and 44% a university degree. The mean age of respondents was 40 years (SD 12.84). Measures. We sent the respondents an electronic questionnaire in Dutch based on scale items originally formulated in English. However, three measures the three characteristics of the MD program were constructed by the authors and were in Dutch. We used the technique of backtranslation for the scale items that were originally formulated in English. The items were translated into Dutch by the authors and then, in order to check that the Dutch terms had the same meaning as the original items in English, we had an English colleague translate them back into English and then we compared his terms with the original expressions. This process resulted in a few minor adjustments. There seemed to be no problem for our Dutch respondents in understanding the questions and the items. Demographic variables. The on-line questionnaire consisted of six demographic variables; gender (1 male, 0 female), age, educational level (middle vocational, higher vocational, university), organizational tenure in years and months, total work experience in years, managerial level (low, middle, top). Person characteristics Proactive personality. Proactive personality was measured with the 10-item scale from Seibert, Crant, and Kraimer (1999). A proactive personality is a person who actively shapes the situations in which he or she finds him/herself. The prototypical proactive personality has been characterized as someone who is relatively unconstrained by situational forces and who effects environmental change (Bateman & Crant, 1993). An example of an item is, No matter what the odds, if I believe in something I will make it happen. Cronbach s alpha in this study was Self-efficacy for development. Self-efficacy for development was measured with the use of the Maurer and Tarulli (1994) scale, consisting of four items. An example of an item is, If I were to participate in a development activity [workshop, course, etc.], my success in that activity would be at least comparable to most other participants. In order to increase the reliability of the scale, the following item was deleted: I probably cannot learn as well as most other participants in a learning activity. The Cronbach s alpha of the three items was Learning goal orientation. We used the six-item measure developed and validated by VandeWalle (1997) and VandeWalle and Cummings (1997). The items measure the desire to develop oneself by acquiring new skills, mastering new situations, and improving one s competence. An example of an item is, I enjoy challenging and difficult tasks at work where I ll learn new skills. Cronbach s alpha in this study was 0.75.

9 Perceived Characteristics of Management Development Programs 419 Characteristics of the MD Program Availability of role models. Three items were constructed by the authors to measure the extent to which MD participants had the opportunity to learn from others. The items were derived from a study by Ardts (2002) to assess the extent to which new hires were able to learn from others. The wording of the items was slightly changed to reflect aspects of the management development program. An example item is, Through the management development program you have a lot of opportunities to learn from others. Cronbach s alpha of the three items in this study was Perceived control. Four items were constructed by the authors to measure the extent to which respondents perceive control over the program (its content and purpose). The items were derived from a study by Jansen et al. (2001), in which they measured the extent to which an MD program is focused on personnel development or organizational development, resulting in four types of MD. Examples of items are, Within this organization, I feel ownership of my own development ; What the employer wants to achieve with the MD program is leading; my wishes are secondary (reverse scored). Cronbach s alpha of the four items in this study was Understanding MD program. We used five items that were previously used in a study by Ardts (2002) to assess the extent to which new hires experienced their socialization period as a clear and structured sequence of learning experiences. The wording of the items was slightly changed to reflect aspects of the management development program. Examples of items are, The MD activities within my organization do not constitute a clear sequence of learning activities (reverse scored); In this organization, there is a clear pattern in the sequence of management courses, and It s clear within this organization, how much time it takes to complete the various management courses. Cronbach s alpha in this study was Management Development Outcomes Participation in development activities. Consistent with prior research (Birdi, Allan, & Warr, 1997; Maurer & Tarulli, 1994; Noe & Wilk, 1993), development behavior was measured by asking participants to indicate the frequency with which they had participated in various employee training and development activities. All of the 19 items were introduced as activities people sometimes do in order to learn something new for their careers or to improve their career skills. Examples are participation in college or continuing-education courses, taking different job assignments, using prerecorded audio- or videotapes, reading relevant books, consulting with career counselors, and asking for feedback. In line with Maurer et al. (2003), all items were used as a composite variable reflecting overall participation in a wide variety of development activities. Cronbach s alpha of the 19 items in this study was Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured with the use of the item of Hackman and Oldham (1976). Previous studies have shown the validity of this single item, which was as good as scales on job satisfaction (Dolbier et al.,

