Retraining midcareer managers: Career history and self-efficacy beliefs

Retraining Midcareer Managers: Career History and Self-Eff icacy

Beliefs

Linda A. Hill and Jaan Elias*

Many corporations are retraining midmreer managers in order to combat employee obsolescence and bwst corporate competitiveness. The receptivity o f midcareer managers to retraining is mixed. Those tnanagers who belipve they can master new work-related learning (in the terms of this study, those who have positive self-@mcy in learning beliefs) are most amenable to retraining. The objective o f the present study was to deter- mine the antecedents of positive self-ejicacy beliefs for midcareer managers facing retraining. W discovered that managers‘ advancement potential and the rehmce of their preuious training had a profound impact on their self-efkacy belt@. These findings have important pctical implications. The seeds of receptivity to retraining are planted throughout managers’ careers. Hem%, retraining should not be z&m?d on a program+ program his, but rathershould be understood in the broadercatext ofcorponrte lifeand individual mreer history. To prepare fM the inan’table corporate evolution and change demanded in a dynamic business environment, senwr executives and human resource managers should be ptoactiw in creating those conditions that facilitate the development of positiw self-eficacy in learning beZiejs.

When retraining programs fail, executives generally blame poor program design and implementation or recalcitrant participants who are simply unwilling to change. As one executive complained “We have sunk millions into that program. We’ve hired the best teachers and purchased the latest materials and technology. Still the people can’t seem to do their new jobs right.” Like many of his counterparts, this executive assumed that as long as programs are properly designed and

The Division of Research, Harvard Business School supported this research. Data collection was a collaborative effort of the first author and kofessor Jeffrey Sonnenfeld. Anne Donnellon, Ed Ottensmeyer, and members of the Ar- gyrislBackman organizational research seminar gave many helpful suggestions on earlier versions of this article. The comments of Noel Tichy, Robin Axelrod, and an anonymous reviewer substantially improved the clarity of presentation. An earlier version of this work was presented at the 1990 Academy of Manage- ment Meetings.

Human Resource Management, Summer, 1990, Vol. 29, Number 2, Pp. 197-217 6 1991 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0090-4&48/91/020197-21$04.00

executed, managerial changes in attitudes, skills, and behavior will follow. However, he failed to take into account the broader context of corporate life and individual career histories within which the retraining took place. In a study of 113 midcareer managers faced with retraining, we found that the context played a pivotal role. It influenced managers' perceptions of their ability to acquire work-related learning. If they viewed themselves as incapable of such learning, they were unreceptive to retraining even before attending the first session of a retraining program.

The strategic role of and investment in retraining makes managerial receptivity to learning an issue of major concern. Increasingly, retraining programs figure prominently in corporate revitalization efforts (e.g., Beer, Eisenstat, & Spector, 1990). Many companies rely heavily on retraining to impart those managerial competencies and attitudes demanded by new competitive realities. And a shrinking labor pool puts a premium on retraining, rather than replacing, existing managers. Cor- porations spend an estimated $30 billion annually on workforce training and education (Camevale & Gainer, 1989). Middle managers, in particular, have been the target of training programs, receiving three-quarters of all corporate training.

No matter how necessary from a strategic perspective, retraining places midcareer managers in a paradoxical and vulnerable position. Retraining (as opposed to training) implies inadequacy, loss, and emotional upheaval. It evokes legitimate fears of obsolescence and displace- ment. Managers are being asked to destroy or reject past ways of doing things upon which they had come to rely. As one manager in our study put it, "They expect me to abandon the good old days." Another manager, recognizing the irony of his circumstance, remarked, "We're being asked to get rid of our security blankets and fears, to become more aggressive and entrepreneurial; at the same time, we are being told that we screwed up." The vast majority of managers we interviewed spoke of the substantial physical and psychic energy they needed to master new skills and attitudes. Sixty percent of the managers were finding it very difficult to keep up-to-date. Over half described their jobs as extremely stressful. Many fretted not only about disruptions in their work lives, but also in their nonwork lives. Retraining made the work week longer, and often spouses resented the incursion.

In our first analyses of our managerial interviews, we discovered that some of the managers were able to cope effectively with these stresses and anxieties and welcomed retraining, while others were overwhelmed by them and resisted retraining (Hill & Sonnenfeld, 1986). Receptivity to retraining was related to a manager's self-appraisal of his/her capacity for work-related learning, or self-efficacy in learning beliefs. It appeared that self-efficacy beliefs played a pivotal role in sustaining individual effort in the face of the inevitable anxiety and setbacks assodated with retraining.

198 I Human Resource Management, Summer 1990

The objective of the analyses reported in this article was to under- stand why managers differed in their self-efficacy in learning beliefs. Specifically, we asked: Does advancement potential (since many managers experience plateauing at this point in their careers) and the relevance of previous corporate training (given its obvious relationship to retraining) influence self-efficacy in learning? Since we believed training history would have considerable influence on the development of self-efficacy, we also considered the impact of job characteristics, corporate support, and individual attributes on perceived relevance of previous training. We found that, indeed, managers' career histories had a profound impact on their self-efficacy beliefs. In the last section of the article, we discuss the implications of our findings for researchers, se- nior executives, and human resource managers. We propose steps that can be taken to create conditions that encourage positive self-efficacy beliefs and hence receptivity to retraining.

