Personality Attitudes Affecting Employee Learning and Development: Prerequisites of Behaviour Leading to Learning and Development
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to reveal current approach and reactions of employees towards learning and development in organisations and to specify variants of behaviour as factors affecting employee development.
Methodology/Approach: The study is based on evaluation of quantitative research. The data were collected via electronic questionnaires. The sample contains 211 employees from organisations across sectors. Bivariate and multivariate statistical methods and analyses were used to lower the number of possible single approaches and practices. Analyses formed valid factors, which influence and determine employee development.
Findings: Results identified and verified different ways of reactions of respondents on organisational learning and development. Main searched areas of employee behaviour variability are motivation, affect and performance. Factors described in the presented article show the main ways which are used by employees in order to pass the learning and development process. Variability of employees’ reactions on learning and development process and its impact on performance is described using quantitative data.
Research Limitation/implication: The results may be used in praxis in organisations to manage employee behaviour in order to grow constantly and use their own potential talents and leaders. Besides this study there are several promising avenues for further research. It would be useful to know the impact on life-long development and there should be an investigation of the longer term impacts of learning in organisations.
Originality/Value of paper: Employee learning and development are truly crucial for organisational and economy development. But the process of learning and development is not constant. Variability of employee behaviour during organisational education and development is currently discussed theme, however there is a lack of studies and researches focused on this area. Therefore this paper identyfies and describes variability of emoployee behaviour during the learning and development process. Employees react in five different directions (positive, negative or neutral as resignation) and the impact on organisation is either positive or none.
Category: Case study
References
Ahsan, N., Fie, D.Y.G., Foong, Y.P. and Alam, S.S., 2013. Relationship between retention factors and affective organisational commitment among knowledge workers in Malaysia. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 14(5), pp.903-922.
Anderson, V., 2009. Research Methods in Human Resource Management. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel Development.
Bandura, A., 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Beckmann, N., Wood, R.E. and Minbashian, A., 2010. It depends how you look at it: On the relationship between neuroticism and conscientiousness at the within- and the between-person levels of analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(5), pp.593-601.
Blumberg, M. & Pringle, C. D., 1982. The missing opportunity in organizational research: Some implications for a theory of work performance. The Academy of Management Review, 7(4), pp.560-569.
Campbell, J.P., 1990. Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In: Dunnette, M.D., Hough, L.M. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Vol 1 (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, pp.687-732.
Curran, P.J. and Bauer, D.J., 2011. The disaggregation of within-person and between-person effects in longitudinal models of change. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, pp.583-619.
Dalal, R.S., Bhave, D.P. and Fiset, J., 2014. Within-Person Variability in Job Performance: A Theoretical Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Management, 40(5), pp.1396–1436. DOI: 10.1177/0149206314532691.
Dalal, R.S. and Hulin, C.L., 2008. Motivation for what? The criterion question. In: R. Kanfer, G. Chen, R. Pritchard (Eds.), Work motivation: Past, present and future, pp.63-100. New York, NY: Routledge.
Day, D.V., Sin, H.P. and Chen, T.T., 2004. Assessing the burdens of leadership: Effects of formal leadership roles on individual performance over time. Personnel Psychology, 57(3), pp.573-605.
De Vaus, D., 2002. Surveys in Social Research. London, UK: Routledge/Taylor and Francis.
Field, A., 2009. Discovering statistics using SPSS. 3rd ed. London: Sage.
Fiol, C.M. and Lyles, M.A., 1985. Organisational learning. The Academy of Management Review, 10(4), pp.803-813.
Fisher, C.D., 2003. Why do lay people believe that satisfaction and performance are correlated? Possible sources of a commonsense theory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(6), pp.753-777.
Gannon, J.M. and Maher, A., 2012. Developing tomorrow’s talent: the case of an undergraduate mentoring programme. Education + Training, 54(6), pp.440-455.
Ghiselli, E.E. and Haire, M., 1960. The validation of selection tests in light of the dynamic nature of criteria. Personnel Psychology, 13(3), pp.225-231.
Glomb, T.M., Bhave, D.P., Miner, A.G. and Wall, M., 2011. Doing good, feeling good: Examining the role of organizational citizenship behaviors in changing mood. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), pp.191-223.
Gururajan, V. and Fink, D., 2010. Attitudes towards knowledge transfer in an environment to perform. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(6), pp.828-840.
Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Bono, J.E. and Patton, G.K., 2001. The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), pp.376-407.
Kanner, A.D., Coyne, J.C., Schaefer, C. and Lazarus, R.S., 1981. Comparisons of two modes of stress measurement: Daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4(1), pp.1-39.
Kumaraswamy, K.S.N. and Chitale, C.M., 2012. Collaborative knowledge sharing strategy to enhance organisational learning. Journal of Management Development, 31(3), pp.308-322.
Li, J., Brake, G., Champion, A., Fuller, T., Gabel, S. and Hatcher-Busch, L., 2009. Workplace learning: the roles of knowledge accessibility and management. Journal of Workplace Learning, 21(4), pp.347-364.
Loke, S.P., Downe, A.,G., Sambasivan, M. and Khalid, K., 2012. A structural approach to integrating total quality management and knowledge management with supply chain learning. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 13(4), pp.776-800.
Lord, R.G., Diefendorff, J.M., Schmidt, A.M. and Hall, R.J., 2010. Selfregulation at work. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, pp.543-568.
Manning, P., 2010. Explaining and developing social capital for knowledge management purposes. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(1), pp.83-99.
McDonnell, A., Lavelle, J. and Gunnigle, P., 2014. Human Resource Management in Multinational Enterprises: Evidence From a Late Industrializing Economy. Management International Review, 54(3), pp.361-380.
Singh, R., Ragins, B.R. and Tharenou, P., 2009. Who gets a mentor? A longitudinal assessment of the riding star hypothesis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(1), pp.11-17.
Sitzmann, T. and Yeo, G., 2013. A meta-analytic investigation of the withinperson self-efficacy domain: Is selfefficacy a product of past performance or a driver of future performance? Personnel Psychology, 66(3), pp.531-568.
Vancouver, J.B., 2012. Rhetorical reckoning. Journal of Management, 38(2), pp.465-474.
Vancouver, J.B., Thompson, C.M. and Williams, A.A., 2001. The changing signs in the relationships among self-efficacy, personal goals, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), pp.605-620.
Vnou?ková, L., 2013. Fluktuace a retence zaměstnanců [Employees Turnover and Retention]. Praha: Adart.
Young, B. W., Weir, P. L., Starkes, J. L. and Medic, N., 2008. Does lifelong learning temper age-related decline in sport performance? Interpreting differences between cross-sectional and longitudinal data. Experimental Aging Research, 34(1), pp.27-48.
Authors
This is an open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access. This journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0.
Authors who publish with the Quality Innovation Prosperity agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