10 420 Ardts, van der Velde, Maurer 2005; Wanous, Reichers, & Hudy, 1997). The item used was, In general, I am satisfied with my current job. Management development satisfaction. Management development satisfaction was measured with the use of a single item: In general, I am satisfied with the management development program I am part of. Affective organizational commitment. We used the five-item measure originally developed by Allen and Meyer (1990, 1996), and translated to Dutch by De Gilder, Van den Heuvel, and Ellemers (1997). An example of an item is, This organization has a great deal of personal meaning to me. Cronbach s alpha in this study was Perceived benefits of development activities. We used the 11 items developed and validated by Maurer and Tarulli (1994), Maurer et al. (2003, 2008). The 11 items consist of three kinds of benefits: extrinsic benefits (three items traditional tangible outcomes like better pay or job promotion), intrinsic benefits (five items interesting or stimulating outcomes as a result of participating, such as having more interesting work, enjoyment, or reaching one s potential), and organizational benefits (three items having to do with outcomes of development activities that benefits others as well as the participant, for instance subordinates or the supervisor). A sample perceived extrinsic benefits item is Participation in learning activities will help me get promotions into higher level jobs with better pay and rewards. A sample perceived intrinsic benefits item is Training and development activities are likely to help me develop and reach my full potential as a person. A sample perceived organizational benefits item is My participation in career-relevant learning activities would increase the overall effectiveness of my department, area or organization. Factor analysis showed three factors consistent with the previous studies (Maurer et al. 2003, 2008). Cronbach s alpha s are for perceived extrinsic benefits 0.75, for perceived intrinsic benefits 0.72, and for perceived organizational benefits Average salary growth. Based on the annual salary on entry and current annual salary divided by respondents tenure, we computed the average yearly salary growth, which we used as an indication of career success. Salary was self-reported. Self-reports of income have been shown to correlate highly with archival company records (Judge, Cable, Boudreau, & Bretz, 1995; Turban & Dougherty, 1994). Innovative behavior. We used the scale developed by Scott and Bruce (1994). The scale consists of six items. The original items were worded in such a way that managers were able to rate their employees innovative behavior. For this study, the items were changed so that respondents could use it as a self-report. An example of an item is, I am someone who searches out new technologies, processes, techniques, and/or product ideas. The Cronbach s alpha in this study was Critical opinion sharing. We used the scale developed by Van Woerkom (2003). This scale consists of 6 items. An example of an item is I give my opinion about developments at work. Cronbach s alpha was 0.69.

11 Perceived Characteristics of Management Development Programs 421 Data analysis. In the present study, we used hierarchical regression analyses in order to test Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3, for each MD outcome separately. In the analyses, we included three steps. The first two steps were used to control for variance explained by the demographic variables (i.e., organization, age, gender, education, work experience, and managerial level) and person characteristics (i.e., self-efficacy for development, learning goal orientation, proactive personality). In the third step, the three characteristics of the MD program were entered. The presence of multicollinearity was addressed by examining the correlations among the independent variables and by examining the collinearity statistics. Results Factor analysis. We used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess how well the scale items loaded on their respective constructs. The hypothesized 13-factor measurement model (availability of role models, perceived control, understand MDP, self-efficacy, learning-goal orientation, proactivity, participation in development activities, affective commitment, extrinsic benefits, intrinsic benefits, organizational benefits, innovative behavior, and critical opinion sharing) was tested using Lisrel 8.80 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2008). Fit indices indicated a good fit for the hypothesized model (x , df 2619, p 0.001; normed fit index (NFI) 0.84; non-normed fit index (NNFI) 0.87; comparative fit index (CFI) 0.88; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) 0.06; standardized root mean residual (SRMR) 0.08). All items loaded significantly on the latent constructs they were designed to measure. We compared this model with a model (1) where extrinsic, intrinsic, and organizational benefits loaded on one general factor rather than three factors, and a model (2) where all of the items loaded on a general factor. The results indicated that the hypothesized measurement model fit the data significantly better than the other models (1: x , df 27, p 0.001; 2: x , df 82, p 0.001). Hypotheses testing. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among the study variables are presented in Table 1. Table 1 shows that, of the six demographic variables, age and tenure were most often significantly related to MD characteristics, person characteristics, and outcomes. Second, the MD characteristics were all positively and in most cases significantly related to MD outcomes with correlations ranging from 0.03 (ns for availability of role models and average salary growth) to 0.50 (p 0.01 for understanding MDP and MD satisfaction). Similarly, person characteristics were positively and mostly significantly related to MD outcomes with correlations ranging from 0.01 (ns for selfefficacy for development and participation in development activities) to 0.63 (p 0.01 for proactive personality and innovative behavior). Of the 10 MD outcomes, there were 3 exceptions to this pattern. The first exception was participation in development activities: person characteristics were