SELF-EFFICACY AND CAREER HISTORY Self-efficacy in learning is defined as managers' beliefs that they can

successfuIIy acquire new work-reIated attitudes, skills, and behavio~"s.* This self-appraisal influences an individual's ability to view retraining as an opportunity as opposed to a threat. Consider, for example, two managers (both branch managers at commercial banks, in their mid-forties, and college graduates) who differ in their self-efficacy beliefs and reac- tions to retraining:

Bill (who has a positive sense of self-efficacy) observes thoughtfully that, "Al- though the Fetraining program will require a great deal of effort," he is "thrilled" about the opportunity to attend and feels that "the experience will be rejuvenat- ing." He notes of his employer: "In the past, our company has suffered from a poor image of being stodgy and slow to change." The retraining indicates to him that the company "is waking up and making a move to be on the cutting edge." Bill describes that his superior has just returned from retraining with "useful suggestions to improve current practices." Bill is the first in his group to volun- teer for the retraining program.

John (who has a negative sense of self-efficacy) complains that he is "over whelmed by what is happening around [him]." He reports that he is suffering from insomnia and has become a "bag of nerves." He says that he does not know if he can ever master the new job skills and comments that it will certainly take him more time than his peers to do so. He wonies that his employer will not give him the extra time and support he needs to "get up to speed." "And if I lose my job, where will I go"? he asks. "AU the banks are moving in the same

The measurement of self-efficacy is still "rather primitive" (Gecas, 1989, p. 297). While some studies use global measures of self-effiq, in this article we restrict ourselves to the domain-specific conceptualization: self-efficacy in work- related learning.

Hill and Elias: Retraining Midcareer Managers / 199

direction." John's manager claims he had to "drag him" to the first session of the retraining program, while John predicts that his superior's "continuous" inter- ruptions will not allow him to "give [his] undivided attention to [the retraining program] ."

The brief vignettes illustrate some of the ways that self-efficacy beliefs influence receptivity to retraining. Research on self-efficacy has consistently found that people with higher self-efficacy more readily perceive novel situations as opportunities (as opposed to threats) and are willing to expend effort despite initial setbacks and discouragement (for comprehensive reviews of the antecedents and consequences of self- efficacy, see Bandura, 1989 and Gecas, 1989). For example, the higher an individual's self-efficacy, the higher the goals he/she undertakes and the firmer the commitment to persevere even in the face of initial failure (e.g., Locke, Frederick, Lee, & Bobko, 1984). (Bill has embraced retraining and is eager to learn, while John is reluctant to participate in retraining and anticipates that his company and boss will undermine his efforts.) Individuals with positive self-efficacy beliefs visualize success scenarios, while those with a low sense of efficacy undermine their performance by dwelling on what might go wrong. (Bill is excited by the prospect of his company playing a leadership role in the industry. John worries about the possibility of losing his job.) Affectively, self-efficacy influences how much anxiety people experience in threatening or taxing situations; high degrees of distress have been shown to impair performance. (Bill feels rejuvenated, while John complains of sleeplessness.)

Working through these motivational, cognitive, and affective mechanisms, self-efficacy beliefs have proved to be strong predictors of performance even when controlling for "objective" measures of ability (e.g., h e c k & Leggett, 1988). Admittedly, much of the self-efficacy research has been conducted in school and laboratory settings. For instance, through experimental manipulation positive self-efficacy beliefs are in- duced and then performance increments obtained. However, there is a growing body of insightful research on self-efficacy in corporations. For example, in one study it was found that the higher an individual's self- efficacy beliefs, the broader the range of career options they consider and the better they prepare themselves educationally for occupational choices (Betz & Hackett, 1986).

Self-efficacy is not the expression of an ingrained personality trait nor a casually adopted optimistic attitude. Rather it represents the cumulative influence of prior experiences and information (see Table I). Previous research has identified four primary sources of self-efficacy: vicarious experience (e.g., Manz & Sims, 1981), verbal persuasion, emotional arousal, and mastery experiences, especially those in the face of adversity (e.g., Gecas, 1989; Wood & Bandura, 1989). Individuals acquire their self-efficacy beliefs in the course of setting and attaining important objectives. Hence, the acquisition of self-efficacy can be conceptualized


Table I. Antecedents and Consequences of Self-Efficacy in Learning.

Antecedents Consequences

Vicarious experiences Observing others perform challenging tasks successfully.

Gaining information from others about one's capabilities.

Making inferences about one's abilities from one's emotional states.

Performing difficult tasks and achieving objectives (by far the most consequential source of self- efficacy).

Verbal persuasion

Emotional arousal

Mastery experiences

Cognitive e.g., constructing positive anticipatory scenarios; efficiently assessing performance strategies.

e.g., persevering in the face of initial setbacks; maintaining high performance goals.

e.g., overcoming bouts of anxiety and stress.