12 Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Among Study Variables Variable Mean SD Age Tenure ** 3. Gender * Education ** 0.13* 5. Work experience ** 0.77** ** 6. Managerial level ** ** 7. Self-efficacy ** 0.12* Learning goal or ** * 0.21** ** 9. Proactive ** * 0.21** ** 0.52** personality 10. Av. of role models ** ** 0.16** 0.26** 11. Perceived control ** 0.23** ** ** 0.34** 0.28** 12. Understand MDP ** 0.33** ** 0.13** * 0.13** 0.19** 0.57** 0.33** 13. Part. dev. activities * * 0.11* Job satisfaction ** 0.12* ** * 0.21** 0.17** 0.10* * 15. MD satisfaction ** 0.18** ** 0.12* 0.35** 0.22** 0.50** 0.11* 0.24** 16. Affec. commitment ** 0.13* ** 0.35** 0.38** 0.23** 0.25** 0.23** 0.11* 0.46** 0.30** 17. Extrinsic benefits ** ** * 0.14** 0.26** 0.44** 0.32** 0.46** 0.22** ** 0.19** 18. Intrinsic benefits ** 0.11* ** 0.18** ** 0.41** 0.36** 0.32** 0.29** 0.25** 0.10* 0.29** 0.30** 0.35** 0.28** 19. Org. benefits ** ** 0.30** 0.31** 0.33** 0.26** 0.29** 0.18** 0.19** 0.28** 0.32** 0.36** 0.61** 20. Av. salary growth ** 0.26** ** ** ** * ** 21. Innovative ** 0.15** 0.18** ** ** 0.46** 0.63** 0.16** 0.14** 0.11* ** ** 0.12* 0.32** 0.33** 0.13 behavior 22. Crit. opinion ** * ** 0.55** 0.43** ** ** 0.13** 0.28** ** 0.27** ** sharing Note: *p 0.05; **p 0.01; Average Salary Growth has a lower amount of cases due to missing data (N 142).

13 Perceived Characteristics of Management Development Programs 423 not related to this outcome, whereas two of the three MD activities were positively related (availability of role models and perceived control; both r 0.11, p 0.05). The second exception was job satisfaction: It was positively related to person characteristics and hardly related to MD characteristics. The third exception was average salary growth: it is positively related to perceived control (r 0.23, p 0.01), but not related to the other MD characteristics nor to the person characteristics. Third, the MD outcomes were in most cases positively related. Two correlations stand out: participation in development activities was negatively related to job satisfaction (r 0.11, p 0.05) and intrinsic benefits and organizational benefits were highly correlated (r 0.61, p 0.01). With respect to the latter, factor analysis provided support for all three constructs. Also, from a theoretical point of view, the distinction between intrinsic, extrinsic, and organizational benefits is relevant. With respect to the negative correlation between participation in development activities and job satisfaction, the result seems counterintuitive. However, research assessing the relationship between training and job satisfaction does offer support for this result. For instance, a study among nurses showed that satisfaction decreased with time spent on training (Shields & Ward, 2001). Also, research assessing the relationship between job satisfaction and other variables like age, tenure, performance, and job stress points to a nonlinear relation (Ferris et al., 2006; Hochwarter, Ferris, Perrewé, Witt, & Kiewitz, 2001). Hence, a negative relation between participation in development activities and job satisfaction does appear to be conceivable and might be the result of an inverted-u relationship. Fourth, the three person characteristics were positively, but moderately related (ranging from r 0.31, p 0.01 for self-efficacy for development and learning goal orientation to r 0.52, p 0.01 for learning goal orientation and proactive personality). Also, the three MD characteristics were positively, but moderately related (ranging from r 0.28, p 0.01 for availability of role models and perceived control to 0.57, p 0.01 for availability of role models and understand MDP). In order to test the hypotheses, hierarchical regression analyses were performed. We included three steps. First, the demographic variables: organization (dummy variables), age, gender, education, work experience, and managerial level were entered as control variables in the equation, followed by the three person characteristics. In the third step the three characteristics of the MD program were entered. The presence of multicollinearity was examined via the correlations among the independent variables and by checking the collinearity statistics tolerance and variance inflation factor (VIF). It appears that none of the correlations between the characteristics variables entered in the third step exceeded 0.70, nor did the collinearity statistics indicate the presence of multicollinearity. However, the control variables tenure and work experience entered in the first step were highly correlated (r 0.77, p 0.001) and both have a low tolerance and high VIF. Therefore, we decided to delete tenure from the regression analyses.