Motivational

Afecf ive

as a continuous series of feedback loops (Bandura, 1987, Davis & Luthans, 1980, Bandura & Wood, 1989; Manz, 1986). Tomorrow's self- efficacy beliefs depend on the outcomes of today's actions (and their interpretation) and in turn influence subsequent goal-onented behavior.

We believed that self-efficacy beliefs might be the linchpin by which to link individual career history and receptivity to retraining. Hence, we sought to investigate the antecedents of self-efficacy in a corporate setting (see Table 11 for flowchart of hypotheses). In particular, we hypothesized that managers' perceptions of their advancement potential and the relevance of their previous trajning would have an influence on their self-efficacy beliefs. Below we outline the mechanisms by which we thought these career history factors would impact self-efficacy beliefs.

Advancement Potential

Advancement potential has long been recognized as a powerful managerial incentive (e.g., Kanter, 1977). Yet, research on the impact of advancement potential on attitudes toward training has been limited. In the following paragraphs, we describe three ways in which an individual's assessment of their advancement potential can influence their self-efficacy beliefs.

Verbal Persuasion. Even though advancement potential may be influenced by factors well beyond the control of the individual (such as organizational demographics and market munificence), promotions are made and discussed in terms of an individual's ability to gain knowledge and skills for a new, presumably more challenging assignment.


.

AD

VA

NC

EMEN

T PO

TEN

TIA

L

B 3

Hyp

othe

sis

Tabl

e 11

. T

he A

cqui

sitio

n of

Sel

f-Effi

cacy

in W

ork-

Rela

ted

Lea

rnin

garb

Hyp

othe

ses 4

& 5

I JO

B=/ I

1 I

I

i T

RET

RA

ININ

G

SELF

-EFF

ICA

CY

IN

WO

RK-R

ELAT

ED

LEA

RN

ING

t

Vicarious Experience. Perceived promotion potential influences an individual's choice of and exposure to role models (e.g., Cohen, 1958). As opportunities for advancement decrease, managers show "downward sociability" (e.g., Kanter, 1973, associating and identifying with subor- dinates and marginal peers rather than with those from whom more efficacious attitudes and behavior could be learned.

Mastery Experience. Managers report that promotions provide a "means of keeping score" (Bardwick, 1986) and evaluating their value to the corporation. If promotion potential diminishes, managers begin to feel like "deadwood." Their contributions generate less feedback and are taken less seriously by superiors (Lmsch & Taka@, 1986). They are not consulted on important decisions and left out of the informal groups of other managers (Kanter, 1977). Hence, managers' ability to gain positive feedback and more challenging assignments which would allow them to gain greater self-efficacy is dependent on perceived advancement potential.

Hypothesis 1: Advancement potential will increase self-efficacy in learning beliefs.

Relevance of Prior Training

Adult learners consider relevance to be the key criterion when evaluating training programs (e.g., Cross, 1981). When managers can apply the training on the job, they experience the training as worthwhile and valuable. We argued that such cumulative positive experiences with training would have a positive impact on self-efficacy in learning. Verbal Persuasion. Training programs are often a time at which indi-

viduals gain the attention of peers and superiors, thereby enhancing feelings of importance and accomplishment. As they partiapate in training efforts, the managers often receive symbolic and explicit reas- surances that the company believes they can learn and adapt to the challenges of the future. Vicarious Experience. By providing an occasion for managers to share

their collective expertise about how to resolve common problems, formal training programs can provide useful models for efficacious behavior (e.g., Lindsey, Homes, & McCall, 1987). Training programs also provide the opportunity to observe and rehearse skills in a less threatening environment than on the job.

Mastery Experience. If training is relevant, managers have the opportunity to master new competencies they can apply on the job. As the managers actually utilize their training on the job, their self-efficacy beliefs are reinforced (e.g., Hinrichs, 1976).

Hypothesis 2 The relevance of prior trahhg history wil l increase self-efficacy in learning beiiefs.

HillandElkRetrainingMidcareerManagen / 203

Independence of Factors

Although we recognized that advancement potential and training history might be related, we hypothesized that these two factors would have independent influences on self-efficacy. Since formal training oc- curs outside of the immediate job context, self-efficacy developed through promotion potential comes from different social sources than that gained in training programs. Indeed, companies with flatter hierarchies are finding that training and skill acquisition can be substituted for advancement as an incentive (Kanter, 1989). Similarly, we suspected that advancement potential and relevance of training might be related to demographic characteristics (such as seniority, function, education, and rank). However, we hypothesized that advancement potential and previous relevant training would influence self-efficacy beliefs independently of these demographic characteristics.

Hypothesis 3: Advancement potential and previous relevant training will influence self-eff icacy beliefs independently of one another and demographic characteristics.

DETERMINANTS OF THE RELEVANCE OF PREVIOUS TRAINING

Most research on training has focused on the short-term effectiveness of various pedagogical approaches. Only limited work has considered the impact of the organizational context or individual career history on training outcomes (e.g., Wexley, 1984; Noe, 1986). We proposed that three factors, job/person fit, corporate support, and individual attributes would influence managers’ perceptions of training relevance (and thereby have an indirect influence on the development of self-efficacy).