14 424 Ardts, van der Velde, Maurer In Table 2 the results of the hierarchical regression analyses are presented. The table shows that, except for participation in development activities and average salary growth, the demographic variables explained a significant amount of variance of all MD outcomes (ranging from R , p 0.05 to R , p 0.01). After controlling for the variance explained by the demographic variables (Step 1) and person characteristics (Step 2), the MD characteristics explained an additional proportion of variance in MD satisfaction, and extrinsic, intrinsic, and organizational benefits. In the case of MD satisfaction, the beta coefficients indicate that perceived control (b 0.21, p 0.01) and understanding the program (b 0.31, p 0.01) influences MD satisfaction positively, suggesting that being able to influence the program content and purpose and understanding what is being offered is related to higher satisfaction with the MD program. The beta coefficients with extrinsic benefits as dependent variable also show an effect of perceived control (b 0.18, p 0.05) and understanding the program (b 0.22, p 0.01). This suggests that MD participants expect to gain from the program in terms of better pay or job promotion when they perceive that they have influence on the program (its content and purpose) and understand the program (know its content, purpose, and sequence of learning activities). In the regression analysis with intrinsic benefits as the dependent variable, availability of role models (b 0.24, p 0.01) appeared to be a significant predictor, suggesting that access to role models is associated with participants having and attaining more interesting and challenging work. In the regression analysis with organizational benefits as dependent variable, perceived control (b 0.26, p 0.01) and availability of role models (b 0.17, p 0.05) have an effect on organizational benefits, suggesting that having an influence on the program (its content and purpose) and access to role models helps others benefit from the personal development of the participant. Further, the results show that job satisfaction and average salary growth are not influenced by MD characteristics nor person characteristics. With respect to the three hypotheses, stating that all three MD characteristics positively influence MD outcomes, it can be concluded that they are partially confirmed. Several MD outcomes are indeed positively associated with MD characteristics. The results suggest that some MD outcomes are related to either MD characteristics or person characteristics. For instance, innovative behavior and critical opinion sharing are related to person characteristics but not to MD characteristics, and participation in development activities and extrinsic benefits are related to MD characteristics but not to person characteristics. Finally, the results show that MD satisfaction and intrinsic and organizational benefits are influenced by both person and MD characteristics, suggesting that

15 Table 2. Results of Hierarchical Regression Analyses: Predicting MD Outcomes from Characteristics of MD Programs Dev. activities b Job satisfaction b MD satisfaction b Affective commitment b Extrinsic benefits b Intrinsic benefits b Independent variables entered in step 1 Demographics Organization (dummies) a Age ** Gender (dummy) Education Work experience Managerial level R ** 0.21** 0.15* 0.12* 0.31** F Independent variables entered in step 2 Person characteristics Self-efficacy ** Learning goal orientation * * Proactivity * 0.26** R ** ** F Independent variables entered in step 3 MD characteristics Availability of role models ** Perceived control 0.20* ** * 0.08 Understand MD program ** * 0.02 R ** ** 0.06** F Note: *p 0.05; **p 0.01; a to conserve space the beta coefficients of the six dummy variables are not listed. (Continued)

16 Table 2 (Continued) Organizational benefits b Av. salary growth b Innovative role behaviour b Critical opinion sharing b Independent variables entered in step 1 Demographics Organization (dummies) a Age Gender (dummy) Education Work experience Managerial level ** R ** 0.21* 0.20** 0.20** F Independent variables entered in step 2 Person characteristics Self-efficacy 0.18* ** Learning goal orientation ** 0.31** Proactivity ** 0.19 R ** ** 0.24** F Independent variables entered in step 3 MD characteristics Availability of role models 0.17* Perceived control 0.26** Understand MD program R ** F Note: *p 0.05; **p 0.01; a to conserve space the beta coefficients of the six dummy variables are not listed; lower amount of cases due to missing data (N 142).