JoblPerson Fit Perceptions. We expected that individuals who perceived a good fit between their jobs, competencies, and training would perceive training to be relevant. Hence, those who identified formal training programs as the source of a larger percentage of the knowledge required to do their jobs would assess their training as more relevant. Conversely, those who reported feelings of obsolescence, an indication of poor fit of job and current competencies, would view their previous training as less relevant.

Hypothesis 4: As a larger percentage of job skills are perceived to be derived from training, managers will rate their previous training as more relevant.

Hypothesis 5: Those managers who feel obsolescent will be less

Corporate Support. We expected that signals sent by companies about their support of training and development would be related to manage-

likely to rate training as relevant.


rial assessments of training relevance (Noe & Schmidt, 1986). One way that companies can indicate their support is by the amount of training offered. The more training companies make available, the more likely managers will view the company as supporting training and hence, the training as important and relevant. Corporations can also send signals of the importance of training to managers through activities designed to integrate training into broader work life, such as involving training participants in the design and implementation of training programs. Final- ly, we felt that the concern for management development demonstrated by a manager's immediate superior would have an impact on the manager's perception of the relevance of training.

Hypothesis 6 Number of days in training will increase the perception of training relevance.

Hypothesis 7 Corporate support of training and development through a) involving managers in the design and implementation of training programs, and b) superior concern for professional development will increase the perceived relevance of previous training.

lndividual Attributes. We postulated that perceptions of training relevance would vary according to whether or not managers possessed external sources of job competencies and legitimation. The more a manager could rely on external sources for information and status, the less relevant corporate training programs would appear. In this regard, hav- ing a college education provides both expertise and an external credential to validate managerial competence. Therefore, the lack of this expertise and credential should lead managers to evaluate training programs as more relevant. Similarly, seniority in a company should increase the perceived relevance of internal programs because the value of information and credentials gained outside the organization depreciates over time (Rosenbaum, 1984). Finally, line managers (as opposed to staff managers) should judge internal training programs as more relevant, since their jobs q u i r e more company specific information than staff managers who can base their claims for expertise on external professional groups (Meyerson & Zemsky, 1982).

Hypothesis 8: Managers whose outside sources of experkhe and legitimation are limited will perceive prior training as more relevant.

RESEARCH DESIGN The data for the analyses in this study are taken from an earlier,

exploratory study of retraining in finanaal service firms. Because of changes in the regulatory and competitive environment, many financial service firms were undergoing major transitions. Fifteen leading financial service firms were contacted and eight agreed to be included in the

Hill and Elias: Retraining Midcareer Managers I 205

study: two insurance companies, three investment banks, and three commercial banks. Table I11 describes the middle management popula- tions and retraining programs. Some programs were designed to help the managers cope with radically new job assignments or major organizational changes. Others were intended to substantially upgrade and update managerial skills and attitudes, although the new managers would remain in essentially the same positions. However, all of the programs were considered to be key interventions in the corporations' attempts to make strategic reorientations. At each company, one class of approximately 20 managers served as participants in our study.

Our initial sample yielded 113 managers. The researchers conducted three-hour, semi-structured interviews with each manager in person. Since there was a paucity of research on retraining from the point of view of those about to be retrained, the interview schedules included a mix of multiple-choice and open-ended questions. In addition, corporate executives and human resource managers at each company were interviewed about the training programs and participants.

Table 111. Description of Retraining Programs in Study.

Program Title Curriculum Participants

Profit Center Management a

Advanced Leadership Program: Managing in a Changed Environment

"Cash Management"

Commercial Credit Program

Program

Advanced Level Training

Planning and Controlling

Recruiting, Selecting and Retaining Brokersa

Manager Development

FinancelControll Marketing

Managing to Corporate Values/Components of Middle Management1 Managing Managers for Excellence

Product Knowledge/Sales

Commercial Credit Emphasis on Small Business Loans

Finance/Computer SciencelOperations Research/Industrial Engineering Planning /Control

Management of Professional Sales Force

Administra tivetsales Leadership

General Managers

General Managers

Managers

General Managers

Management Information Systems Managers

Operations Managers

General Managers

General Managers

'Due to missing data, these sites were dropped from quantitative analysis.


In order to perform a more systematic inquiry into the antecedents of self-efficacy, a number of statistical analyses using the multiple-choice questions were conducted. Due to logistical difficulties, many of the multiple-choice items were not administered in two companies (one of the investment banks and one of the insurance companies). Hence, all of the quantitative analyses presented below are based on the data received from 71 respondents in six companies. (However, the missing data did not seem to introduce any systematic bias. In a separate set of analyses, in which pairwise elimination of missing data was used to preserve respondents, the results were not sigruficantly different.)

Due to the exploratory nature of this study, many of the variables are represented by simple additive scales of conceptually related questions. We created scales for self-efficacy in learning, relevance of previous training, individual involvement in training planning, superior’s concern for development, source of skills, and feelings of obsolescence. Though reliability coefficients for some of these scales were low, we felt that the questions captured important aspects of the underlying con- cepts (see Appendix for list of questions and reliability coefficients). Advancement potential was measured by a single item: managers were asked to rate their chances for advancing on a five-point scale. Average number of days training was a single self-report item. Because of the difficulty of comparing titles and responsibilities across companies, we measured rank by a dummy variable that coded general managers as 1 and all other managers as 0. Lack of a college degree was coded 1, as was holding a staff position. Seniority was reported in number of years since joining the company.

RESULTS

Hypotheses 1-3

While both advancement potential and previous relevant training showed significant positive correIations with beliefs of self-efficacy in learning, they were not correlated with each other (see Table IV).

The correlations in Table IV between individual attributes and advancement potential were much as expected. Seniority depressed expec- tations of advancement potential as did the lack of a college degree. Somewhat surprisingly, current rank did not suppress advancement beliefs. We offer two complementary explanations of this last finding: 1) The general managers in our sample were in the middle of their corporate hierarchies and hence had room to progress; and 2) managers hold overly optimistic views of promotion potential (Veiga, 1981).

The four regression equations reported in Table V supported our hypothesis that advancement potential and relevant past training have independent influences on self-efficacy in learning (Hypothesis #3). Both advancement potential and relevant previous training proved to be


.

X f 3 3a

8 2 T

able

IV

. C

orre

latio

ns b

etw

een

Self-

Effi

cacy

, Tra

inin

g R

elev

ance

, 0

r A

dvan

cem

ent P

oten

tial,

and

Indi

vidu

al A

ttri

bute

s.

Var

iabl

e M

ean

Std.

Dev

. (1

) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

s 3 (1

) Se

lf-ef

ficac

y 14.48

2.66

.403c

.284b

-.284b

-.047

-.131

.112

(2)

Adv

ance

men

t Pot

entia

l 2.93

1.00

.011

-228

8 - .325b

.052

-

.066

v,

(3)

Tra

inin

g R

elev

ance

12.92

4.48

,2553

.345

b .lo5

-.172

(5) No D

egre

ed

.30

.073

- .090

8 e (6

) G

ener

al M

anag

erd

.56

- -.mc

(7)

Staf

f Pos

ition

d .35

bp I .01.

‘p 5 .001.

3 (4)

Seni

ority

11.78

7.87

.492c

.187

-.343b

- Ll

- ap 5

.0

5.

dInd

icat

es d

umm

y va

riab

le; m

ean

repr

esen

ts p

erce

ntag

e of

res

pond

ents

who

hav

e th

is c

hara

cter

istic

.

Table V. Multiple Regressions on Self-Efficacy in Leaminga,b

Equations

Training Relevance

Advancement Potential

Staff Position

No Degree

General Manager

Seniority

co.1 c 0 . 2

C0.3

C0.4

C0.5

CONSTANT

R2 Adjusted R2

9.24 16.10

.24 .10

.22 .05

.1%d (-055) .me

(. 298) .145

(. 741) .723

(-728) - .688 (. 673)

- . 1 0 6 C (-042)

10.35

.35

.29

.180c (.ow

.960d (-317)

1.73 (1.25)

.355 (1.28)

.354 (1.01)

.539 (1.03) - .195 (1.oo) 9.01

.28

.20

'(Standard Errors) reported below coeffidents bCO.1-C0.5 represent dummy variables for the companies in the study. The sixth company is the reference variable.

= p 5 .05. dp 5 .01. 'p I .001.

statistically robust predictors, not only showing s i m c a n t independent effects when entered jointly (Equation l), but also remaining significant when individual attributes were entered (Equation 3) and when dummy variables for the companies were entered (Equation 4). Seniority (in Equation 3) and the differences between firms (in Equation 4) also proved to be important factors in determining self-efficacy in learning. Equation 4 suggests that factors specific to each company other than advancement and previous training history influenced self-efficacy in learning.

We also tested for interaction effects between seniority and lack of a college degree and the independent variables. Four interaction terms


were created and entered into regression Equation 3. None of the terms proved significant (not shown in tables).

Even though we did not offer specific predictions about the influence of individual attribute variables on self-efficacy, we explored the relationships of these variables with self-efficacy in learning by running a series of partial correlations controlling for advancement potential and relevant previous training, both separately and in combination. As Table VI indicates, general management position and staff position became significant predictors of self-efficacy in learning when both advancement potential and relevant previous training were controlled. Additionally, the size of the correlations of no college degree and seniority with self- efficacy in learning increased when relevant previous training was controlled. These findings suggest that organizational experiences can serve to mitigate or compensate for demographic characteristics that might otherwise compromise self-efficacy in learning.

Staff managers judged their previous formal training to be less relevant (consistent with Hypothesis 7) and saw fewer opportunities for advancement. Yet, when both relevant previous training and advancement potential were controlled, staff position became a significant positive predictor of self-efficacy in learning. (The staff position analysis shed light on the negative influence of general management position on self-efficacy in learning, when relevant previous training and advancement potential were controlled. The finding may be an artifact; by defi- nition a staff manager could not be a general manager.)

Hypotheses 4-8

In the second part of our analysis, we treated relevant previous training as a dependent variable and considered its relationships to a number of individual attributes and organizational factors (Table VII). As ex-

Table VI. Partial Correlations between Individual Attributes and Self-Efficacy in Learning

Controlling for

Training Relevance,

Variable Order Relevance Potential Potential First Training Advancement Advancement

seniority - .284b - .384= - .215a - .322a General Manager -.131 -.168 -.166 - .2ma No Degree -.a7 - .161 .097 -.OM Staff Position .112 .170 .152 .217a

' p 5 .05. bp 5 .01. ' p 5 .001.


Table VII. Correlations between Training Relevance, Corporate Support, and Job Perceptions.

(1) Training Relevance 12.92 4.48 .247a .213' .031 .462c -.131 (2) Training Involvement 3.42 2.44 2268 -2598 .174 -.050 (3) Boss Interest 5.45 2.43 -0% .w3 -.M (4) Days Training 12.93 9.15 .145 -.lo1 (5) skill source .38 .15 .347c (6) Obsolescence 2.86 1.25

pected, source of skills was signheantly correlated with perceptions of relevant training (Hypothesis 4); however, relevant previous training's correlation with obsolescence did not reach sigruficance (though it was in the expected diredion) (Hypothesis 5). To investigate the Mure of Hypothesis 5, we ran a partial correlation between relevant previous training and feelings of obsolescence controlling for source of skills (not shown in tables). This partial correlation showed that a si@cant negative relationship between relevant training and obsolescence did exist (-.311, p <.01), as long as variety of skill sources was controlled. It seems that managers who relied upon training as the dominant source of work-related compefencies were especially vulnerable to feelings of obsolescence.

Contrary to expectation, days training was not signhcantly related to relevant previous training (Hypothesis 6), although the correlation was in the predicted direction. The simple exposure of managers to training did not seem to be as strong a signal of corporate commitment to training as we had expected. Or perhaps days training received was a poor proxy for days of training opportunities actually available.

Consistent with Hypothesis 7, the indicators of corporate support of training and development (a manager's involvement in planning of training and superior's concern with career development) had sigh- cant positive correlations with relevant previous training. Seniority, lack of a college degree, and staff position all were related to training relevance in the predicted direction (Hypothesis S), though only no college degree showed a sigmfant correlation.

We also ran partial correlations of the job and corporate support variables on self-efficacy in learning (lhble U). Interestingly, the magni- tudes of the correlations of the corporate support variables (a manager's involvement in the planning of training and superior's concern with career development) with self-efficacy in learning were reduced when advancement potential and relevant previous training were controlled,

Hill and a s : Retramn ' gMidcareerManagers I 211

Table VIII. Partial Correlations between Corporate Support, Job Perceptions, and Self-Efficacy in Learning

Controlling for

Training Relevance,

First Training Advancement Advancement Variable Order Relevance Potential Potential

Training Involvement .3XC .328b .322b .267a Boss Interest .225a .178 .136 .076

Skill Source -.014 -.171 .053 -.lo7 Obsolescence - .286a - .2Wa -.201a -.170

Days Training .172 .170 .116 .I12

ap 5 .05. bp 5 .01. cp 5 .001.

the opposite of what we saw for the individual attribute variables. How- ever, training involvement continued to exert independent influences on self-efficacy in learning even when relevant previous training and advancement potential were controlled, indicating that these elements of training may have a direct, independent influence on self-efficacy beliefs. Clearly, given the total amount of variance explained, there are other career history and organizational factors that need to be taken into account in identifying the antecedents of self-efficacy in learning beliefs.

DISCUSSION

Based on previous research and the qualitative analysis of interviews with 113 managers faced with retraining, we posited that career history would influence self-efficacy in work-related learning. Strictly speaking, our quantitative analysis of 71 managers represented correlational analyses of a number of attitudinal measures, many of which await refine- ment and validation. In future research, we hope to have measures of the managers’ actual behaviors and more objective data about their career histories and their corporate environments.

Still, we believe that o m results are extremely suggestive of the importance of considering career history and organizational factors in un- derstanding managerial attitudes toward retraining. To summarize, we found that: 1) advancement potential has a strong positive effect on self- efficacy in learning, 2) previous relevant formal training has a robust, independent effect on self-efficacy, 3) advancement potential and perceived training relevance mediate the effects of individual attributes on self-efficacy, 4) the perception of previous training as relevant is related to personal attributes and various indicators of corporate support of

212 1 Human Resource Management, Summer 1990

training, although it is not predicted by number of days spent training, and 5) seniority has a strong negative effect on self-eificacy in learning that is only partially moderated by advancement potential and the relevance of prior training.

This research also suggests that individual responses to corporate programs should be seen as strategies of adapting personal attributes to organizational conditions. Apparently, individuals assess their personal attributes in relation to opportunities afforded by the organization and find different routes to gain feelings of self-efficacy and competence. For example, some managers without a college degree seemed to compensate for their depressed advancement potential by taking fuller advantage of training programs (hence, they perceived them as more relevant) and thereby gained competencies and self-efficacy. In another example, managers who relied largely on training for their skills signaled their vulnerability by expressing concern over obsolescence. Sociologists have long considered the interaction of opportunity structure and individual attributes as central to job matching between individuals and positions. This research argues that there is merit in extending this perspective to the consideration of behavior and attitudes within positions, as individuals maneuver strategically through a range of corporate programs and performance standards (Barney & Lawrence, 1989; Tuma & Grimes, 1981).

Implications for Practitioners

For corporate executives and human resource managers, our findings strongly indicate that they should assess their managers‘ self-efficacy beliefs before embarking on or evaluating corporate retraining efforts. In the majority of companies in which we conducted our study, retraining was viewed on a program-by-program basis and retraining failures were generally attributed to defiaenaes in program design and/or participants. Executives often adopted a “slash and burn” strategy when retraining efforts failed to realize objectives, laying off managers who did not acquire new competencies, behaviors, and attitudes. Layofb following retraining programs may send a message to the workforce that retraining is a futile endeavor. Such actions undermine self-efficacy in learning beliefs, and consequently further reduce the likelihood that future retraining efforts will meet with success (Klein 1989).

For human resource managers, our research illustrates the importance of being sensitive to career histories and the organizational context when designing and implementing retraining programs. Programs must be designed to address the p s y c h o d support needs of managers with low self-efficacy. Training programs that afford participants the opportunity to dirvrctly model the behavior of the trainer and gain positive feedback on their own performance have been shown to increase self-efficacy (Gist, 1986; Gist et al., 1989). Involving managers in

Hill and Elias: Retraining Midcareer Managers I 213

the design and delivery of programs might help compensate for their feelings of impotence and incompetence. Honest discussion of the stresses of retraining, along with allowances for setbacks, should also help alleviate some of the potentially debilitating effects of anxiety.

The findings of this research remind us that retraining employees is not analogous to retooling machines. Organizations that have neglected to provide opportunities for gaining self-efficacy in learning beliefs (for instance, developmental experiences and/or advancement opportunities) should expect to encounter resistance to retraining efforts. In this regard, our findings on seniority were especially troubling. Neglect- ing the professional development of the more tenured manager can create formidable pockets of resistance to retraining. To gain competitive advantage, executives should be proactive in creating self-efficacy in learning beliefs. Only when they signal consistently and persistently that they view the workforce as capable of learning and adapting to change, will their people have sufficient confidence to weather the rough seas ahead.

APPENDIX Self-efficacy in learning-(alpha = .56). An additive scale con-

structed from the following 5 questions:

"On the scale below (1 to 5): 1. Please rate your ability to learn new work-related knowledge and skills. 2. Please indicate whether your ability to learn has changed in your years

3. Please indicate how much you enjoy work related learning. 4. Please rate your present level of motivation to keep up-to-date. 5. Please indicate whether your motivation to keep up-to-date has changed

with the company.

in your years with the company."

Previous relevant training-(alpha = 33). Additive scale formed from the following six questions:

"Using the scale below (from 1 to 5), please rate how important these in-house training and education programs were for various aspects of your job and career.

1. Providing you with the skills and knowledge necessary to perform effec-

2. For your current job performance. 3. To the development of your managerial skills. 4. To the development of your interpersonal skills. 5. To the development of your communication skills."

tively in your current job.

Self-assessed advancement potential- -"On the scale below (from 1 to 5), please rate your opportunities for advancement at your company."

Training involvement-(alpha = .a). Additive scale formed from the following two questions:

214 I Humn Resource Management, Summer 1990

1. "On the scale below (from 1 to 5), please indicate how important a role you and your fellow managers play in identifying education and training needs."

2. "On the scale below (from 1 to S), please indicate how much input and control you and your fellow managers have in designing management training programs."

Superior's help in deveiopment-(alpha = 35). Additive scale of the following two questions:

1. "On the scale below (from 1 to 5), please indicate, in your opinion, how interested your immediate boss is in your growth and development as a professional and not just in relation to your job."

2. "On the scale below (from 1 to 5), please indicate the extent to which your immediate boss encourages you to use the company's existing resources for professional development."

Days training-Respondent's report of the average number of days slhe spent training each year.

Source of skills--Four questions, two linked to formal training and two to learning by doing. Measure constructed by dividing the score from the formal training questions by the score from all four:

"Using the scale below (from 1 to 5), please rate how important these ways for acquiring skills and knowledge necessary for performing one's job were for you. (Formal training)

1. In-house company education/training programs 2. External job-related company programs, for instance, night school at the

local business school. (Learning-by-doing)

1. On-the-job training and experience, that is, learning by doing. 2. Watching others (for instance, superiors and peers) do their jobs."

Feelings of obsole!scence-(alpha = .a). An additive scale constructed from the following two questions:

'Thirtk about your present professional knowledge and skills. On the scale below (from 1 to 5), please indicate how useful and valuable they are:

1. To your present job demands and responsibilities. 2. To your job demands and responsibilities one year from now."

General manager @tim-A dummy variable indicating rank. Since job titles and hierarchical levels across companies were dif€icult to compare, a very crude distinction had to be introduced: all those who were identified as general managers were given a value of 1, while assistant and associate managers received the value of zero.

Hill and Elias. Retraining Midcareer Managers / 215

College credential-Managers who indicated they had not received a college degree were coded as 1 and all others were coded 0. Importantly, this variable measures the existence of an external credential rather than years of education.

Staff position-A dummy variable where managers were coded ei- ther 1 for staff or 0 for line.

Seniority-Number of years respondent has spent with the corporation.

Linda A. Hill is an associate professor in the Organizational BehaviorlHuman Resource Management area at the Harvard Business School. She is currently working on a manuscript: Becoming a Manager: Mastery of a New Identity, to be published by the Harvard Business School Press, Ianuay 1992. Professor Hill's consulting and executive education activities have been in the areas of managing change and innovation, managing interfunctional conflict, managing in the multinational corporafion, and developing an effective leadership style. Organizations with which Professor Hill has worked include Molex Interna- tional, American Bankers Association, Bankers Trust Company, Bristol-Myers, American Federation of the Arts, McGrawHill, Textron, and ZBM.

laan Elias is a Ph. D. candidate in the Joint Organizational Behavior program at Harvard University. His dissertation investigates the ways in which govern- ment, industrial, and academic organizations structure the careers and mobility opportunities of Ph. D. physical scientists.

REFERENCES Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychol-

ogist, 44, 1175-1184. Bandura, A., & Wood, R. E. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and perfor-

mance standards on self-regulation of complex deasion-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 805-814.

Bardwick, J. M. (1986). The plateauing trap. New York AMACOM. Barney, J. B., & Lawrence, B. S. (1989). Pin stripes, power ties and personal

relationships: The economics of career strategy. In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall, & B. S. Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook of career theory (pp. 417-437). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. A., & Spector, B. (1990). The critical path to corporate renewal. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Camevale, A. P., & Gainer, L. J. (1989). The learning enterprise. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.

Cohen, A. R. (1958). Upward communication in experimentally created hierarchies. Human Relations, 11 , 41-53.

-Cross, P. K. (1981). Adults as learners. San Francisco, C A Jossey-Bass.


Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation

Gecas, V. (1989). The social psychology of self-efficacy. Annual Review of kiology,

Gist, M. E. (1986). The effects of self-efficacy on training task performance. Acndpmy of Munagement Best Paper Proceedings: 1986, 250-254.

Gist, M. E., Schwoerer, C., & ksen , 8. (1989). Effects of alternative training methods on self-efficacy and performance in computer software training.

Hill, L. A., & sonnenfeld, J. A. (1986, June). Renewal within finuncial Seruice firms: Msmgers' rppeCtions on refrainmg. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard Business School, Research Colloquium on the U.S. Financial Services settor, Boston.

Hinrichs, J. R. (1986). Personnel training. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational ps?lchology (pp. 829-860). New York Wiley.

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and men of the corporafion. New York Basic Books. Kanter, R. M. (1989). When giants leurn to dance--Mastering the chullenge of strategy,

Klein, J. I. (1989). Parenthetic learning in organizations: Toward the unlearning

Lindsey, E., Homes, V., h McCall, M. W., Jr. (1987). Key ewnts in executives' lives.

Lod<e, E. A., Frederick, E., Lee, C., dr Bobko, P. (1984). Effect of self-efficacy,

and per~o~lity. B~~chollogical Review, 95,256-273.

15, 291-236.

J o u ~ u ~ ~ Of Applied Psy~hlbgy, 74(6), 884-891.

munagement, and a r m s in the 1990s. New York Sion & Schwter.

of the unlearning model. Journnl of Management Studies, 26(3), 291-308.

Greensboro, NC Center for Creative Leadership.

goals, and task strategies on task performance. jour&l of Applied Psychology, 69. 241-251.

Lorsch, J. W., & Taka@, H. (1986). Keeping managers off the shelf. l-laruurd Business Review, 64, 60-65.

Maw, C. C. (1986). Self-leadership: Toward an expanded theory of self-influence processes in organizations. Acudemy of Management Review, 11,585-600.

Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1980). Vicarious learning: The influence of modeling on organizational behavior. Acudemy of Munugement Reuiew, 5,105- 113.

Meyerson, M. & Zemsky, R. (1982). Training perspectives: An interim report to the National Institute of Edmtion. Available from the National Institufe of Educa- tion, Contract #400-81-0025.

Noe, R. A. (1986). Trainees' attributes and attitudes: Neglected influences on training effectiveness. Acndemy of Munagement Review, 11, 736-749.

Noe, R. A., & Schmitt, N. (1986). The influence of trainees' attitudes on trainee effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 39, 497-529.

Rosenbaum, J. E. (1984). Career mobility in a corporate hierarchy. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Tuma, N. B., & Grimes, A. J. (1981). A comparison of models of role orientations of professionals in a research-oriented university. Adminishutive Science Quur-

Veiga, J. F. (1981). Do managers on the move get anywhere? Namrd Business Review, 81,20-38.

Wexley, K. N. (1984). Personnel training. Annual Review of P~~chology, 35, 519- 551.

Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of Ivlunagement RatiaU, 14(3), 361-384.

tdy, 26, 187-206.


Retraining midcareer managers: Career history and self-efficacy beliefs

Documents

Transcript of Retraining midcareer managers: Career history and self-efficacy beliefs