17 Perceived Characteristics of Management Development Programs 427 appreciation for the MD program and benefits a participant (expects to) gain from an MD program are a result of his/her own doing (i.e. being goal oriented, proactive and believing in oneself) as well as a result of what he/she gets offered. Discussion and Conclusion The purpose of this study was to test if three perceived characteristics of MD programs are associated with various MD outcomes. The MD characteristics were availability of role models (i.e., learning through interaction and observation), perceived control (i.e., participants perceived influence on the content of the MD program), and understanding the MD program (i.e., the extent to which participants have a clear understanding of the program, its content, purpose, and sequence of learning experiences). These characteristics were derived from three theories related to psychological processes of participant learning (Bateman & Crant, 2000; Colquitt et al., 2000; Hegstad & Wentling, 2004; Maurer et al., 2003; Seibert et al., 2001; VandeWalle & Cummings, 1997): Bandura s social cognitive theory (1965, 1986); the Deci and Ryan (1985) self-determination theory, and Locke s goal-setting theory (1968, 1996, 2001). With respect to the three hypotheses, stating that all three MD characteristics are positively related to MD outcomes, the results partially confirmed the hypotheses. Out of the 10 MD outcomes, perceived control had the most frequent and the strongest relationship with MD outcomes, followed by understanding the MD program and availability of role models. With respect to the category of MD outcomes (affect, utility, behavior, performance), the affect variable MD satisfaction and utility variables extrinsic, intrinsic, and organizational benefits are especially influenced by MD characteristics. This study suggested that situations that do not offer MD participants the perception that they have some control over the MD program (its content, goals, etc.) may result in less appreciation and perceived utility, and possibly in a diminished motivation. Although the latter cannot be derived directly from the results of this study, previous research does seem to support this claim, showing that motivation to learn is a robust predictor of training outcomes (Colquitt et al., 2000; Klein et al., 2006; Noe, 1986; Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992). This study also showed a relationship that seems counterintuitive and deserves further discussion: the negative relationship between participation in development activities and job satisfaction (r 0.11, p 0.05). Although counterintuitive, research assessing the relationship between training and job satisfaction does offer support for this result. For instance, a study among nurses showed that satisfaction decreased with time spent on training (Shields & Ward, 2001). Also, research assessing the relationship between job satisfaction and

18 428 Ardts, van der Velde, Maurer other variables like age, tenure, performance, and job stress point to a nonlinear relation (Ferris et al., 2006; Hochwarter et al., 2001). Hence, a negative relation between participation in development activities and job satisfaction does appear to be conceivable and might be the result of an inverted-u relationship. Therefore, there might be a cut-off point in the relation between participation in development activities and job satisfaction (i.e., high and low participation in development activities leading to low job satisfaction). Management development participants who experience a lot of training and development activities might feel insecure about their job performance and could perceive an imbalance in time spent in work and time spent in training. Management development participants who experience hardly any training and development activities might perceive underappreciation of their qualities, needs, and career potential. Specification of a cut-off point is, however, beyond the scope of this study. Future research is needed to understand this particular relationship fully. Practical Implications of the Study. Storey (1989) expressed a concern as to whether management development should be confined to planned interventions or whether it should embrace unplanned and informal management development. The latter suggests support for a laissez-faire or personalized approach of MD. In a similar vein, Jansen et al. (2001) discussed a typology of management development in which they made a distinction between two dimensions: MD with a primary focus on personal development and MD with a primary focus on organizational development. This is often a debate within companies: Who is the owner of management development, and whose goals and interests are leading those of the MD participant or those of the organization? Our results point to the influence of three MD characteristics. Perceived control appears most influential, suggesting that MD programs that take into account the wishes and needs of the MD participants stand to achieve the most positive outcomes in terms of participants appreciation (MD satisfaction), increased awareness of career and promotion possibilities (extrinsic benefits), and increased skills that benefit the team and organization (organizational benefits). The results also suggest that making sure that participants understand the purpose and content of the program has some, albeit a lesser, effect. It seems to contribute to the satisfaction with the MD program (affect) and increased awareness of career and promotion possibilities (extrinsic benefits). Management development programs that facilitate learning from role models can expect to result in benefits to MD participants in terms of more interesting and challenging work (intrinsic benefits) and becoming a better manager for subordinates and others (organizational benefits). These are a number of key considerations as one designs or implements new MD programs. In terms of design, organizations should apply researchbased learning principles such as enhancing MD participants control over the training content, making sure participants have sufficient role models, and

19 Perceived Characteristics of Management Development Programs 429 making sure participants have sufficient knowledge with respect to the program its content, purpose, and goals. Although MD programs are usually instigated by organizations, in practice this means that the program should not be mandatory, or at least not entirely mandatory. It also implies that MD practitioners should attempt to make salient to MD participants the desirable outcomes that may result or be linked to development (Maurer & Palmer, 1999). Having parts that are required for all participants as well as parts that are open for participants to follow on their own volition will ensure participants appreciation for and perceived utility of the program. This is in line with studies on motivation for learning (Wang & Wang, 2004). Previous research shows that motivation to learn is a robust predictor of training outcomes and is influenced by both individual and situational characteristics (Colquitt et al., 2000; Klein et al., 2006; Noe, 1986; Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992). It is a key determinant of the choices individuals make to engage in, attend to, and persist in learning activities. Another way of addressing the practical implications of this study is by focusing on the MD outcomes instead of the design characteristics. Organizations can capitalize on the results of this study, using them to determine which MD outcomes are most valuable to the organization and then draw conclusions in terms of MD design and interventions. For instance, if one wishes an MD program that engenders managers willingness to invest in their development, one should focus on offering MD participants control over the program. If one wishes an MD program that is valued by MD participants because it offers them more interesting and challenging work, one should focus on participants access to role models. To illustrate using a final example: If one wishes an MD program that is highly valued by the MD participants, one should offer MD participants control over the program and make sure they understand it (the content, sequence, and purpose of the program). Depending on the goals of the MD program, one therefore can focus on learning-related outcomes, career-related outcomes, outcomes that support the program itself, or a combination thereof. Finally, although this study is focused on the influence of perceived MD characteristics on MD outcomes, the results also point to the influence of person characteristics. Important for HRD practice to notice is the influence of person characteristics on several MD outcomes; at the same time no such influence was found for MD characteristics. Although outcomes of MD programs seem to be influenced by a variety of individual, organizational, and training design characteristics (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Morrison & Brantner, 1992; Wang & Wang, 2004; Warr & Bunce, 1995), some outcomes are apparently influenced by person characteristics and not by MD characteristics, and vice versa. We hope that these results are of value for HRD practitioners in making informed choices and decisions in the design, implementation, and evaluation of MD programs.

20 430 Ardts, van der Velde, Maurer Limitations of the Present Study and Implications for Future Research In this study there are some methodological limitations that should be discussed. First, this study relied upon self-report measures, which may have contributed some common-method variance. Future studies may consider using a longitudinal research design in which multiple sources of data collection are used (e.g., MD participants, peers, and the direct supervisor). Second, the design of this study was cross-sectional. Again, from a learning and development perspective, a longitudinal design in future studies would be helpful. Especially behavioral outcomes, like innovative behavior and critical opinion sharing, might be captured in a research design in which behavior change can be studied. The fact that neither innovative behavior nor critical opinion sharing are influenced by the MD characteristics might suggest that behavior change rather than behavior should be studied as a dependent variable in future research. Despite these limitations, the results of this present study contribute to new knowledge about the relationships between perceived MD characteristics and MD outcomes. The three hypotheses, each linking a theory to a MD characteristic and MD outcomes, were supported. The results show positive, but not always significant, relations between MD characteristics and MD outcomes. The present study also suggests several avenues for future research. All in all, the study had several strengths and offered several new contributions to the literature. This is the first study to use psychological theory systematically to come up with MD characteristics that are expected to enhance positive outcomes of MD programs. We used a diverse sample of organizations and respondents, enhancing confidence in broad generalizability. In addition, this study used a broad range of MD outcomes, covering several categories of evaluation criteria, and many control variables (both demographic and person characteristics). This led to results that can be generalized to other settings and are relatively free from possible contaminants by variables that were controlled. The results give a clear picture of the relationships of three MD characteristics with MD outcomes. References Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49(3), Allen, T. D., & O Brien, K. E. (2006). Formal mentoring and organisational attraction. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 17(1), Ardts, J. C. A. (2002). All is well that begins well. A longitudinal study of organisational socialisation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands.