”‘1‘ «I ,‘u‘o‘ ;' V" '35:! ' 0V- nv‘ ‘ dauk} . '~ I ' "3 ~30. 9'15 ‘ ‘ £35 < ' - «‘u" 0 \ 7 ~ .. x. ., a, . . ‘ 3 11‘? _ . .53. ‘i ' . . \ ’_-4 5 ‘ . . 1'; V. v a. , ‘ ‘ ~ - ‘H‘ .‘4)‘«:;.3.:“I5l.: ( ‘ .~~.- - ' . .- a ' av” 9' ‘ ' . ‘ ,, ’ .5... H.“ git) \ v ) an him-“‘53“ r3" ' ‘ “'1." - ' v . ‘ x,- ' ‘ MdTfl-‘Nfi‘éi'?’ 5. . . ,x a L. 3 5 . - ‘ M. wa. . ' '9" ‘e: ‘ ‘ ' - > (m a 5 ' ‘ n fi’kfiw'g‘ 7 :tu‘kfy? ‘u- .~ -.w, 1. 9.x .3”;er . “‘23-; 15:5} (i‘gfil‘; '3; >5: V‘l.€‘;"" '5 it“ (“r-l. \FM‘ widerw "w 5 ”‘1" u‘ tit, "’~‘:-:” 10" q. , . ~~\ :‘m~§§;-‘$m‘z.f“;4~'a ‘ V s. .- v‘. . ”a. , ‘ . 5‘ .,.?u$:_.[;..;fi~\ “(r A". ‘ ‘ r». ,,v 4 X.‘ "R “3‘:- J '5 H a $3?” \1 ‘P. I? “ ‘ 5 " . .-'.". ‘ 'V Jfa‘ifit'g‘ {-3383 “ was“. .v~ ., “"32 .. , 4 . ‘1' ‘3‘ 3- 5’ ‘J* U“ '.A‘ " . . i ‘ z 3“ ",' (3&1 ‘2" {32‘ x21. Wfigi . final." H. “I 3 H» 2 'e~.:fi{~(s'~'k:lg’ 35'“ :4" “ '7 " .5 23‘1" _. '3‘ ~ .5 . 5 . 2. . 4 . V y 3‘ g .« ‘- "35"» ' V: “‘1 ‘- ‘ “ “ca _ :53: ‘ ' '., &' .h ..». . '.. ffl'dki X ‘ J ";; ' ‘1 “qu‘ “‘9 ‘ ' . 3,33 kn;- ‘33 . A ~ ‘. ' u ,. “Hg, ‘ l u -. .x ‘ A r». I'M .. .u. 0.; “13. {~- 3 91.41143? ., 74,“. 2' ‘0 v‘ 3:16. " . “wi. ‘ J '1‘ \ A .1. -RE *5 352:. 31'": '~ ‘ . . ‘5 A\ ~ . n .1; 4w; 1'f ‘u‘ m .1. m.1.x-..'._.e. i V.\‘ * My , n ge“,v‘~y !‘ .‘ w “1w - ».¢{"‘.vv‘_$5 4.”: . v r. ‘iw‘A U H was .. “1“» - '9 ’4 . a ‘5 k :4 ».' 3. ' “uni -.A .0 h"?! v‘.‘o’ fl-‘a' '_s («5 u. . ..h.1."._ ‘ n 4 1 . 3,1, m - was. .4. "4"1‘,“ ~£ v 944‘ ,5 .5 w ~ .‘+ . . ~- *5." 5,341,. .3, .'\-'J"f‘4},-ui q!” v $137.33 ’71: 424' - I x A ‘ 5 ‘ 1“."u’.' 3‘» “£35533 o A“ II ‘ ‘- ;i4r' w“: r; ‘3‘ «1'. H . . . x I": ‘. |I I c‘. n a t:-. _"'_'r\. ‘ ' ‘ A V 3,. ‘ - ‘ 4‘ . \ » W (,3: a S a ”3-0 . ._ ~ ~35: 3/ V 44 ~ «‘1‘ 3 :1. we “a ~ . - ‘0 “Z ‘2‘; F FE ( ’ .r .. .-" 'vrln‘v, 1'0: < . 1" "‘(I- ‘ . .. _“r 3 .r, m: w ’-1 1. . , ‘ .‘ u .'V‘H'7~1..,'.‘/"'" ,.4..1\;uu.;.‘ " 1V.‘....‘/hv r ‘ 5%, "h’e‘r’ '5, - ;~'1 .u u; d .‘l. 4 A‘._\') ‘c : ‘. .‘ .-.'; . .‘\.\v'~'~“.";' ’ I14! ‘— I" 1/“, o I‘! . L" 1.1):1’1/ . ‘ ”(I 3": 1‘ ’ 1'" . . 1 - - ~ ”nu. ,I - ' I ' Ill? "70“,}, r} " \ . 'g 3 ' ,_ \ l. > r. 2161617161] HIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRAFNES 11111111 1111 ‘1‘ 1111111111 11111 3 1293 00564 5746 This is to certify that the thesis entitled AN EXPLORATORY INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF TRAINING SUBSYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS AND SCANNING ACTIVITIES presented by HELENE R. KRIFCHER has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for . PSYCHOLOGY __M.._A.__degree 1n J fl,” W J/ Major professor Date JANUARY 19, 1989 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution V'T'r‘ I’M“! "khllan Cute 1 Univefllty 3—— *- —————_ LIBRARIES m RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES wiII be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. AN EXPLORATORY INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF TRAINING SUBSYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS AND. SCANNING ACTIVITIES By Helene R. Krifcher A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1989 ABSTRACT AN EXPLORATORY INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF TRAINING SUBSYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS AND SCANNING ACTIVITIES By Helene R. Krifcher The present research is an exploratory investigation of the relationship between training subsystem characteristics and the training subsystem’s process of acquiring information, or scanning. An open systems approach provides the theoretical framework for viewing the training subsystem as interactive with and dependent upon the organization and its environment. This dependency necessitates a need for informational input to the training subsystem from the organizational and environmental systems. Scanning is one strategy that may be used to acquire this information. Literature from the environmental scanning and boundary spanning domains, and the training and organizational characteristics domains relevant to the current research were reviewed. The scanning variables examined in this study are scanning acquisition strategy (how proactive the subsystem is in obtaining information from the organization and the environment) and complexity of search for information (the extent to which a variety of sources and content areas are explored). It was expected that training subsystem characteristics (extensiveness of the training mission, the training subsystem’s centrality, and the training subsystem’s resource adequacy) would relate to both scanning acquisition strategy and complexity of information search. Data were collected from 282 training directors, or individuals primarily in charge of the training and development function from Michigan manufacturing companies. As expected, results indicate that training mission extensiveness and centrality were positively correlated with both scanning acquisition strategy and complexity of information search. Intercorrelations among training subsystem mission extensiveness, centrality, and resource adequacy were significant, as was the intercorrelation between scanning acquisition strategy and complexity of information search. Multiple regression analysis results indicate that training mission extensiveness and resource adequacy accounted for a small yet significant portion of the variance in scanning acquisition strategy. Training subsystem centrality was found to significantly predict complexity of information search. These exploratory results are viewed as a first step to a more comprehensive understanding of the manner in which training subsystem characteristics and scanning activities are related. The need to examine training and development as a subsystem that is interactive with the organization and its environment are discussed. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The process of completing this thesis has been my greatest learning experience as well as my greatest source of frustration during my tenure as a graduate student. Without the help and encouragement of many individuals, this project would not have been completed. I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to some of these individuals. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Kevin Ford for his confidence in my ability to complete this thesis, and for the tremendous help he gave to me. I would also like to thank Kevin for his unending patience with all my questions that would only take "just five minutes of your time", and for going well beyond the call of duty to allow me to complete this thesis on time (such as calling me on Christmas day to discuss revisionsl). Kevin - you have been the best advisor a graduate student could hope to work with - thank you! I would also like to thank my other committee members, Dan Ilgen and Mike Lindell. I greatly appreciate your time, suggestions, and insightful comments. iv The time and effort put forth by Debbie Major and Jean Howenstine allowed me to complete this research. Thank you both for your all your support and help. I could not have kept my sanity through this process without the encouragement and help from many of the graduate students in the department. Thank you for commiserating with me and allowing me to complain as much as I desired! I would like to thank my long—distance friends, Debbie, Paula, and Rich, for being there when I needed you most. You have always been there to encourage me when I felt that I just couldn’t write one more page or do one more analysis. Believe it or not, its actually done! Finally, I would like to express my deepest love and gratitude to my family. Your support has meant more to me than I can express. I hope I can give to you all the "nachas" as you deserve. Todah rabah mehacol. Ani ohevet atem meod veod veod! TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES........................... LIST OF FIGURES.......................... INTRODUCTION............................. AN OPEN SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE.............. OvervieWOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOGOOOGOOOOOO Open Systems and the Training Functi on. SCANNINGOOOOOC ..... 0.0.0060...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Environmental Scanning................ Boundary Spanning..... ...... ........ Summary and Critique................ TRAINING SUBSYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS....... Introduction .................. . ................... MiSSionOOOOOOOOOOO0.0000000000000.0. Centrality ....... ....... ..... .... ...... Resource Adequacy................... AN EXPLORATORY INVESTIGATION OF SCANNING SUBSYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS................ Scanning Dimensions and Variables... Acquisition Strategy........... Complexity of Search........... Perspective of the Study............ Research Objectives.................. Training Mission Extensiveness. TRAINING 0.0.0.0.... Training Subsystem Centrality................ Training Subsystem Resource Adequacy......... vi Page ix ‘3 k 13 14 22 26 3O 31 32 35 41 44 44 45 48 49 51 52 55 55 METHOD000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. Subjects.......................................... Sample Recruitment........................... Sample Characteristics....................... Procedure........................... ..... ......... Measures..................... . .................. Training Mission Extensiveness............... Training Subsystem Centrality................ Training Subsystem Resource Adequacy......... Scanning Acquisition Strategy Proactiveness.. Complexity of Search......................... Method of Analysis........................... RESULTS...000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Introduction............................... ....... Descriptive Results..................... .......... Intercorrelations Among Training Subsystem Variables and Scanning Variables ....... .......... Test of the Research Objectives: Intercorrelations of the Training Subsystem Variables and the Scanning Variables............................... Regression Analysis............. ......... ......... DISCUSSION. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .......... 0 0 ..... 0 0 0 0 0 ........... IntrOdUCtion ..... 0000000 0000000000000 000000 00000 Summary of Expected Results. ......... . ..... Results of the Regression Analyses. ..... ........ . Scanning Acquisition Strategy Proactiveness.. Complexity of Information Search............. Unexpected Findings: Resource Adequacy............ Limitations of the Study and Future Research Suggestions...................................... Generalizability of the Sample. ..... ......... Validation of the Measures................... Method of Data Collection.................... Scanning Acquisition Strategy Scale ..... ..... Implications...................................... Organizational Literature... ..... ............ Environmental Scanning and Boundary Spanning Literature ........ .......................... Original Propositions........................ Future Research................................... Clarification of the Current Study........... Extension of Findings........................ Training Subsystem Antecedents.......... Scanning Activity Antecedents........... Consequences of Scanning Activity....... vii 81 81 83 85 86 89 89 89 90 90 92 93 94 94 95 98 101 104 104 105 106 108 108 110 110 112 112 Page REFERENCESO00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 115 APPENDIX A: Content Codes for Training Strategy Survey Respondent Position Titles......... 122 APPENDIX B: Training Strategy Exploratory Interview................................. 125 APPENDIX C: Training Strategy Survey.................. 141 APPENDIX D: Training Strategy Survey Cover Letters00000000000000000000000000000000000 152 APPENDIX E: Scanning Acquisition Strategy Interitem Correlation Matrix.............. 154 APPENDIX F: Complexity of Information Search Subcomposites Descriptives and Intercorrelations......................... 155 viii TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE LIST OF TABLES 1 Demographics of Study Participants........ 2 Training Mission Extensiveness Item Descriptives... 3 Training Subsystem Centrality Item Descriptives....... 4 Training Subsystem Resource Adequacy Item Descriptives ........ .. 5 Scanning Acquisition Strategy Proactiveness Item Descriptives... 6 Complexity of Information Search Item Descriptives...... 7 Scales Descriptive Results... 0000000 8 Variable Intercorrelations and Internal Consistency Reliability.................... 9 Regression Analysis with Scanning Strategy as the Dependent Variable.... 10 as the Dependent Variable.......... 11 12 with Training Strategy Respondents’ Scanning Variables.............. 13 14 ix Scanning Acquisition Strategy Interitem Correlation Matrix......... Complexity of Information Search Subcomposite Descriptives and Intercorrelations............... Multirater-Multitrait Matrix of Training Subsystem Variables.............. Regression Analysis with Scanning Complexity Intercorrelations of CEO Survey Respondents’ Perceptions of Training Subsystem Variables Page 61 67 70 71 73 82 84 87 87 96 100 154 155 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 Schein’s Three-Dimensional Model of an organization0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 INTRODUCTION From training needs assessment to program implementation to theory and model development, personnel training has usurped billions of industry dollars. It has been estimated that corporate learning is a 30 billion dollar industry, and that 62 percent of all training is conducted within the organization (Carnevale, 1986). Dollars and percentages aside, training has traditionally been treated as an important area of applied psychology (e.g., Munsterberg, 1913; Planty, McCord, & Efferson, 1948). Current technological and economic trends have served to further accentuate the importance of training. As technological advances rapidly accelerate and economic volatility increases, employees strive to remain updated and companies strive to become "lean and mean". Thus, from the perspective of both the individual and the organization, cost-effective employee training is increasingly a necessary part of the optimal functioning of the organizational system. The increasing importance of effective training to the organization suggests a need for conceptualizing the training function as an integral part of the organizational 2 system. An integrative perspective of the organization, its environment, and its subsystems is postulated by an Open systems approach. The open systems perspective focuses on the dynamic and interdependent relationships among a structure, or a system, its subsystems, and its supporting environment. The open systems approach also emphasizes the necessity of continual external input to the system and subsystems (Katz & Kahn, 1978). In using an open systems framework to view training, the organization is conceptualized as the supporting environment whose inputs are dynamic and thus must be continually monitored by the training subsystem. These inputs play a large role in the determination of training needs, and eventually in the resulting training plan and implementation. To utilize most effectively training dollars and resources, the location, scope, and magnitude of the training need must first be determined (Moore & Dutton, 1978). Thus, training needs assessment is conceptualized by Goldstein (1986) as the fundamental first step of effective training. Necessary to training needs assessment is informational input from the organization and its environment. Scanning, or the process of acquiring information about events external to the system, is one strategy that may be employed by the individuals involved in the training function (e.g., the training director) to accomplish this task. 3 Research indicates that scanning strategy and complexity may vary across both individuals and organizations (Aguilar, 1967; Fahey & King, 1977). Individual difference variables, organizational characteristics, and training subsystem characteristics may account for these differences. The present research focuses on the relationship of training subsystem characteristics and the strategy and complexity of the scanning process. The training subsystem characteristics investigated in the current research are the training subsystem’s mission, centrality to the organization, and adequacy of available resources. This paper first presents an open systems approach to the processes involved in the training function. The literature relevant to scanning acquisition strategy and complexity is then reviewed. Third, important training subsystem characteristics are discussed, and finally, the development and specification of the proposed relationships is presented. AN OPEN SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE Overview Over time, organizational psychology has progressed from conceptualizing organizations as self-sufficient entities to conceptualizing organizations as Open systems in a state of continual interaction with their environment. The open systems perspective, as initially illustrated in the organizational literature by Katz and Kahn (1966 cited in Katz & Kahn 1978), proposes the notion of the organization as a dynamic structure whose interactions with the environment help shape the nature of the organization. Two central concepts of the open systems approach are entropy and the input-throughput-output cycle. Entropy is a process in which all forms of organization move towards disorganization or death. The concept of entropy postulates that without continued inputs from the environmental system, the organizational system will cease to survive. The input- throughput-output cycle is explained by Katz and Kahn (1978) as the processing of inputs to yield outputs that will then be used by an outside group or system. These outputs, in the form of products, services, or information, serve as feedback or input and thus reactivate the system. In this manner, dynamic interactions occur throughout the life of 4 5 the system, and negative entropy continues. This dynamic state characterizes not only the system’s cycle of processing external inputs, but also characterizes the environmental inputs. In other words, the environmental inputs are not constant, and cannot be assumed as such by the organization. Thus, as a precondition to appropriate input processing, or throughput, the organization must continually examine environmental inputs. In addition to an emphasis on the organization- environment, or system-suprasystem interface, the open systems approach stresses the system-subsystem and subsystem—subsystem interfaces. Organizational subsystems, such as production and marketing, are viewed as being dynamic in their interactions and dependencies upon other subsystems, the organizational system, and either directly or indirectly, upon the external environment. This inclusion of different levels of systems and their transactional relationships views organizations as both hierarchically and horizontally interactive. While an open systems approach stresses the interactions of suprasystems, systems, and subsystems, it nonetheless articulates differences in the types and functions of particular subsystems. Katz and Kahn (1978) suggest that the variety of necessary functions within an organization create a need for distinctive subsystems within the larger system. They describe organizational functioning 6 in terms of five basic subsystems: production or technical; supportive; maintenance; adaptive; and managerial. The production or technical subsystem is concerned with the transformation of inputs, or with the throughput phase of the system’s main activity. Supportive subsystems serve to procure input, dispose output, or engage in activities to foster favorable relations with other systems or with the suprasystem. Maintenance subsystems are primarily involved with inputs for preserving the system such as selection or evaluation of personnel, and reward allocations. The adaptive subsystem facilitates the survival of the organization in a changing environment by sensing and translating the relevant changes for the system, and finally, the managerial subsystem controls, coordinates, and directs the other subsystems in the structure. The open system approach emphasizes the interdependencies of different levels of systems, and within this framework, the level of conceptualization focuses upon macro, or suprasystem inputs. The importance of tracing the pattern of activity surrounding the vauisition of these inputs is stressed as a method of enabling the researcher to more fully comprehend the functionings of the system. From an operationalization stance, it becomes necessary to examine the behavior and activities of individuals to trace the flow of these inputs into the system. Thus, the open systems approach perceives individual behavior and 7 motives as the carriers of energetic input for the system. For particular systems and subsystems, individuals are considered to be the mechanisms for the acquisition of inputs. This may occur in terms of obtaining raw materials, utilizing human energy, or acquiring information depending on the needs of the particular system or subsystem in point. Open Systems and the Training Function The open systems perspective provides a framework for analyzing human organizations. Its application to research enables social scientists to more fully comprehend the complexities involved in examining social systems. Work organizations are affected by their industries, and by the political, technological, and economic states of the environment. The organizations’ subsystems are affected by both environmental and organizational states and fluctuations. Specifically, an open systems framework applied to the training subsystem is beneficial both in viewing the training process itself, and in viewing the processes underlying the development of training programs. In conceptualizing the training process within the framework of an open systems approach, Hinrichs (1976) described the main components of input, throughput, output and feedback on both an organizational and individual level. ‘On an organizational level, the inputs are seen as the organizational resources, the throughput is the training program, and the output is organizational success. On an 8 individual level, the input is the trainee, the throughput is the learning process, and the output is skilled personnel. On both levels, the feedback is the formal or informal evaluation procedure which reenergize the system. Hinrichs delineates the input component of the training process as maintenance and signal inputs in which the former are inputs that tend to be "givens" and sustain the system, while the latter are inputs that are the main determiners of formal achievement. Examples of maintenance inputs include ability and motivation on an individual level, and norms and’ roles on an organizational level. Signal inputs are comprised of information on the nature of skills to be acquired and practice of these behaviors that lead to success on the job. An open systems framework can be applied to both the training system itself, as has been done by Hinrichs, and to the processes underlying the development of training programs. A review of the literature reveals that the processes underlying the development of training programs has been given scant research attention. The present research is an attempt to examine the processes underlying the development of training programs. Developing a training program can be conceptualized as having both antecedent and consequential processes. The antecedent processes include acquiring, or scanning for, relevant information, analyzing that information, and 9 responding to it by deciding whether or not to develop a training program. The next step is the actual development of the training program, while the consequential process is that of implementing the program. For the purposes of this study, the focus of the following section is the antecedent process, in particular that of scanning for information regarding training needs. The open systems concept of entropy and the input- throughput—output cycle fit into the general notion of the training antecedent processes. The information obtained by training personnel constitutes the inputs, the analysis of training needs information constitutes the throughput, and the decision of whether or not to develop a training program constitutes the output. The success or failure of that decision may then be seen as the feedback mechanism to reactivate the system. On a more specific level, the information gathered by training personnel is the initial step in developing a program within the training subsystem. It is also the step that insures the continuation of negative entropy by virtue of acquiring relevant inputs, in the form of information, for the subsystem. Through the obtainment of the information, the training subsystem is able to investigate the input for any changes that may OCCur in the system or the suprasystem that are relevant to training needs. 10 Aside from the system-subsystem interface, an open system approach to the process of developing a training program serves to stress the importance of the subsystem- subsystem interface. The training subsystem would fail to exist without the trainees it gathers from the other subsystems. In turn, other subsystems are dependent upon the training subsystem for increasing the effectiveness of their personnel. In relation to the antecedent phase of needs assessment, the training subsystem is often dependent upon the cooperation of other subsystems as its sources of relevant information and feedback. In this manner, the transactional relationships of the training subsystem with other subsystems in the organization are of primary importance. While the subsystems in an organization are interdependent, they nonetheless serve different functions. In Katz and Kahn’s (1978) conceptualization of open systems, the training subsystem can be described as having both maintenance and adaptive functions depending upon the particular mission of the subsystem. Maintenance functions are conceptualized as those that maintain the fabric of interdependent behavior necessary for task accomplishment and thus preserve the system. Adaptive functions are those that devote energy to sensing relevant external changes and translating the meaning of those changes for the system. In terms of the maintenance function, the training subsystem 11 may train new hires and help maintain present skills of employees. Through performing these functions, the training subsystem aids in maintaining the status quo, or current level of functioning, of the organization. In comparison, the adaptive functions of the training subsystem operate to be proactive in dealing with changes in the organization and environment. These functions encompass scanning for information from the external environment, and training employees in new skills and for positions that will soon become a part of the organizational structure. Both the maintenance and adaptive functions may be in operation within the system simultaneously. The open systems perspective emphasizes the importance of tracing the patterns of energetic input through the system to better comprehend the organization and its component parts. Individuals and their behavior patterns must be viewed as the level of analysis in operationalizing the flow of input through the system. In reference to the training needs assessment process, the energetic input is the information gathered, and the flow or pattern of the input is the scanning process. The training director, or person in charge of the training function, is a primary source of informational input for the training subsystem, and therefore is the focus of analysis. In this manner, the training personnel’s method of scanning is a relevant point 12 in understanding the processes involved in training needs assessment. SCANNING Scanning, or the process of acquiring information, is of great importance in examining the flow of informational input to the organization (Katz & Kahn, 1978). From an interactionist perspective, the fit of the organization into its external environment, and the organization’s success in sensing the developments in its environment are crucial for organizational adaption and survival (Schneider, 1983). Similarly, the ability of the training subsystem to scan successfully for relevant information in both the external environment and in the organization is critical in determining the organization’s training and deveIOpment needs. Although the training subsystem’s need for information to perform effectively organizational, task, and person analyses is explicitly stated in the training literature (Goldstein, 1986), the process of gathering that pertinent information, or scanning, is not addressed. To more fully comprehend the process involved in developing effective training programs, conceptual and empirical research relating the scanning process to training program development is needed. As a preliminary step in relating 13 14 these issues, a systematic review of the literature concerning the scanning process is necessary. Literature addressing the scanning process in organizations stems from two distinct bodies of research: environmental scanning and boundary spanning. Literature from the environmental scanning domain primarily focuses upon the process, content, and sources of scanning, while the literature on boundary spanning is focused on individual variables and the work roles and experiences of the boundary spanners within the organization. In combination, both literatures provide a foundation for research on scanning for training needs assessment information. The relevant conceptual and empirical research from these two streams of research is presented in the following sections. Environmental Scanning Environmental scanning is defined as the activity of acquiring "information about events and relationships in a company’s outside environment, the knowledge of which would assist top management in its task of charting the company’s future course of action" (Aguilar, 1967). The portrayal of the scanning process as a necessity for effective strategic planning is evidenced throughout the literature on the topic. Conceptual and empirical research on environmental scanning has focused on scanning modes or strategies, information content areas, information sources, and contextual variables. 15 The earliest research on environmental scanning was conducted by Aguilar (1967). Aguilar proposed four modes of scanning activity differentiated by the scanner’s effort (active or passive) and purpose (specific or general) in scanning. The first mode is that of undirected viewing in which the scanner, or viewer, has no specific purpose beyond that of exploration in mind, and receives only general exposure to information. In the conditioned viewing mode, the viewer directs his/her exposure to a more or less clearly defined area or information type but does not actively seek this information. The informal search mode is defined by Aguilar as a fairly narrow and unstructured attempt to obtain particular information, and is differentiated from the previous mode in that the viewer actively seeks the information desired. The final mode is the formal search mode in which the viewer makes a deliberate effort to secure information relating to a specific issue. This mode is usually characterized by a pre-established plan or procedure for acquiring the desired information. Aguilar postulates that particular modes are used for various information needs based upon the situational contingencies, mode scanning efficiency, and past effectiveness of the particular mode. While environmental scanning had become a widely discussed topic in organizational research after Aguilar’s initial conceptualization of scanning modes, little 16 empirical research had been conducted on the extent to which precepts of scanning are actually being translated into corporate practice. The lack of empirical evidence regarding the process of scanning led to a new classification scheme and research on scanning modes by Fahey and King (1977). Prior to their study conducted on a selected group of 12 large U.S. companies, Fahey and King provided their own framework from which to categorize and compare corporate environmental scanning. In their taxonomy, three scanning models are identified. The irregular model is described as a process of ad hoc environmental study and is usually in response to an organizational crises, is not future oriented, and is short-term. The regular model is distinguished from the previous model in that it is more comprehensive and systematic. This mode is characterized by regular reviews of relevant environmental components, narrow future orientation, and limited proactiveness in environmental analysis. Representing a clear distinction from the previous models is the continuous mode in which scanning is of broad scope, is future oriented, and requires a specialized group to perform the function. The results of the study by Fahey and King (1977) showed: (1) nine of the 12 firms in irregular scanning modes, with three of those in the process of upgrading to regular modes; (2) three firms in regular modes with two 17 moving towards a continuous mode; and (3) not a single firm currently in the continuous mode. However, this study has been critiqued by other researchers (Thomas, 1980) in terms of method and sample (the firms were not large enough to warrant full-scale scanning). Nevertheless, this framework is beneficial in conceptualizing the scanning process. Another framework depicting environmental scanning modes is proposed by Jain (1984). Differentiated from previous frameworks through its explicit evolutionary perspective, Jain advances the notion that organizations begin in a state of primitive environmental scanning and progress through ad hoc, reactive, and finally proactive phases. The primitive and ad hoc phases are similar to Aguilar’s (1967) undirected viewing and conditioned viewing modes, respectively. The reactive phase postulated in Jain’s evolutionary perspective is one in which scanning is an unstructured and random effort and is done to make appropriate responses to and deal with the environment to protect the firm’s future. The final phase in this progression is the proactive stage in which the main purpose is to predict the environment to have input in shaping it for a desired future. Scanning in this phase is a structured and deliberate effort to gather specific information using a pre-established methodology. While conceptualizations of environmental scanning are relatively similar, at present there is scant empirical 18 evidence of the utility or even existence of these modes as hypothesized by Aguilar, Fahey and King, and Jain. However, a recent study (Seaton, 1985) has investigated data acquisition strategy, an aspect of scanning modes conceptualized by Aguilar (1967), Fahey and King (1977), and Jain (1984). The study conducted by Seaton (1985) has examined data acquisition strategy regarding information on business firms among university executives. The scanning initiation dimension reflects the extent to which an executive actively initiates the search for relevant data through direct request or action when routinely acquired information proves inadequate. Results indicated that 73% of the executives surveyed actively search for information regarding business firms with an average frequency of approximately once or twice per year. As evidenced above, empirical research on scanning modes has been limited. However, in combination with the conceptual frameworks of scanning modes, some structure for envisioning how an organization scans its environment is provided. The substance of scanning, or the informational content areas an organization explores in its environment, is the next consideration pertaining to scanning activity. Two studies have specifically addressed the information content issue from the perspective of the individual manager. The first study by Aguilar (1967) involved asking 19 managers in chemical firms to identify the single content area they perceived to be the most important to their organization. The study results clearly identified the general category of market tidings to be the most important with 58% of the respondents citing this area to be the most important. Within this category, the content area of market potential was identified as most important by 30% of all respondents, followed by structural change (10%),and sales negotiations (6%). Following the market tidings category in order of perceived importance was the general area of technical tidings (response rate=]8%) in which the specific area of new products was rated as most important by 14% of all respondents. All other areas named (government actions, resources available, etc.) received less than 7% of the total responses. The second study examining content of information sought in scanning was conducted by Jain (1984). In this study, a total of 186 executives were surveyed. Results indicated the economic environment as the content area perceived to be the most significant to those surveyed, followed by the technological, political (including regulatory area), and finally, social environment. An integration of the results of these two studies to aid in understanding which content areas are most commonly .explored in scanning is difficult to portray for a number of reasons. The failure to define the content areas and 20 illustrate the method of operationalization in Jain’s study imposes obstacles in comparing the broad content areas in the studies, as does a lack of information concerning the specific outcomes of his study. In addition, the time lag between the studies increases the difficulty in confidently stating that one content area is more important than another. A third characteristic regarding scanning activity in the literature is the sources of the obtained information. The majority of the literature classifies sources along the dimensions of personal (e.g., verbal or written contacts with organizational members, consultants, etc.) or impersonal (e.g., reports, pamphlets, journals), and internal (within the organization) or external (outside the organization). Empirical research along the first dimension is relatively consistent across studies. Studies by Aguilar (1967), Keegan (1974), Culnan (1983), and Seaton (1985) reported personal sources (e.g., organizational members, consultants, etc.) as being used with significantly greater frequency in comparison to impersonal sources. In reference to the internal-external dimension, the data is not quite so clear. Both Aguilar (1967) and Keegan (1974) report external sources (outside the organization) as generally being considered more important in obtaining information in comparison to internal sources by 10 and 32 percent respectively. However, in Aguilar’s study, the perceived 21 importance of internal and external sources did vary in accordance with the functional specialty and level of responsibility of the manager. In contradiction to the previous studies, an overall finding of a higher mean frequency for internal sources as compared to external sources was found in an investigation of the frequency of use of information sources as determined by perceived accessibility of source and task complexity (Culnan, 1983). Study results supported the predicted positive correlation between source accessibility and source usage, and external sources were considered by respondents in the two organizations surveyed to be the least accessible. Enumerated causes for this apparent contradiction in studies include the small sample size of the latter study, differences in scale items (i.e., rate most important source versus rate frequency of usage of source), and differences in survey source choices. Overall, evidence suggests that external sources are considered more important than internal sources. However, when external sources are relatively unaccessible, internal sources are used with greater frequency. Relationships between scanning activities and individual and organizational contextual variables have been examined in the environmental scanning literature with limited and somewhat contradictory results. The primary individual contextual variables studied are the functional 22 specialty and hierarchical level of the manager. In investigating the former, Aguilar (1967) found that content area scanned depended to a moderate extent upon the manager’s functional specialty, however, both Kefalas and Schroderbek (1973) and Hambrick (1981) found that executives’ functional area was not related to scanning content emphasis. These three studies also hypothesized relationships between executive hierarchical level and scanning content emphasis, yet results in these studies revealed little evidence to support this hypothesis. Organizational contextual variables such as size, strategy, and relevant environment have also been hypothesized as related to scanning. However, as with individual contextual variables, empirical evidence has done little to demonstrate any type of close or consistent relationship (Aguilar, 1967; Culnan, 1983). Additional conceptual and empirical grounding is provided by literature on boundary spanning activities, and will be presented in the following section. Boundary Spanning According to Open systems theory, organizations must have some method, whether explicit or implicit, of acquiring and interpreting input from their environment. Since an organization as an entity cannot secure this function, individuals are entrusted to perform this task. The individuals whose roles consist primarily of acquiring, 23 interpreting, and communicating environmental information are termed boundary spanners. Boundary spanning type activities are also performed by other members whose main organizational role may consist of other activities (e.g., managers, salespersons, consultants). Five general types of boundary spanning activities identified by Adams (1976) are: (1) transacting, or acquiring inputs and disposing outputs, (2) filtering inputs and outputs, (3) searching for and collecting information and intelligence, (4) representing the organization externally, and (5) protecting and buffering the organization from external threat. For the purpose of the present study, the focus here is on the first (the acquisition of inputs) and third (the search for and collection of information) types Of activities classified by Adams. Boundary spanners need to properly scan and diagnose the activities that transpire in their relevant environment to assist their organization in maximizing effectiveness. While the boundary spanning literature focuses upon the organization—environment link, the same concepts apply to interunit exchanges within the organization (Leifer & Delbecq, 1978). In relation to training, it is suggested that boundary spanning activities comprise a portion of the training subsystem’s activities such that the effectiveness of training is maximized through boundary spanning activities both externally and intraorganizationally. 24 Specifically, training personnel engage in the acquisition of inputs, and the search for and collection of information. In the following section, the relevant conceptual and empirical research in the boundary spanning literature is presented. A theoretical framework for the initiation and process of boundary spanning activity developed by Leifer and Delbecq (1978) is similar to the environmental scanning models discussed in the previous section. The researchers postulate that the initiation and process aspects of boundary spanning activity is a function of the perceived regularity of information need and perceived environmental uncertainty. In situations of high perceived information need, spanning activity is initiated by the organization as a part of the job description and design. Otherwise, boundary spanning activity will not be regulated by the organization and therefore must be initiated by the individual. In situations of high perceived environmental uncertainty (higher environmental complexity and heterogeneity), the boundary spanning process is hypothesized to be nonroutine. Under conditions of low environmental uncertainty, routine spanning activity results. Leifer and Delbecq speculate that, contrary to pOpular belief, the most common type of boundary spanning activity in practice is regulated and routine. However, analogous to the literature on environmental scanning modes, empirical evidence in support of this model is limited. 25 The focus of the relevant empirical literature on boundary spanning activities concentrates upon individual variables, environmental variables, and organizational contextual variables. The main individual variables discussed in the literature are functional specialty and hierarchical level. In a recent study by Schwab, Ungson, and Brown (1985) of high-technology electronics and wood products industries, variables of functional category (administrative, engineering, financial, marketing, personnel, and purchasing) and hierarchical level were examined in relation to boundary spanning activity. Results indicated that boundary spanning activity is not significantly related to hierarchical level, but is significantly related to the functional area Of the boundary spanner. Schwab et al (1985) also examined the relationship of boundary spanning activities and environmental variables. Specifically, both perceived environmental importance and control were found to be significantly related to boundary spanning activity, while perceived environmental predictability was not related to boundary spanning activity. Results relating the organizational contextual variable of size to boundary spanning activity were also reported in the Schwab et al (1985) study. Although results for both industries were significant, in the high-technology 26 electronics industry the relationship was positive while in the wood products industry the relationship was negative. Therefore, while organizational size is related to spanning activity, the direction of this relationship may vary across industry type. In another study relating organizational contextual variables to boundary spanning activity, Dollinger (1984) found that in a sample of 82 companies, intensiveness of boundary scanning activity was positively related to organizational effectiveness as defined by financial performance. Summary and Critique The empirical evidence from the boundary spanning and the environmental scanning domains indicate that for individual contextual variables, the hierarchical level of the scanner is not related to scanning activity (i.e., scanning content emphasis). The results Of studies relating functional area to scanning activity are mixed across the two literature fields. Also disclosing inconsistent results are the studies relating organizational contextual variables such as size, strategy, and effectiveness to scanning activity. Finally, the results of the research relating environmental variables to scanning activity have shown variable results. In addition to predominantly inconclusive results on scanning activities from the environmental scanning and boundary spanning literature, additional obstacles regarding 27 the scanning literature exist. First, in terms of scanning modes, the lack of operationalization of the conceptualized modes creates difficulty in determining the utility or even existence of specific modes of scanning activity. Secondly, the modes are postulated in the literature as discrete categories, rather than along a continuum, thus seeming to suggest that: (1) firms fit precisely into one scanning mode; (2) individuals act in accordance with only one scanning mode across various situations and people. However, it is unlikely that either of these two conditions exist. In the first case, it is likely that some firms do not fit into one scanning mode exactly, but rather lie between two modes in terms of overall scanning activity. In the second case, individuals may function in a manner prescribed by one mode in a particular situation or with a particular individual, and in a manner prescribed by another scanning mode for other scanning situations and individuals. A third Obstacle in the literature to a better understanding of the scanning process stems from a failure of the literature to illustrate methods for operationalizing key concepts or hypotheses. This problem is particularly salient for the scanning variables on which conducted studies have reported contradictory results (e.g., functional area, organizational size). Without knowledge of methods of operationalization in these investigations, it is 28 difficult to comprehend the reasons for the discrepancies in the empirical results. A final problem in the literature concerns the research on the relationship of scanning activities and functional areas Of the scanner. While some of the research indicates that functional area is related to scanning activity (Aguilar, 1967), none of the literature provides information on the manner in which this relationship exists (e.g., scanners in the personnel function scan a greater number of content areas than do scanners in the production function). Although there are numerOus Obstacles in the empirical findings from the environmental scanning and boundary spanning literature as a whole, both streams Of literature provide conceptual tools that are beneficial in synthesizing the scanning process within the training function. In addition, although empirical research is restricted, that which is available is useful in attempting to understand the process, content, contextual, and environmental variables that appertain to the process of scanning within the training function. In summary, the literature is beneficial in providing a conceptual tool to view environmental scanning activities, and is conducive to furnishing a framework within which to view the relation between the scanning function and training needs assessment. Thus, what is needed is a conceptual framework for understanding factors affecting scanning activity as well as 29 a clear conceptualization and operationalization of the critical scanning variables. The next section describes training system variables that may have important implications on scanning activity. This is followed by a discussion of the conceptual dimensions of scanning. TRAINING SUBSYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS The first section of this paper presented an open systems approach to the training subsystem and the processes involved in the training function. It has been postulated that the training subsystem interacts with and is dependent upon the organization and its environment. This dependency consequently necessitates a need for informational input to the training subsystem from the organizational and the environmental systems. The operationalization of this informational input must occur at the individual level. In the case of training, this process primarily occurs through the training director, or the person in charge of the training function, and thus the flow of the informational input is investigated at the individual level of analysis. Scanning is one strategy that may be used by an individual to acquire the informational input. Research from the environmental scanning and boundary spanning literatures indicate that scanning strategy and complexity vary across both individuals and organizations. Individual difference variables, organizational characteristics, and training subsystem characteristics may account for these differences. This paper presents an investigation of training subsystem characteristics as related to the training 30 l 31 subsystem’s scanning process. Three relevant training subsystem variables that may affect scanning are the training subsystem’s mission, centrality, and resource adequacy. Introduction Organizational training can contribute to the achievement of organizational goals or can substantially detract from the achievement of these goals through the waste of human and physical resources, time, and money (MCGehee & Thayer, 1961). A plethora of literature has addressed training in terms of training’s importance to the organization, needs assessment, learning maximization, methods of training, and evaluation (Goldstein, 1980; Wexley, 1984). A review of the literature demonstrates a paucity of research, both theoretical and empirical, on the characteristics of the training subsystem and the potential affect these characteristics have on the processes involved in developing training programs. However, in the organizational literature, it is argued that system characteristics can and do effect the processes involved in various functions of the system (Pugh, Hickson, Hinings, & Turner, 1973). For example, Fredrickson (1986) proposes that organizational structure variables can facilitate or inhibit the strategic decision process. In terms of the training subsystem, the mission, centrality, and resource 32 adequacy of the subsystem are likely to affect training program development through their influence on the scanning process. TO provide a framework in which to better understand the manner in which these variables might affect the scanning process in the training subsystem, a review of the available organizational literature relevant to these characteristics is presented. Mission The strategic planning literature addresses the organizational mission in terms of its importance to the corporate strategic plan. Within the strategic planning domain, an organizational mission is defined as a statement of what an organization is, why it exists, and the unique contribution it can make (Holloway, 1986). The issues emphasized in the literature include the importance of the mission to the organization, the importance of explicitly stating the mission, the dynamic nature of the mission, and the dimensions of the mission. Cammillus (1986) argues that the mission can be the most powerful factor in organizational decision—making. Michel (1986) states that the mission must be precisely articulated to be powerful and of value to the organization. The nature of the mission must be dynamic and adaptable if the organization is to survive in a rapidly changing environment. That is, it is critical for the organization to not confine its functions to those elaborated in the 33 mission, but rather to be capable of modifying the mission to meet the changing needs of the organization’s environment. Thus, it is crucial for the top executives in an organization to continually monitor the mission statement (Wilkinson, 1986). In terms Of the dimensions of the mission statement, Holloway (1986) proposes two dimensional continuums along which an organizational mission may lie. The first dimension is that of technology-driven versus market—driven orientations in which the former tends to be internally focused and the latter externally focused. In the second dimension, the concern is the limiting or stimulating orientation of the mission. The limiting mission generates stability while the stimulating mission encourages growth and diversification. Thus, the four classifications of an organizational mission are; (1) stable, internally focused; (2) stable, externally focused; (3) internally generated growth and diversification; and (4) externally generated growth and diversification. Empirical research on mission statements actually used by organizations and the mission’s affect upon organizational, subunit, or individual variables has been neglected by researchers. However, the literature does emphasize the importance of the organizational mission and further provides a conceptual vehicle that is intuitively appealing in distinguishing characteristics of the training 34 mission. The training mission can be conceptualized as a statement Of why the training department exists, what functions it serves, and the unique contribution the training department can make to the organization. As in the organizational mission, the training mission must be specified to be valuable to those involved in the training function, and dynamic and adaptable if it is to meet changing needs of the organization and the environment. A major dimension of the training mission is its extensiveness, or the degree to which a variety of training and development functions are included as part of the training mission. The characteristics of the training mission are postulated to be similar to the dimensions articulated by Holloway. For the puposes of the present research, the training mission is defined as the extensiveness of its proactivity and maintenance functions (analogous to Holloway’s stimulating and limiting functions). Proactive functions include those that are growth oriented while maintenance functions include those that are oriented towards maintaining the stability Of the organization. Examples of proactive functions include teaching skills for jobs that do not yet exist in the organization in anticipation of future company needs, updating employee skills to meet changing organizational needs and to increase promotability and diversify skills, and retraining employees 35 affected by technological changes. Maintenance functions include maintaining the skills of experienced employees, improving the skills of employees in their current jobs, and training new hires to prepare them for their job. From this perspective, the extensiveness of the training mission is conceptualized as the degree to which proactive and maintenance functions are emphasized as part of the training mission. The implications of the training mission extensiveness for training needs assessment lie in the probability that an increased number of needs must be assessed to fulfill an increased emphasis placed on training functions by the training mission. It follows that to assess a greater number Of training needs, the training subsystem must acquire information from a greater number of areas, and must acquire more information on each of these areas to satisfactorily meet the emphasis placed on the particular training functions. In this manner, the extensiveness of the training mission is likely to affect the scanning activities (e.g., acquisition strategy and complexity) Of the training subsystem. Centrality A review of the organizational literature reveals a deficiency of theoretical and empirical research concerning centrality as an internal characteristic of organizational subsystems. However, conceptual literature regarding 36 centrality as a characteristic of individuals in organizations is evidenced in Schein’s (1980) organizational structure model and in literature on organizational power (Bacharach and Lawler, 1980; Mechanic, 1962). Schein’s (1980) conceptual model of individuals in organizations includes centrality as a dimension of the organization relative to its members. This model of formal organizations depicts three basic dimensions of an organization: hierarchical; functional; and centrality. The hierarchical and functional dimensions reflect the relative ranks of the organizational members, and the different types of work to be done, respectively. The centrality dimension reflects the degree to which an individual is closer to or further from the central core of the organization. The complete model is depicted in a cone-shape form that allows for vertical (hierarchical), lateral (functional), and inclusionary (centrality) movement of individuals across boundaries as is shown in Figure 1. In this model, the centrality dimension is considered to be of great importance in facilitating individual power and influence in the organization. This is reflected in the ability of an individual to remain at a relatively low level in terms of the organizational hierarchy, and yet be near the central core of organization. In this manner, an individual may move into more central influential positions in the informational system of the organization than would 37 Inclusion or centrality Etc. Function Figure 1 Schein’s Three-Dimensional Model of an Organization (1980) 38 be typical for his/her rank. Consideration of centrality as a characteristic of the training subsystem can be viewed as an subsystem level analogy Of Schein’s individual level model. From this perspective, the training subsystem dimension of centrality is reflected in the degree to which the training subsystem is closer to or further from the central core of the organization. While training centrality is conceptualized at the subsystem level, it is analyzed at the individual level. Thus, centrality of the training subsystem is regarded as the extent to which training is considered influential to and is interactive with the organizational top-level decision-making entity. The centrality of the training subsystem is analyzed through the training director’s (or person in charge of that function) relevant activities and relations with the organizational top—level decision—making entity. The influence of the training and development function on organizational decision-making may be evidenced by the extent to which the organization considers training and development as important to strategic planning. This is indicated by factors such as the company’s philosophy regarding the relation Of training and development to the strategic planning process, the use of information about training and development in the strategic planning process, and the linkage of the strategic plan to training and 39 development. The interaction of training and development with the organizational decision—making entity is indicated by the extent to which the training subsystem participates or is involved in corporate strategic planning. Literature concerning the involvement of the training function in the organizational decision-making entity stresses the importance of integrating training needs analysis with organizational strategic planning (Moore & Dutton, 1978). In addition, some descriptive evidence exists for the importance of training to strategic planning. In a national survey of 756 training executives, respondents indicated that employee training is an integral part of both human resource and corporate strategic planning (Morano & Deets, 1986). In a descriptive survey of a dozen major U.S. companies, results indicated that general importance is ascribed to training, however, this does not carry through to a fully structured integration of training into corporate goals and plans (Olson, 1986). In addition, results of this study indicate that training directors are not given a great deal of weight in higher—level organizational decision- making. Environmental scanning and boundary spanning literature provides research on the relation of scanning and individual hierarchical levels and functional areas as mentioned earlier in this paper, yet does not examine the effect of individual or system centrality on scanning activity. 40 However, the literature concerning individual centrality in organizations is relevant to the understanding of the manner in which the centrality of the training subsystem affects the ability of training personnel to scan for information releVant to training needs. Literature on individual power in organizations suggests a strong link between power, centrality, and access to information. Mechanic (1962) suggests that a person’s location in the social or informal space of an organization is an important factor in influencing access to persons and information, and this influence is a portion of that person’s power. In addition, he states that propinquity affects opportunities for interactions, as well as the individual’s position in the informal communication network. Thus, it is hypothesized that the more central a person is in an organization, the greater is that person’s access to information and to other persons. Bacharach and Lawler (1980) describe two sources of positional power; structural position and opportunity. Structural position power stems from the job the person performs, or from his/her formal position in the organization. Of particular interest to the current study is opportunity as a source of power. In Bacharach and Lawler’s classification scheme of power sources, opportunity is viewed as both the person’s centrality in informal workflows and their centrality in communication flows. 41 Thus, Opportunity can provide access to a significant amount of information which would not reach the individual through formal channels, and is thus linked to the individual’s informal power in the organization. The conceptualizations of Schein (1980), Mechanic (1961), and Bacharach and Lawler (1980) aid in providing a framework from which to conceptualize a relation between the training subsystem’s centrality and the training subsystem’s scanning activities. Schein’s conceptualization of individual centrality as the proximity of the individual to the central core of the organization, and Mechanic’s and Bacharach and Lawler’s view that centrality increases an individual’s access to information, imply that a closer link of organizational decision-making to the training and development subsystem allows for the training subsystem to access a greater amount of information relevant to training. Resource Adequacy Resource adequacy is defined as the extent to which adequate human and physical resources are available to the system such that the system may execute the activities necessary to fulfill its mission. While the literature on resource adequacy is limited, the available literature suggests that the availability of resources to a system or subsystem affects a number of factors including organizational effectiveness and subunit power. 42 On a conceptual level, it is argued that organizations that make better resource allocation decisions and utilize their human and physical resources effectively will continue to exist effectively in the future (Whittaker, 1978). On an empirical level, results on the relationship of subunit power and resource allocation in a university setting indicate that allocation of the department’s internal resources (received from within the university system) affects the department’s perceived power (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1974). As resources become increasingly scarce within the system and critical to the subsystem, the correlation between power and resource allocation becomes stronger. In terms of the training subsystem, survey results indicate that lack of money and/or lack of expertise (considered a human resource) severely constrain training efforts such as program evaluation (Clegg, 1987). Although the available literature on resource adequacy is limited, it does appear that the availability of adequate resources can affect the functioning of the system and subsystems. For the training subsystem, inadequate resources can impede the best intentions and efforts for effective training. Specifically, the lack of adequate resources can greatly inhibit the needs assessment process through a restriction of information gathering. That is, a deficient budget, personnel staff, equipment, or facilities can prohibit the scanning effort. For example, an 43 inadequate budget may prevent training staff from making long-distance calls to gather information on new computer systems, or an inadequate staff may permit the training director only enough time to gather information exclusively on immediate needs. In this manner, the scanning process of the training subsystem, and consequently training needs assessment, can be affected by resource adequacy. AN EXPLORATORY INVESTIGATION OF SCANNING AND TRAINING SUBSYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS The present research seeks to investigate the relationship of the training subsystem’s scanning process to training subsystem characteristics. Consistent with previous conceptual schemes (Katz & Kahn, 1978), implicit in the current investigation is the view of the scanning process as a necessary antecedent to system or organizational action and effectiveness. Within the training subsystem, the process of scanning is viewed as a precursor to the development of effective training programs. That is, scanning is a strategy for obtaining necessary informational inputs for the subsystem. This section presents the development of scanning dimensions and variables, an overview of the perspective and assumptions employed in the present research, and research objectives. Scanning Dimensions and Variables The environmental scanning and boundary spanning literature generally define scanning as the process of acquiring information. For the purposes of the current research, scanning is defined as the process Of acquiring information about the trends, events, or conditions occurring within or external to the organization. Two major 44 45 characteristics of scanning activity are the focus of the present study: scanning acquisition strategy and the complexity of search. The following section describes the two characteristics and their relevant dimensions and variables. Acquisition Strategy. Acquisition strategy is defined as the manner in which information is acquired. This definition is similar to definitions of environmental scanning modes as conceptualized by previous researchers (Aguilar, 1967; Fahey & King, 1977; Jain, 1984). Previous conceptual models have viewed scanning modes as discrete categories within which scanning activity could be described. The present research views scanning acquisition strategy along a continuum reflecting the extent to which information acquisition is proactive or reactive. The proactive-reactive nature of individual behavior has been used in identifying two distinct approaches to management (Zaleznik, 1977; Weick, 1983; Glueck & Jauch, 1984). However, characterizing managerial behavior in terms of a dichotomy is an overly simplistic and global approach to describing the complexities of managerial behavior (Larson, Bussom, Vicars, & Jauch, 1986). The model consequently suggested by Larson et a1 (1986) to account for the deficiencies in previous conceptual and empirical schemas implies that the proclivity to be proactive is contingent on a number of factors and is viewed along a 46 continuum of proactivity to reactivity. In terms of acquisition strategy, the present study suggests that the propensity of the training subsystem to be proactive is determined, in part, by training subsystem characteristics, and the training director’s (or individual in charge of the training function) acquisition strategy can be described along a continuum of the proactive—reactive dimension. The principal components of the proactive nature of acquisition strategy are the extent to which information is characterized as: (1) a non-crisis response; (2) an active search for information; and (3) the self-initiation of search. The non-crisis response component is the extent to which information is Obtained in response to an organizational or environmental crisis or is Obtained prior to the occurrence of a crisis, usually on a more regular basis. The non-crisis response variable is comparable to Glueck and Jauch’s (1984) description of a proactive strategy as one in which individuals act before they are forced to react to environmental threats or Opportunities, and to Fredrickson’s (1986) description of strategic decision process initiation as a proactive pursuit of opportunities and interests in contrast to a reaction to problems/crisis. Fahey and King (1977) utilize the crisis- response variable in their irregular scanning mode by describing it as a mode in which information is gathered primarily in response to an organizational crisis. 47 The active nature Of the search process is the extent to which an effort is made to obtain information (actively sought) or is received without effort (passively received) by the training director. This definition is similar to that proposed by Aguilar (1967) concerning solicited versus non-solicited information search. The final component Of acquisition strategy is the extent to which information acquired is based on self- initiated search or on search initiated by other organizational or external constituencies. This definition is similar to Seaton’s (1985) definition Of self-initiated search as the extent to which an individual actively initiates the search for information through direct request or action. Analogous to this component is Larson et al’s (1986) definition of a proactive manager as one who actively initiates his/her own actions in contrast to a reactive manager as one who acts in response to initiations and requests from others. In summary, each component of the acquisition strategy is viewed as a characteristic of proactive-reactive search dimension. The proactive acquisition strategy is one in which information is acquired prior to being necessitated by a crisis, is actively sought by the individual, and is searched for as a result of the individual’s own initiative to conduct the search. In contrast, the reactive acquisition strategy is one in which information is acquired 48 in response to a crisis, is received without effort by the individual, and is searched for as result Of an external (e.g., upper management) request/directive to conduct the search. Accordingly, the training director’s acquisition strategy may lie at any given point between these two extremes. Complexity of Search The information-processing literature defines input complexity as the number of changes that an input can potentially evoke in a system as a result of the informational content of the system (Driver & Streufert, 1969). Literature from the environmental uncertainty domain has defined complexity as the number of factors taken into account in decision making (Duncan, 1972), and more recently as the number and heterogeneity of elements in the organization’s environment (Stone & Fiorito, 1986). For purposes of this project, scanning complexity is defined as the number of sources used and content areas searched to acquire informational input. The main variables relevant to the given definition are the number of sources used and the number Of different content areas explored in scanning. Previous literature has addressed scanning sources in terms of the frequency with which global categories of sources are used (i.e., internal and external, personal and impersonal) (Aguilar, 1967; Keegan, 1974; Culnan, 1983; Seaton, 1985), and content areas in terms of perceptions of importance Of global content area 49 categories (e.g., economic, political) (Aguilar, 1967; Jain, 1984). However, there is a paucity of conceptual and empirical literature regarding the number of sources used and content areas searched. In the present research, scanning activity is assumed to range from simple to complex search. A complex search entails searching for information from a larger number of sources and content areas. Examples of sources that may be searched by the training subsystem include individuals within the organization, employee surveys, personal letters and memos, professional journals, and external consultants (Steddman & Clay, 1985). Content areas explored in reference to training needs may include organizational structure and goals, human resources, technological implementations, environmental political states, and the external labor market (see Goldstein, 1986). Perspective of the Study For a given entity to be effective in a dynamic environment, it must be adaptable to changes necessitated by that environment. For the entity to be adaptable, it must be capable of acquiring knowledge relevant to determining these necessary changes. The capability of acquiring knowledge necessitates interaction with the environment. The open systems perspective highlights the importance of this interaction through the exchange of materials across boundaries and environments in an input-throughput-output cycle (Katz & Kahn, 1978). 50 The current research views the training subsystem as interacting with and dependent upon the organization and its environment. The training subsystem’s input-throughput- output process is critical to understanding the interactions of the system with its organization and environment. The process of developing a training program has been conceptualized in a previous section as having both antecedent and consequential processes such that the result of the antecedent process is the decision of whether or not to develop a training program and the consequential process is the implementation of the training program. Of primary relevance to the present research is the antecedent process. The antecedent process cycle conceptualizes relevant information as the input, the analysis of that information as the throughput, and the response to the analysis (i.e., decision to develop training program) as the output. The focus of this proposal is the process of acquiring the informational input, or scanning. Within the training subsystem, the scanning process is typically executed by the training director or the person in charge of the training function. It has been suggested that a variety of factors may account for variations in the scanning process among individuals. The present study initiates an exploration of the linkages between training subsystem characteristics (i.e., mission extensiveness, 51 centrality, and resource adequacy) and the training director’s scanning process. Research Objectives Implicit in the present investigation is the view that scanning activity is necessary to acquire informational input, and that informational input is a prerequisite to comprehensive training program development. It is further contended that comprehensive training program development is imperative to training effectiveness. It is argued that the scanning activities are crucial to the success of the training subsystem. The training subsystem characteristics are postulated to affect scanning activities. Specifically, the present research explores the relationships between the proactiveness of acquisition strategy and complexity of search of scanning and the mission, centrality, and resource adequacy of the training subsystem. A dearth of conceptual and empirical literature on the relationship Of scanning and subsystem characteristics exists. A paucity of research also exists for training subsystem characteristics, and in the literature concerning scanning activities. Previous sections in this paper have reviewed the relevant literature from diverse fields as open systems theory, environmental scanning, boundary spanning, and organizational characteristics to develop a conceptual base for the present research. 52 The present study is aimed at an initial exploration of the relationships among the key variables of interest. Because the current research attempts to integrate two previously unexplored classes of variables, research objectives, rather than specific hypotheses, are derived. Empirical testing Of the variables has several general goals. First, the research should provide an analysis of the primary relationship of interest; the importance of training subsystem characteristics to the scanning activity of the training director. Second, the research should provide a better understanding of the relationships among training mission extensiveness, subsystem centrality, and resource adequacy. Finally, the research should yield an origin from which to better understand the connection between the training director’s scanning acquisition strategy and complexity of search. In sum, each goal is a part of an overall Objective of developing a cognizance of scanning activities that is conceptually grounded in the diverse literature and that extends the literature to its next logical step of systematic empirical investigation. The following section presents specific research objectives examining the relationship among training subsystem variables and the training director’s scanning activities. Training:gission Extensiveness The extensiveness of the training mission is expected to affect the amount and method of scanning activity needed to develop training 53 programs that satisfactorily meet the mission’s training functions. More specifically, it is postulated that training mission extensiveness necessitates increased training needs assessment, and thus a greater need for information relevant to training and development. The implications for training needs assessment and scanning complexity are twofold. First, the variety of functions that are included in the training mission necessitate a need for information on a variety of topics or from a variety of content areas. For example, if the training mission emphasizes the teaching of skills for jobs that do not yet exist in the organization, the training subsystem may have to determine exactly what those jobs and their corresponding skills will be. If the training mission stresses improving the current performance of employees, then the training subsystem must become aware of the current skill level Of the employees. If the mission emphasizes the updating Of worker skills to meet the changing needs of the organization, then the changing needs must be ascertained. Secondly, the amount of emphasis on each of the training and development functions necessitates a need for information from a greater number of sources. That is, the more a particular function is stressed as part of the training mission, the more information is needed for that particular function. A greater amount Of information may be Obtained through a greater number of sources. In addition, 54 the more a given function is stressed, the more important that function may be to the organization and the more important is the need for accurate and complete information on that topic. Greater accuracy and completeness Of information may be obtained through gathering information from a greater number of sources. For example, if the retraining of workers to meet technological changes is strongly emphasized by the training mission because this area is extremely relevant to the organization, then information from unit managers, technological experts from other companies, and technology journals may need to be obtained. Implications of the relationship between training mission extensiveness and the training director’s scanning acquisition strategy stem from a number of logical assumptions as follows: (1) the training subsystem will strive to meet the training and development functions ascribed by the mission; (2) when the training mission is more extensive, the training subsystem must assess a greater amount of information relevant to training needs to effectively accomplish the functions derived from the mission; (3) assessing a greater number of training needs usurps an increased amount of time; 4) training functions have a time frame past which they are no longer relevant to the organization (e.g., updating skills of workers to meet changing needs of the organization). From these 55 assumptions, it is argued that increased extensiveness of the training mission increases the work load of the training subsystem and thus necessitates a need to actively seek (or be proactive in seeking) relevant information in order to make training decisions within the appropriate time constraints. A main objective of the present research is to examine the relation of training mission extensiveness and scanning activities in terms of complexity Of search for information and scanning acquisition strategy. It is expected that: (1) the extensiveness Of the training mission will be positively related to the complexity Of information search; and (2) the extensiveness of the training mission will be positively related to the proactiveness of scanning acquisition strategy. Training Subsystem Centrality Kanter’s (1977) structural theory of organizational behavior states that effectiveness in a job is, in part, a function of the individual’s location in the system. In relation to the scanning process, it is likely that the centrality of the training department to the organization affects the amount and type of scanning activity, which can then influence the effectiveness Of the training needs assessment process. The implication of the training subsystem’s centrality in relation to scanning activities lie in the probability that a closer link of organizational decision-making to 56 training and development both requires and allows for access to a greater amount of information relevant to training. First, for training and development to be considered in the strategic plan, information concerning training and development must be available. Training subsystem representatives (e.g., the training director) are likely to report this information to the strategic planning committee. For this reason, the training subsystem needs to scan for that information. Secondly, the involvement of the training subsystem in the strategic planning process may require a representative’s presence in strategic planning meetings. This allows the training subsystem to become aware Of planned changes in organizational goals, production technology, human resources, and so on. A second main objective in the present study is to investigate the relationship of training subsystem centrality to scanning complexity. It is expected that the centrality of the training subsystem will be positively related to the complexity of information search. Training Subsystem Resource Adequacy, Research results indicate that a lack of adequate resources affect subunit power in university settings (Whittaker, 1978), and constrain training efforts (Clegg, 1987). Inadequate resources within the training subsystem may constrain efforts to proactively scan and may diminish the complexity of the information search. 57 Impediment of proactive scanning can occur when resources are inadequate through the presumption that a proactive acquisition strategy exhausts a greater amount of human and physical resources. Specifically, to scan for information actively, either more money or time must be spent by the training subsystem. For example, to actively seek information on technological innovations, the training subsystem (staff) may subscribe to journals, place long- distance calls to technological experts, or spend time meeting with the company experts. However, without enough time, money, or additional staff to do all this, the subsystem may be forced to wait until new technology has been implemented in the company before receiving information about it. In this manner, the training subsystem is compelled to respond to what may be a crisis situation in terms of training needed, and thus scanning may be confined exclusively to immediate needs. The lack of adequate resources can affect scanning complexity through a restriction of information gathering efforts. Without adequate personnel staff, the training director (or individual in charge of the training function) may need to complete a variety of other duties, thus leaving less time to scan for information. Further, with an inadequate budget, scanning may be managed only for information that is readily accessible. This can result in fewer content areas being explored. It is also likely that 58 fewer information sources will be available to the training subsystem for the same reasons; that is, a lack Of time to gather information from a variety of sources and a lack of money to gather information from less easily accessible sources. In sum, the lack of adequate resources can greatly inhibit the needs assessment process through a restriction Of information gathering. The third main objective of the current research is to explore the relationship between training subsystem resource adequacy and scanning activity in terms of its acquisition strategy proactiveness and complexity of information search. It is anticipated that: (1) the resource adequacy Of the training subsystem will be positively related to the proactiveness of acquisition strategy; and (2) the resource adequacy of the training subsystem will be positively related to the complexity of the search for information. METHOD Subjects The major purpose of this study is to examine the relationship of training subsystem characteristics and the scanning process. The unit of analysis was the individual training director or the individual in charge of the training function. Sample Recruitment The addressee company sample was comprised Of all Michigan Chamber of Commerce members in manufacturing Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) categories employing at least 50 individuals. Industries included in this listing are: (1) food and kindred, tobacco; (2) lumber, furniture, paper, glass; (3) chemicals, rubbers, plastics, etc.; (4) fabricated metals; (5) machinery and electrical; (6) transportation; (7) fabrics, leathers, textiles; (8) printing and publishing. For the purposes of a larger study of which this research is a part, a survey was sent to 1,700 chief executive officers as identified in the Harris Michigan Industrial Directory (1986). A 24% (n : 410) return rate from this initial addressee sample was yielded. CEOs were ESked in the survey to identify the person in charge of (or nuDsst directly involved in) training and development. 59 60 Approximately three—fourths (n = 300) of the CEO survey respondents provided the name of the person in charge of training and development in their company. Training Strategy surveys were then sent to the named individuals with a return rate of 50% (n = 150). The 150 remaining individuals who did not return the survey received follow-up phone calls and were implored to complete and return the survey (an additional copy of the survey was sent if necessary). Of this group, 62 returned the survey. Thus, 212 companies completed both the CEO survey and the Training Strategy survey (due to the elimination of unusable CEO surveys, the total usable matched sample size was 193). To further increase sample size, surveys were sent to 400 personnel/human resource directors as identified in the Harris Michigan Industrial Directory (1986). The return rate from this subsample was approximately 11% (n = 46) yielding a total respondent return rate of 258. Surveys were eliminated (n = 6) if the respondents’ position title was "CEO/ President/ Chairperson", or was otherwise deemed inappropriate for the desired sample, or if the company employed less than 50 individuals. Overall, the sample size usable for the analyses was 252 (return rate = 15%). Participation in the survey was voluntary. Sample Characteristics Respondent and company demographics are presented in Table 1. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Index and company size items were 61 Table 1 Demographics of Study Participants Respondent Demographics (N2252) N Percent Sex Male 196 82% Female 44 18% Position Title Training/Development 44 20% Human Resources 42 19% Personnel 54 24% Industrial Relations 8 4% Employee Relations 15 7% Organizational Development 3 1% Vice-President/General Manager 16 7% Functional/Divisional Manager 29 13% Safety/Miscellaneous 12 5% Position Level Executive Level/TOp Management 90 36% Middle Management 133 53% Lower Level Management 23 9% Other 5 2% Education Level High School or GED 9 4% 1-2 Years College/Technical School 35 15% B.A./B.S. Degree 120 50% Master’s Degree 68 28% Ph.D. Degree 8 3% *Age Meanz43 SD28.5 1 Variable means and standard deviations are reported. 62 Table 1 (con’t) Company Demographics N Percent Company Description Single Owned and Operated Business 52 22% Company with Several Divisions/Branches 101 42% Fully Owned Subsidiary 74 31% Other 13 5% Standard Industrial Classification Index Food and Kindred, Tobacco 10 5% Lumber, Furniture, Paper, Glass 21 12% Chemicals, Rubbers, Plastics, etc. 26 14% Fabricated Metals 68 38% Machinery and Electrical 24 13% Transportation 16 9% Fabrics, Leathers, Textiles 3 2% Printing and Publishing 13 7% *Company Size Mean:1,758 SD:5,331 x Variable means and standard deviations are reported. 63 completed only on the CEO survey. For this reason, these demographics are from CEO survey respondents whose company training director participated in the Training Strategy survey (n = 193). Age and company size are reported in terms of means and standard deviations (SDs). 82% of the respondents were male (n = 196) and 18% were female (n = 44). 20% of the respondent sample hold positions that are primarily training and development functions (e.g., training director, human resource development director, corporate trainer). Appendix A lists the respondent position titles that were content coded for the position title variable. Approximately three—fourths of the respondent sample are individuals in human resource related positions (e.g., training and development, personnel, employee relations) (n = 166), while one-fourth (n = 57) are not in primary human resource positions (e.g., vice-president, functional manager). The respondents as classified by position level include 90 executives or top level management positions, 133 middle level management positions, and 23 lower level management positions. Over four-fifths (n = 196) of the survey respondents are educated at or above the college level. The ages of the respondents ranged from 25 to 64 (mean = 43, standard deviation = 8.5). Of the respondent companies, 22% (n = 52) are single independently owned and operated businesses, 42% (n = 101) are companies with several divisions or branches, and 31% 64 (n = 74) are fully owned subsidiaries of other corporations. As categorized by SIC Index, the largest group of respondent companies are from fabricated metal manufacturers. The percentage breakdown by SIC Index was similar to the percentage breakdown in the pOpulation of Michigan manufacturing companies as indicated in the 1986 Harris Michigan Industrial Directory (e.g., 5% of the respondent companies and 4% of the Michigan manufacturing companies are in food and kindred, tobacco industries; 12% of the respondent companies and 12% of the Michigan manufacturing companies are in lumber, furniture, paper, and glass industries). Company size (n = 193) ranged from 50 to 50,000 with a mean of 1,758 and standard deviation (SD) of 5,331. Procedure The research presented in this paper constitutes a portion of a larger research project investigating the effects of environmental, organizational, and training subsystem characteristics on the training subsystem’s scanning and analysis processes, and on characteristics of the training plan. Prior to finalization of the training survey, seven training personnel were interviewed. The exploratory interview is presented in Appendix B. The principal objectives of the interviews were to: (1) examine the applicability of the scanning acquisition components; 65 (2) examine the comprehensiveness of the list of scanning sources and content areas; (3) identify poorly or unclearly worded items; (4) insure comprehensibility of terminology used in survey items; and (5) elicit suggestions for modifications for the Training Strategy survey. The open— ended questions were designed to more extensively tap variable dimensions than would be feasible in the survey. The finalized version Of the Training Strategy survey included measures of training mission extensiveness, centrality of the training subsystem, perceived resource adequacy of the training subsystem, and scanning acquisition strategy and complexity, as well as the variables of interest to the larger project. The Training Strategy survey is presented in Appendix C. Data on independent variables (training subsystem centrality, mission extensiveness, and resource adequacy) was gathered from both training personnel and from CEOs (in the CEO survey) to obtain measures of interrater reliability. Surveys were mailed to all individuals in charge of training and development as identified through the CEO survey and the Harris Michigan Industrial Directory (1986). Included with the survey was one of two cover letters (one for individuals identified by their CEO and one for individuals identified through the Harris Directory) explaining the purposes of the study. Both cover letters are presented in Appendix D. Individuals who did not return 66 the survey within a period of one and one-half months received follow-up phone calls and were implored to complete and return the survey (an additional copy of the survey was sent if necessary). A summary of the results, along with a brief letter thanking them for their cooperation, will be mailed to respondents who requested a report Of the results. Measures This section focuses on the development of measures for the current study. Scale item descriptives are presented, as are internal consistency and interrater reliabilities. Training Mission Extensiveness Extensiveness of the training mission was measured using a ten-item scale. Table 2 presents the items comprising the scale and the descriptive results. Five of these items were derived from similar items used in a previous survey examining the relation of human resource management and strategic planning (Jackson and Schuler, 1987). Five items were developed for the present study to tap this dimension more extensively. Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which the role of training and development in their company is to fulfill each of the 10 missions using a 5-point Likert—type scale (1: to no extent; 5: to a large extent). Examples Of training and development missions include updating the skills of employees to meet the company’s changing needs, cross-training for other jobs within the company to diversify skills, and improving the skills of employees in 67 Table 2 Training Mission Extensiveness Item Descriptives TO what extent is the role of training and development in your company to: Item N Range Mean SD update skills of employees to meet the company’s changing needs 250 1—5 3.69 .99 teach skills for other jobs within the company to increase promotability 250 1-5 2.68 1.00 cross-train for other jobs within the company to diversify skills 251 1-5 2.83 1.00 retrain employees affected by technological changes 251 1-5 2.63 1.15 teach skills for jobs that do not yet exist in anticipation of 251 1-5 1.90 .94 future company needs train new hires 250 1-5 3.46 1.13 maintain skills of experienced employees 251 1-5 3.13 .90 improve the skills of employees in their current jobs 249 1-5 3.28 .92 inform employees of educational opportunities available outside 248 1-5 2.77 1.23 the company train to increase employee morale and committment 251 1-5 2.96 1.04 Scale Coefficient Alpha = .82 Scale Interrater Reliability = .171 1 Interrater reliability is based on the intercorrelation of the CEO survey respondents and Training Strategy survey respondents from corresponding companies (n 193) 68 their current jobs. The Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient and interrater reliability between the CEO survey respondents and the Training Strategy survey respondents from corresponding companies (n : 193) were calculated for the training mission extensiveness scale. As is presented in Table 2, the alpha for training mission extensiveness was .82, indicating a high degree of internal consistency. Interrater reliability was .17 (n : 192). As previously discussed, organizational literature (Holloway, 1986) suggests that mission may be conceptualized in terms of two dimensions; limiting and stimulating. However, the internal consistency reliability (r = .82) for the training mission extensiveness scale suggests only one factor for training mission. To further examine the dimensionality of the training mission extensiveness scale, an exploratory common factor analysis with squared multiple correlations in the diagonals was conducted on all Training Strategy survey respondents. Based on the major drop between eigenvalues of factor 1 and factor 2 (factor 1 eigenvalue = 3.33; factor 2 eigenvalue = .51), one factor was extracted from this analysis. Training Subsystem Centrality Centrality was measured using a four-item scale. The four items tap the centrality of training and development to top-level decision making or corporate strategic planning. Examples of these items 69 include the extent to which the company uses information about training and development needs for strategic planning, and the extent to which the training director participates in strategic planning with top level management. Descriptive results for the items are presented in Table 3. Respondents were asked to give ratings on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1: to no extent; 5: to a large extent). These items originated from previous instruments designed to measure the relationship of training and development with strategic planning (K. N. Wexley, personnel communication, 1988). Table 3 exhibits the Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient and interrater reliability between the CEO survey respondents and the Training Strategy survey respondents from corresponding companies (n = 193). Alpha for the training subsystem centrality scale was .77, indicating an acceptable level of internal consistency. Interrater reliability was .39 (n = 191), demonstrating moderate interrater agreement. Training Subsystem Resource Adeggacy, Resource adequacy was measured using a five-item scale developed for the current study. Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which budget allocation, number of training and development staff, skill adequacy of training and development staff, available equipment, and available facilities are adequate to meet the organization’s training and development needs. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations for the 70 Table 3 Training Subsystem Centrality Item Descriptives To what extent: Item N Range Mean SD does your company consider the training and development function central to the company’s strategic ' planning process 250 1-5 3.40 1.01 does your company use information about training and development needs for strategic planning 249 1—5 2.76 1.00 does your company use training and development to implement goals and actions as specified by the company’s strategic plan 246 1-5 3.08 .98 do you participate in strategic planning with top level management 246 1—5 3.24 1.29 Scale Coefficient Alpha = .77 Scale Interrater Reliability : .391 1 Interrater reliability is based on the intercorrelation of the CEO survey respondents and Training Strategy survey respondents from corresponding companies (n = 193). 71 Table 4 Training Subsystem Resource Adequacy Item Descriptives To what extent are the following resources adequate to meet your company’s training and development needs? Item N Range Mean SD the current budget allocated'for training and development 251 1-5 2.85 1.13 the number of training and development staff in your unit 249 1-5 2.21 1.08 skill adequacy of your training and development staff 244 1-5 2.77 1.15 the equipment available for training and development 249 1-5 3.11 1.12 available facilities (e.g., conference rooms, Office space) 250 1-5 3.33 1.18 Scale Coefficient Alpha : .80 Scale Interrater Reliability : .38l 1 Interrater reliability is based on the intercorrelation of the CEO survey respondents and Training Strategy survey respondents from corresponding companies (n = 193). 72 items included in the scale. Respondents were asked to give ratings on a 5-point Likert—type scale (1: to no extent; 5: to a large extent). The Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient and interrater reliability between the CEO survey respondents and the Training Strategy survey respondents from corresponding companies (n : 193) were calculated for the training resource adequacy scale. As is presented in Table 4, the alpha for resource adequacy was .80, indicating a high degree of internal consistency. Interrater reliability was .38 (n : 192), demonstrating moderate interrater agreement. Scanning Acquisition Strategy Proactiveness Acquisition strategy proactiveness was measured using a 6—item scale developed for the present research. The composite scale is comprised of three dimensions which tap the hypothesized components of scanning acquisition strategy. Specifically, the questions ask how Often information is gathered: (1) in response to a crisis Situation; (2) through an active search for information; (3) as a response to a mandate (e.g., directive from top management). Table 5 presents item descriptive results. Respondents were asked to rate each of the dimensions in regards to changes occurring inside and outside the company. All responses are on a five-point Likert-type scale (1: infrequently; 5: very frequently). 73 Table 5 Scanning Acquisition Strategy Proactiveness Item Descriptives Item 1How Often do you initiate a search for information on changes occurring inside your company as a response to a mandate (e.g., directive from top management) to solve a problem or determine training needs? 242 3How Often do you initiate a search for information on changes occurring outside your company as a response to a mandate (e.g., directive from top management) to solve a problem or determine training needs? 242 *Once you recognize a need to obtain information on changes occurring inside your company, how Often do you seek that information (as Opposed to receiving it without special effort on your part)? 240 *Once you recognize a need to Obtain information on changes occurring outside your company, how Often do you seek that information (as opposed to receiving it without special effort on your part)? 241 3How Often do you obtain information on changes occurring inside your company in response to a crisis situation (i.e., unanticipated critical event)? 241 “How often do you obtain information on changes occurring outside your company in response to a crisis situation (i..e., unanticipated critical event)? 238 N Range 1-5 Mean 3.16 SD 1.19 Scale Coefficient Alpha : .67 1 - 4 Items were reverse scored. * Items were deleted from scale. 74 The alpha for the scanning strategy scale was initially computed for the six items (with the two "crisis-response" and the two "other-initiate" dimension items reflected) proposed to comprise the scale. The alpha for the six—item scale was .10. The items comprising the "actively seek information" dimension were negatively correlated (r ranged from -.14 to -.48) with the remaining four items and were moderately intercorrelated (r : .45) with each other (See Appendix E for the interitem correlation matrix). Because the intercorrelations of the factively seek information" dimension items with the other items were opposite to the predicted direction, alpha was recalculated after eliminating these two items from the scale. The internal consistency reliability coefficient for the new four-item scale was .67 as shown in Table 5. Complexity of Search Scanning complexity was measured using a 4 x 13 composite of possible content areas explored and scanning sources used. Table 6 presents item means and standard deviations. Respondents were asked to mark the scanning sources used for each content area from which information to assess training needs is acquired. Scanning sources originated from Moore and Dutton (1978), McGehee and Thayer (1961), Steddman and Clay (1985), and Seaton (1985). Content areas originated from Goldstein (1986). The composite was developed for the purpose of the current study. Composite scores were computed by adding the number 75 Table 6 Complexity of Information Search Item Descriptives Information concerning organizational characteristics, human resource issues, technological advances and implementations, and changes in the external environment may be acquired to assess training needs. Please indicate the sources that you use to Obtain information in these four areas. AREA: ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS - e.g., goals, structure, climate, products, processes (please mark all that apply) Item N Mean SD company records and reports 249 .64 .48 company personnel skill inventories 249 .27 .44 employee surveys 249 .41 .49 memos/letters from others in your company 249 .64 .48 verbal contacts with others in your company 249 .84 .37 formal meetings with others in your company 249 .73 .45 external publications (i.e., trade journals) 249 .44 .50 external consultants 249 .29 .45 training professional in other companies 249 .23 .42 consumers/customers/suppliers 249 .35 .48 professional meetings (e.g., ASTD) 249 .31 .46 direct observation 249 .72 .45 formal training steering committee meetings 249 .22 .42 not applicable 249 .04 .19 Note: Range is 0 - 1 for all items. 76 Table 6 (con’t) AREA: HUMAN RESOURCES - e.g., knowledge, skills, abilities (please mark all that apply) Item N Mean SD company records and reports 249 .66 .47 company personnel skill inventories 249 .45 .20 employee surveys 249 .39 .49 memos/letters from others in your company 249 .51 .50 verbal contacts with others in your company 249 .80 .40 formal meetings with others in your company 249 .61 .49 external publications (i.e., trade journals) 249 .34 .48 external consultants 249 .27 .44 training professional in other companies 249 .22 .42 consumers/customers/suppliers 249 .19 .39 professional meetings (e.g., ASTD) 249 .31 .46 direct observation 249 .68 .47 formal training steering committee meetings 249 .21 .40 not applicable 249 .03 .17 Note: Range is 0 - 1 for all items. 77 Table 6 (con’t) AREA: TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES AND IMPLEMENTATION - e.g., robotics, office automation (please mark all that apply) Item N Mean SD company records and reports 249 .20 .40 company personnel skill inventories 249 .06 .23 employee surveys 249 .08 .27 memos/letters from others in your company 249 .47 .50 verbal contacts with others in your company 249 .63 .48 formal meetings with others in your company 249 .51 .50 external publications (i.e., trade journals) 249 .61 .49 external consultants 249 .32 .47 training professional in other companies 249 .19 .40 consumers/customers/suppliers 249 .41 .49 professional meetings (e.g., ASTD) 249 .24 .43 direct Observation 249 .42 .50 formal training steering committee meetings 249 .13 .34 not applicable 249 .09 .29 Note: Range is 0 - 1 for all items. 78 Table 6 (con’t) AREA: EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT - e.g., political and economic states (please mark all that apply) Item N Mean SD company records and reports 249 .17 .38 company personnel skill inventories 249 .01 .09 employee surveys 249 .04 .19 memos/letters from others in your company 249 .39 .49 verbal contacts with others in your company 249 .60 .49 formal meetings with others in your company 249 .46 .50 external publications (i.e., trade journals) 249 .70 .46 external consultants 249 .28 .45 training professional in other companies 249 .14 .35 consumers/customers/suppliers 249 .51 .50 professional meetings (e.g., ASTD) 249 .37 .48 direct observation 249 .39 .49 formal training steering committee meetings 249 .05 .22 not applicable 249 .08 .28 Scale Coefficient Alpha : .87 A Note: Range is 0 - 1 for all items. 79 of scanning sources used for each content area explored. Coefficient alpha was computed for the scanning complexity composite by creating subcomposite scores for each of the four content areas (organizational characteristics, human resource, technological advances and implementation, and external environment) in the overall composite. Each of the subcomposite scores had a response range from 0 to 13. (Descriptive results and intercorrelations for the subcomposites are presented in Appendix F.) Thus, the alpha coefficient was .87 indicating high internal consistency from the subcomposites for the scanning complexity composite scale. However, it should be noted that the mean scores for the particular sources within each subcomposite were different, thus confirming that respondents did not simply mark the same sources for all subcomposites. Method of Analysis Data analysis proceeded in three steps. First, intercorrelations among the training subsystem variables (training mission extensiveness, training subsystem centrality, and training resource adequacy) were computed, as was the intercorrelation between the scanning activity variables. Next, zero-order Pearson correlations among the training subsystem variables and the scanning activity variables were computed. Finally, multiple regression analysis was used to determine which of the independent 80 variables (i.e., training subsystem variables) were most important in predicting scanning acquisition strategy and complexity. RESULTS Introduction Survey results are presented in several sections. The first section presents descriptive results for the study variables. Next, training variables intercorrelations and scanning variables intercorrelations are addressed. Correlational results testing the main research objectives are presented in the third section. Finally, the results Of the exploratory regression analyses are presented. Descriptive Results The survey contained scales designed to measure three training subsystem characteristics (mission extensiveness, centrality, and resource adequacy), and training personnel scanning strategy. Also included was a composite for scanning complexity. Table 7 presents descriptive results for the five variables. Scale scores were calculated for all respondents who answered at least three-fourths of the items comprising the scale. Sample means were substituted for missing items. Scanning complexity was considered missing only if none of the items in the composite were marked. If respondents indicated "non-applicable" for a subcomposite, their score for that subcomposite was 0. The items in the scanning strategy scale were reflected such that a high scale score was indicative of a proactive 81 82 Table 7 Scales Descriptive Results Variable N Range Mean SD Training Subsystem Characteristics Mission Extensiveness 251 1-5 2.93 0.63 Centrality 250 1—5 3.12 0.84 Resource Adequacy 251 1—5 2.86 0.85 Scanningqyariables Scanning Strategy 242 1—5 2.95 0.80 Scanning Complexity 249 0-52 20.02 9.78 83 scanning strategy and a low scale score was indicative of a reactive scanning strategy. Responses to mission extensiveness, centrality, resource adequacy, and scanning strategy scales were made using a five—point rating scale (1 : to no extent or infrequently; 5 : to a great extent or very frequently). The scanning complexity composite had a response range of 0 to 52 sources scanned for information regarding training and development. Means for the four scales ranged from 2.86 to 3.12. Standard deviations ranged from .63 to .85. The mean for the scanning complexity composite was 20.02 indicating that the mean number of sources scanned for four content areas was approximately 20. The standard deviation for the scanning complexity composite was 9.78. The number of cases for the variables ranged from 242 to 251 due to missing values. Intercorrelations Among Training Subsystem Variables and Scanniqg Variables Intercorrelations among the training subsystem variables are presented in Table 8. The intercorrelation between training mission extenSiveness and centrality was .58 (n : 250; p < .001). Training mission extensiveness and resource adequacy were correlated at .38 (n : 251; p < .001), and training subsystem centrality and resource adequacy were correlated at .38 (n = 250; p < .001). These results demonstrate that the training subsystem variables 84 Table 0 Variable Intercorrelations and Internal Consistency Reliability Variable nission Centrality lesootce Scanning Couplexity Extensiveness JIISIQEX Strategy Mission .82‘ lxtensiveness Centrality .58’ (2501’ .71 Resource .38* .38’ Adequacy 1251) (250) .80 Scanning .26* .18’ -.06 Strategy 1242) (241) (242) .61 Conplexity .13* .26’ .07 .31' 1249) (lel (249) (242) .87 ‘ Scale internal consistency reliabilities (alpha) are printed on the diagonal. 3 lolber of cases are printed in parentheses. * fro-tailed significance at p < .05 level. 85 were moderately related. For the purposes Of the present exploratory study, the three variables are considered distinct constructs. The intercorrelation between scanning strategy and scanning complexity was .31 (n : 242; p < .001). These results indicate a moderate relationship between the scanning strategy and complexity variables. Test of the Research Objectives: Intercorrelations of the TrainingySubsystem Variables and the Scanning Variables The first set of research objective predicted that the extensiveness of the training mission would be positively related to: (1) the complexity of information search and; (2) the proactiveness of scanning acquisition strategy. The zero-order correlations in Table 8 provide some support for both predictions. The intercorrelation between mission extensiveness and scanning complexity was significant but low (r : .13; n : 249; p < .05), and the intercorrelation between mission extensiveness and proactive scanning strategy was significant and moderate (r : .26; n : 242; p < .001). The second main Objective of the present study predicted that the centrality of the training subsystem would be positively related to scanning complexity. As is indicated in Table 8, this prediction was supported. The zero-order correlation between centrality and scanning complexity was r : .26 (n : 248; p < .001). 86 The final set of research objectives anticipated that the resource adequacy of the training subsystem would be positively related to: (1) the proactiveness scanning acquisition strategy and; (2) the complexity of information search. Neither of these predictions were supported as is evidenced by the nonsignificant intercorrelations in Table 8. Regression Analyses Results of the exploratory regression analysis with the scanning acquisition strategy as the dependent variable are presented in Table 9. The independent variables (training mission extensiveness, centrality, and resource adequacy) were entered stepwise. Using this method, the independent variable that accounts for the greatest relative amount of variance in the dependent variable is entered into the equation first, followed by the independent variable that accounts for the greatest relative amount of unique (in relation to the already entered independent variable) variance. The first independent variable to be entered into the equation was training mission extensiveness. Results indicate that training mission extensiveness accounted for a significant amount of variance in the dependent variable (R2 : .07; F of R2 change : 17.56; p < .001). The second independent variable to be entered into the regression equation was training subsysten resource adequacy. As is 87 Table 9 Regression Analysis with Scanning Strategy as the Dependent Variable Variables entered Multiple Change Change in regression lBeta R R2 R2 F equation Step 1 Mission Extensiveness .33 .26 .07 .07 *17.57 Step 2 Resource Adequacy -.19 .32 .10 .03 *8.45 Note: Variables are entered in stepwise form. 1 Betas are those reported after all variables have been entered into the equation. * Two-tailed significance at p < .005 level. Table 10 Regression Analysis with Scanning Complexity as the Dependent Variable Variables entered Multiple Change Change in regression Beta R R2 R2 F equation Step 1 Centrality .26 .26 .07 .07 *17.94 Note: Variables are entered in stepwise form. * Two-tailed significance at p < .001 level. 88 scanning strategy (R2 : .10; F of R2 change : 8.45; p < .005). Training subsystem centrality did not account for an adequate amount of unique variance (after mission and resource adequacy were entered) in the dependent variable to be entered into the equation. Table 10 presents results for the second regression analysis with complexity of information search as the dependent variable. Again, the independent variables listed above were entered into the regression equation in stepwise form. The only independent variable to have accounted for an adequate amount Of variance in the dependent variable to be entered into the regression equation was training subsystem centrality. Centrality accounted for a significant amount of variance in scanning complexity (R2 : .07; F of R2 change : 17.94; p < .001). DISCUSSION Introduction The general purpose of this study was to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the relationships between training subsystem characteristics and the training subsystem’s method of scanning for information relevant to training needs assessment. Specifically, this study investigated the relationship of training mission extensiveness, training subsystem centrality, and resource adequacy with the proactiveness of scanning acquisition strategy and complexity of information search. The current research is discussed in six sections. The first section provides a summary of the research results. The second section focuses on the results of the regression analyses. Unexpected research findings are examined in the third section, followed by a discussion of the limitations of the study with research suggestions in the fourth section. Implications of the present research are addressed in the fifth section. The paper concludes with implications for future research on training and development. Summary of Expected Results The results of this study supported the expectation that the more extensive the training mission and the more central the training subsystem to the organization, the more complex the information search 89 90 by the training subsystem. Also supported was the postulation that as training mission extensiveness increases, proactiveness of scanning acquisition strategy increases. Evidence that training subsystem resource adequacy would be related to proactiveness of scanning strategy and complexity of information search was not demonstrated in this study. Specific hypotheses were not formulated for the interrelationships among the training subsystem variables, or between the scanning variables. Correlational results, though, indicate that the training subsystem variables of mission extensiveness and centrality were highly related. The correlation between the two scanning variables provided some evidence that complexity of information search was positively related to scanning acquisition strategy proactiveness. Results of the Reggession Analyses Exploratory regression analyses were conducted to examine the amount of variance accounted for by the training subsystem characteristics on the scanning variables. The exploratory regressions performed on scanning acquisition strategy proactiveness and on complexity of information search are discussed below. Scanning Acquisition Strategy Proactiveness Exploratory regression analysis examined the extent to which the training subsystem characteristics (mission 91 extensiveness, centrality, and resource adequacy) were related to scanning acquisition strategy proactiveness. Overall, training subsystem variables accounted for 10% of the variance in scanning strategy. Specifically, training mission extensiveness and resource adequacy were found to uniquely account for a significant amount of variance in the dependent variable. This result occurred even though resource adequacy was not significantly correlated with scanning acquisition strategy proactiveness. Examination of the regression analysis and the intercorrelations among the variables indicate that the proportion of variance in scanning strategy accounted for by resource adequacy became larger when the effect of training mission extensiveness was partialled out of resource adequacy and scanning strategy. Centrality did not account for a significant portion of the variance in scanning strategy proactiveness although it was significantly correlated with the dependent variable. Examination of the stepwise regression analysis and the intercorrelations among the variables indicate that the proportion of variance in scanning strategy accounted for by centrality became smaller and insignificant when the effect of training mission extensiveness was partialled out of scanning strategy. This indicates that the majority of the variance that centrality accounted for in scanning strategy was shared (or was also accounted for) by mission 92 extensiveness. However, when centrality was forced to enter into the regression equation in the first step (R2 : .03; F of R2 change : 7.82; p < .01), and mission extensiveness was forced to enter in the second step (R2 : .07; F of R2 change : 9.70; p < .005), mission extensiveness still accounted for a significant portion of the additional variance in the dependent variable. These results indicate that in this study mission extensiveness was a more powerful predictor than was centrality. Complexity Of Information Search Exploratory regression analysis also examined the extent to which the training subsystem characteristics (mission extensiveness, centrality, and resource adequacy) were related to complexity of information search. Training subsystem centrality was the only independent variable to uniquely account for a significant amount of variance in the dependent variable (R2 : .07). Although mission extensiveness was significantly correlated with the dependent variable, it did not account for a significant portion of the variance in scanning complexity. Examination of the regression analysis indicate that the proportion of variance in scanning complexity accounted for by mission extensiveness became smaller and insignificant when the effect of centrality was partialled out of scanning complexity. This indicates that the majority of the variance that mission extensiveness accounted for in 93 scanning complexity was shared (or was also accounted for) by centrality. Unexpected Findings: Resource Adequacy Training subsystem resource adequacy was predicted to have a positive and significant relationship with scanning acquisition strategy proactiveness and complexity of information search. In this study, neither of these relationships were found. There are several possible reasons for this occurrence. One potential reason for this finding is that, while perceived resource adequacy may vary from company to company, the amount or lack of resources in the respondent companies may not be inadequate enough to constrain scanning strategy proactiveness or complexity. A second possibility is that a very small proportion Of the resources allocated to the training subsystem are used for information gathering purposes. For this reason, it is possible that other areas in training and development, rather than scanning, suffer from a lack of adequate-resources (e.g., number of training programs held per year). A final possibility is that training personnel may successfully compensate for a lack of adequate resources through longer working hours, Obtaining 0 information from less "expensive' sources (e.g., borrow rather than subscribe to publications) or other creative methods. 94 Limitations of the Study and Future Research Suggestions There were a number of potential limitations with the present research. These include the generalizability of the sample, the construct validity of the measures, the method of data collection, and the unanticipated problems with the scanning acquisition strategy scale. Generalizability of the Sample It is possible that the generalizability of the sample used in this study is limited. However, information from the Harris Michigan Industrial Directory (1986) (from which the potential respondent company sample was drawn) and the County Business Patterns, Michigan (1984) indicates that the present sample is representative of Michigan manufacturing companies in terms of industry type (SIC index) and organizational size. For example, 5% of the respondent companies and 4% of the Michigan manufacturing companies are in food and kindred, tobacco industries; 12% of the respondent companies and 12% of the Michigan manufacturing companies are in lumber, furniture, paper, and glass industries; 16% of the respondent companies and 17% of the Michigan manufacturing companies are in fabricated metal industries. Organizational size is somewhat similar for the respondent companies as compared to the Michigan manufacturing companies. For example, 40% of the respondent companies and 31% of the Michigan manufacturing companies employ from 100 to 249 individuals; 11% of the respondent companies and 20% 95 of the Michigan manufacturing companies employ from 250 to 499 individuals. The generalizability of this sample to other types of companies (e.g., service industries) and other geographical locations is unknown. Validation Of Measures A lack of previous research concerned with the variables of interest in this study necessitated the development of new scales. The majority of these scales demonstrated high internal consistency, and significant interrater reliability between the CEO and Training Strategy survey respondents (for the training subsystem variables). Nevertheless, the construct validity of the scales has not been demonstrated. Table 11 presents a multitrait-multimethod matrix for the training subsystem variables (similar to that espoused by Campbell & Fiske, 1959) to provide one method for evaluating construct validity. In this case, raters are used in lieu of methods. Interrater agreements showed some degree of convergence. Some divergence was indicated by the fact that the intercorrelations among the measures between the CEO and Training Strategy respondents were slightly lower than the interrater agreements for the centrality and resource adequacy measures. For example, the correlation between the CEO survey respondents’ perception of centrality and Training Strategy survey respondents’ perception of resource adequacy was lower (r : .11) than the interrater 96 Table 11 Hultitrait-lultirater latrir of training Subsysten Variables mantras cro Respondents transients lission Centrality Resource lission Centrality Resource lxtensiveness Adequacy Axtensiveness Adequacy T lission (.80) R Extent. A I Centrality .50 (.7!) I I I Resource .38 .38 (.19) 6 Adequacy Mission .11 .23 .10 (.86) Extent. c R Centrality .26 .11, .11 .68 (.83) 0 Resource .24 .30 .11 .51 .45 (.85) Adequacy loss: Interrater agreenents are underlined; internal consistency reliabilities are in parentheses. 97 agreement for both the centrality (r : .39) and the resource adequacy (r : .38) measure. However, the interrater agreement for mission extensiveness was lower than three of the four correlations between extensiveness and both centrality and resource adequacy. For example, the interrater agreement for mission extensiveness (r : .17) was lower than the correlation between the CEO’s perception of centrality and the training personnel’s perception of mission extensiveness (r : .26). This indicates some evidence for a lack of divergence. A lack of divergence is also potentially indicated by the fact that the intercorrelations among measures within the CEO matrix and within the Training Strategy matrix were higher than were the interrater agreements. It is suggested that additional measures be developed for each of the variables discussed in this study to potentially improve confidence in the results of this research. In this manner, a more complete multitrait- multimethod matrix can be examined for the training subsystem variables that would include various traits, raters, and methods to explore the extent of convergence and divergence. In addition, convergent and divergent validity can be investigated for scanning strategy proactiveness and complexity of information search. This could be accomplished through the use Of interviews, case studies, objective indices, and data collected from additional 98 company personnel. For example, objective indices such as "information knowledge tests" to determine the amount of information (e.g., on organizational characteristics or on technological advancements) actually obtained by training personnel for several industries may be developed to measure scanning complexity. An index of the number of times training personnel make presentations or participate in corporate level strategic planning meetings may be developed. Organizational charts can be used to measure training subsystem centrality. Training mission extensiveness could be measured objectively through an index of the number and type of training programs developed and implemented within the company. Individuals from other functional areas may be interviewed or may complete the current measures. From this type of additional research, it would be expected that the intercorrelations among the measures or traits (separately for training subsystem variables and scanning activity variables) using a single method or single rater would be lower than the intercorrelations among methods and among raters for one trait. In this manner, the extent of construct validity for the training subsystem and scanning activity variables may be more fully examined. Method of Data Collection A potential limitation of this study is that the data used to explore the relationship between training subsystem characteristics and the training 99 personnel’s scanning strategy and complexity were subjective and were collected from the same individual. Interrater reliabilities between the CEOs and training personnel on the training variables were used to check these problems, however, results indicated low to moderate (but significant) agreement. It is possible that the subjective nature of the data and the fact that the same individual provided data for all the variables in the study (percept-percept) could have led to an inflation of the correlations among the variables. As a check on this potential limitation, correlations between the CEO survey respondents’ perceptions of training subsystem characteristics (mission extensiveness, centrality and resource adequacy) and the Training Strategy survey respondents’ perceptions of scanning acquisition strategy proactiveness and complexity of information search were computed. As is presented in Table 12, results indicate that the correlations between training subsystem characteristics and scanning complexity of information search were almost identical when training subsystem characteristics were measured through CEO or through training personnel perceptions. This indicates that the percept-percept limitation is not an issue for the scanning complexity measure. However, for scanning strategy proactiveness, results indicate that the correlations between training subsystem characteristics and scanning acquisition strategy 100 Table 12 Intercorrelations of CEO Survey Respondents’ and Training Strategy Survey Respondents’ Perceptions of Training Subsystem Variables with Training Strategy Respondents Perceptions of Scanning Variables VARIABLE Mission Centrality Resource Extensiveness Adequacy CEO TPl CEO TP CEO TP Scanning -.10 .26* —.01 .18* —.19* -.06 Strategy (187)2(242) (187) (241) (187) (242) Complexity .17* .13* .24* .26* .06 .07 (191) (249) (191) (248) (191) (249) 1 Training Strategy respondents are denoted by TP (training personnel). 3 Number Of cases are printed in parentheses. X Two-tailed significance at p < .05 level. 101 proactiveness were quite different when training subsystem characteristics were measured through CEO perceptions as compared to training personnel perceptions. As is shown in Table 12, the pattern of correlations were in Opposite directions. The reasons for this contradiction may be methodological (i.e., percept-percept), or may be due to problems with the construct validity of the scanning strategy variable itself. Gathering data on scanning strategy proactiveness from several sources (e.g., training personnel, human resource executives) can help to determine if this limitation is a methodological one. Scanning Acquisition Strategy Scale Another potential limitation of the present study concerns the breakdown of the scanning strategy proactiveness scale. Because of the lack of previous research involving proactiveness of scanning acquisition strategy, the scanning strategy scale was developed for the purpose of this study. As has been noted, the internal consistency Of the original six-item scale was unacceptable (alpha : .10) due to the negative intercorrelation of two of the items ("actively seek" dimension) with the remaining four items ("crisis-response" dimension and "other initiate" dimension). With the elimination of the "actively seek" dimension items from the scale, the internal consistency reliability was at an acceptable level (alpha : .67). However, when alpha (for all six items) was computed without reverse scoring the 102 reactive dimension items (i.e., "crisis-response" and "other initiate" dimension items), the alpha was .73, indicating high internal consistency. There appear to be two possible reasons for these occurrences. The first reason pertains to the possibility that training personnel who actively seek information do so primarily in response to a crisis situation or in response to an external mandate to seek information. It may be that individuals who primarily seek information as an immediate response to a crisis or as a response to instructions from others can Obtain that information only through an active search due to a lack of time for a passive reception Of information. It would be informative for future researchers to determine if this occurs by developing items for the scanning strategy scale that cross the dimensions. Examples of cross-dimension items may include: (1) when you initiate a search for information in response to an external mandate, how Often do you actively seek that information (as opposed to receiving that information without special effort on your part); or (2) when you gather information prior to the occurrence of a crisis (as opposed to in response to a crisis) how Often do you receive that information without special effort on your part (as opposed to actively seeking that information). This measurement method can determine if an active search for information is primarily a result of reactive situations. If responses to questions similar to 103 these examples indicate that reactive situations (i.e, "crisis-response" and "other-initiate" information searches) do not tend to lead to an active search for information, it is possible that the problem is with the measurement scale or wording of the items.’ The second reason for the occurrence of the unanticipated problem with the original scale concerns the fact that both the "crisis-response" dimension items and the "other initiate" dimension items were worded such that a high response score indicates a reactive scanning strategy, and were thus reverse scored. Conversely, the "actively seek" dimension items were worded such that a high response score indicates a proactive scanning strategy. In addition, the reactive dimension items were not clarified by including a statement that contrasted the reactiveness of the item with a proactive statement (e.g., "in response to crisis [as opposed to seeking information prior to the occurrence of a crisis situation]). Hence, it is possible that the reactive dimensions items were not interpreted by respondents as intended by the researcher. For example, respondents may have interpreted the reactive dimensions items as positive or proactive items in the same manner as they interpreted the "actively seek" dimension items, and respondents may have perceived these items as emphasizing "how often do you seek information" rather than as emphasizing "in response to 104 a crisis" or "as a response to an external mandate". This is supported by the correlation of the two proactive items (r : .45) and their patterns of intercorrelations with the reactive items. Future research should seek to clarify the reactive dimension items by including a statement that contrasts the reactiveness of the item with a proactive statement, or by wording the items such that a high response score indicates a proactive response. Implications Despite the limitations noted, there are a number of implications that the current study generates for the existing body of relevant knowledge. This section first addresses implications related to organizational literature. This is followed by a discussion of implications related to environmental scanning and boundary spanning literature. Finally, implications of propositions that have not been previously addressed in the literature are examined. Organizational Literature On a general level, organizational literature and the Open systems perspective advocate the argument that system characteristics can and do effect the processes involved in various functions of the system (Pugh, Hickson, Hinings, & Turner, 1973; Katz and Kahn, 1978). This notion is supported through the significant influence of the training mission on scanning acquisition strategy, and the influence of training subsystem centrality on scanning complexity. The link 105 between the training mission and scanning complexity further sustains this idea. Also supported is the notion that subsystem characteristics are influenced by system characteristics (Hinrichs, 1976). The fact that the structure of the organization, in this case the centrality of the training subsystem, was related to characteristics that are subsystem specific such as the extensiveness of the training mission and resource adequacy supports the contended relation between system and subsystem characteristics. Organizational literature and the Open systems perspective also advance the concept that characteristics within the system or subsystem influence and interact with one another (Katz & Kahn, 1978). The finding that training mission extensiveness and training subsystem resource adequacy were intercorrelated supports this perspective, as does the finding that scanning strategy and complexity were related. Environmental Scanning and Boundary Spanning Literature Research from the environmental scanning and boundary spanning literatures indicate that individuals do scan and that scanning strategy varies across individuals (Fahey & King, 1977; Jain, 1984). The current study supports this idea for individuals involved in the training subsystem. Literature from the environmental scanning and boundary Spanning fields conceptualize individual hierarchical level 106 as related to scanning activity (Kefalas & Schroderbek, 1973; Hambrick, 1981; Schwab, Ungson, & Brown, 1985). Similarly, the present study has conceptualized subsystem centrality, (closely related to hierarchical level) as related to scanning activity. However, previous research has failed to support this contention on an individual level (Kefalas & Schroderbek, 1973; Hambrick, 1981; Schwab, Ungson & Brown, 1985). In contrast, the present research indicates that at the subsystem level, centrality was positively related to scanning strategy and complexity. Original Propositions The present research has added information in areas that have not been addressed in previous literature. First, while research from the environmental scanning literature indirectly asserts that individuals scan for information from a variety Of content areas and sources (Aguilar, 1967; Jain, 1984), the available literature does not propose the notion that scanning has the dimension of complexity. The present research has conceptualized complexity of information search as the extent to which a variety of sources are used and content areas explored to acquire informational input. The results of this study indicate that training personnel explored a variety of content areas and utilized various sources of information when scanning for information relevant to training needs assessment. In addition, training personnel varied in the complexity of their information search. 107 Further, the sources used to obtain information varied across the content areas explored as would be expected. That is, certain sources were more often used to obtain infOrmation within a particular content area than within other content areas. For example, an examination of the data revealed that external publications were more Often used to explore the external environment and technological advances than to explore organizational characteristics or human resources, and company records and reports were more often used to explore organizational characteristics and human resources than to explore the external environment and technological advances. Thus, the current research both elucidates and gives credence to the tenet that scanning complexity exists and that it varies among individuals. The study presented here also provides support for the existence of centrality and mission extensiveness as a subsystem issues. Schein’s (1980) conceptual model of individuals in organizations proposes the notion of individual centrality, however, the idea of subsystem centrality has not been examined in the literature. Similarly, the organizational literature has coined the concept of the organizational mission and dimensions of the mission. However, empirical research in this area has been lacking, and the concept of a subsystem mission has not been addressed in previous studies. 108 Future Research The relationship between training subsystem characteristics and scanning for information relevant to training needs assessment is a topic about which little is presently known. The purpose of the research presented here is to explore, conceptually and empirically, the manner in which training subsystem characteristics interact with and influence training personnel’s strategy and complexity of scanning. This exploration is a necessary initial step in developing a framework of effective training program development. The following section outlines some potentially worthwhile areas for future research that may lead to a framework for training and development effectiveness in organizations. The section begins by focusing on future research suggestions to clarify the current study. Next, future research directions for extension Of the current findings are addressed. Clarification Of the Current Stqu The results of this study indicate that mission extensiveness was a more powerful predictor of scanning acquisition strategy than was subsystem centrality. However, it is difficult to disentangle the effect of centrality on scanning strategy from the multiple regression analysis and intercorrelations performed in this study. It is likely that the relation among training mission extensiveness, training subsystem 109 centrality, and scanning acquisition strategy proactiveness is not a simple one. For example, it is conceivable on a conceptual level that training subsystem centrality leads to training mission extensiveness which then influences the proactiveness of training personnels’ scanning strategy. Future research should attempt to conceptualize and test models of the relationship among these three variables so as to better understand the manner in which training subsystem characteristics affect scanning activity. Resource adequacy was not found to be related to scanning activities as predicted. A number of possible reasons for this occurrence were presented (e.g., lack of resources are not inadequate enough to constrain scanning activity, areas other than scanning suffer from inadequate resources, training personnel successfully compensate for inadequate resources). Future research may include items developed to tap these issues. One direct method of doing so is to ask respondents for a breakdown allocation of resources by specific training and development activity (e.g., scanning, program instruction, evaluation method development), and then ask the extent to which resources are adequate for each of these training and development activities. In addition, interviews or case studies may be used to determine if training personnel "creatively" compensate for a lack of resources. 110 Extension of Findings The following paragraphs address future research possibilities for factors that may antecede training subsystem characteristics and briefly discuss research on additional factors that may antecede scanning activity. The section concludes with a discussion of the importance of establishing links between scanning and its potential consequences. Training subsystem antecedents. The present study has demonstrated that it is possible to locate training subsystem factors that relate to and predict the scanning activities of training personnel. Future expansion of these findings might include a focus on factors that predict the characteristics of the training subsystem and the factors that they influence. The following paragraphs present research directions for environmental and organizational characteristics that may directly impact training subsystem characteristics, and thus indirectly affect other aspects of training and development such as scanning activity and training needs assessment. Several environmental factors may influence training subsystem characteristics. Future research should concentrate on the relation of technology and technological changes on both training subsystem characteristics and training and development programs. For example, rapid changes in technology may affect the extensiveness of the training mission. It is also possible that innovations in 111 technology affect training methods, and that technological changes influence the type and amount of training and development that is needed. Other areas that may be fruitful to investigate include the relation of economic conditions, the political state, the supplier market, and the labor pool to training subsystem characteristics. For example, the state of the economy may in part control both the amount of resources allocated to training and development and the extensiveness of the training mission. The quality of the available workforce may influence the extensiveness and type of training mission. Organizational characteristics are likely to impact training subsystem characteristics. The formal and informal structure of the organization can influence the centrality of the training subsystem, as well as the amount of resources the training subsystem is allocated. Another direction for future research in this area is to explore the relation of company culture and employee morale to training subsystem characteristics. The type of product or service produced in the company and the type of individuals employed may also be found to impact training subsystem characteristics. A final track for future research in the area of organizational characteristics is the effect of the amount and rate of change of the above factors on training subsystem characteristics. 112 Scanning activity antecedents. The amount of variance that training subsystem characteristics accounted for in scanning strategy and complexity was 10% and 7%, respectively. From these results, it is evident that other factors aside from those investigated in the present study can influence training subsystem scanning activity. Future researchers may look towards identifying additional factors that directly impact on scanning activities. It may be fruitful to examine the influence Of environmental and organizational variables (such as those discussed above) on scanning activity. For example, rate of external technological advancement and rate of organizational technological implementation may impact the complexity of information search. The structure and climate of the organization may affect proactiveness of scanning strategy, as may organizational size. Individual difference variables also provide a multitude of plausible factors that can influence scanning activity. Cognitive ability, assertiveness, need for achievement, and locus of control are a few factors that may influence the manner in which training personnel scan for information, and may be fruitful areas for future research. Consequences of scanning activity. The major implication of this research stems from the notion that training personnel who are proactive and complex in their scanning will assess training needs comprehensively, and 113 this will eventually lead to more effective training and development programs. Current literature (Goldstein, 1986) addresses the second link by emphasizing the importance of comprehensive training needs assessment on the contention that it is vital to effective training and development programs. However, there is a lack of conceptual and empirical literature regarding antecedents to training needs assessment. Future researchers may seek to explore the link between scanning activities and training needs assessment. As an initial step, following the process of training needs assessment in an organization using case study methodology may prove conducive to exploration of its link to scanning activity. For example, structured interviews may be developed to determine what proportion of all information gained in scanning is actually utilized in assessing training needs and to determine the extent to which different types of scanning information are utilized in assessing training needs. The determination of the manner in which scanning information is utilized (e.g., formally, routinely, haphazardly) through structured interviews may also be beneficial in examining the link between scanning activity and training needs assessment. It may also be informative to develop constructs and measures of training needs assessment that are likely to be related to effective training and development programs, and consequently 114 determine the influence of scanning activity on these measures. For example, future researchers may determine the impact of scanning activity on the extent to which training needs are assessed for various functional and hierarchical groups in the organization. In this manner, research towards the determination of antecedents to training needs assessment, in this case scanning activities, can have far reaching implications on both a practical and basic research level. On a practical level, interventions to teach training personnel to scan in a more proactive and complex fashion can lead to more effective training and development programs and eventually to a more productive workforce. On a basic research level, this information can advance the body of knowledge in the training and development field. In particular, it can direct researchers towards the development of a conceptual model of training and development that includes the processes involved. Thus, future research to explore the relationship between scanning activity and training needs assessment is of great importance as a step towards conducting effective training and development programs. LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Adams, J. S. (1976). The structure and dynamics of behavior in organizational boundary roles. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, (pp- 1175—1199). Chicago: Rand McNally. Aguilar, F. (1967). Scanning the Business Environment. New York: McMillan. Bacharach, S.B. & Lawler, E.J. (1980). Power and Politics in Qgganizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Cammillus, J. C. (1986). Strategic Planningqand Management Control. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Company. Campbell, D.T. & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105. Carnevale, A.P. (1986). The learning enterprise. Training and Development JournalJ 40, 18-26. Clegg, W. H. (1987). Management training evaluation: An update. Training and Development JournalJ 41, 65-71. County Business Patterns, Michigan 1984 (1986). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 115 116 Culnan, M. J. (1983). Environmental scanning: The effects Of task complexity and source accessibility on information gathering behavior. Decision Sciences, 141 194-206. Driver, M. J. & Streufert, S. (1969). Integrative complexity: An approach to individuals and groups as information processing system. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 272-285. Dollinger, M. J. (1984). Environmental boundary spanning and information processing effects on organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 351- 368. Duncan, R. B. (1972). Characteristics Of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterlyi 27, 435-458. Fahey, L. & King, W. R. (1977). Environmental scanning for corporate planning. Business Horizon, 20, 61-71. Ford, K. J., MacCullum, R. C. & Tait, M. (1986). The application of exploratory factor analysis: A critical review and analysis in applied psychology. Personnel Psychology, 32, 291—314. Fredrickson, J. W. (1986). The strategic decision process and organizational structure. Academyqof Management Review, 11L 280-297. Glueck, W. F. & Jauch, L. R. (1984). Business Policy and Strategic Managgment. New York: McGraw-Hill. 117 Goldstein, I. L. (1986). Training_in Organizations. California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Goldstein, I. L. (1980). Training in work organizations. Annual Review of PsychologyL 31L 229-272. Hambrick, D. D. (1981). Specialization of environmental scanning activities among upper level executives. Journal of Management Studies, 18, 199—215. Harris Michigan Industrial Directory (1986). M. Smith (Ed.). Twinsburg, OH: Harris Publishing Company. Hinrichs, J. R. (1976). Personnel Training. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. (pp. 829-860), Chicago: Rand McNally. Holloway, C. (1986). Strategic Planning. Chicago: Nelson- Hall. Jackson, S. E. & Schuler, R. S. (August, 1987). Facilitating entrepreneurship to gain competitive advantage: Implications for human resource management practices. Presented at the Academy of Manqgement Conference, New Orleans, LA. Jain, S. C. (1984). Environmental scanning in U. S. corporations. Long Range Planning, 17, 117-128. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books. Katz, D. & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organization. New York: Wiley. 118 Keegan, W. J. (1974). Multinational scanning: A study of information sources utilized by headquarter executives in multinational companies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 411-421. Kefalas, A. G. & Schroderbek, P. P. (1973). Scanning the business environment: Some empirical results. Decision Sciencesyq4, 63-74. Larson, L. L., Bussom, R. S., Vicars, W. & Jauch, L. (1986). Proactive versus reactive manager: Is the dichotomy realistic? Journal of Management Studies, 23, 385-400. Leifer, R. & Delbecq, A. (1978). Organizational/ Environmental interchange: A model of boundary spanning activity. Academy of Management Reviewi 3, 40-50. McGehee, W. & Thayer, P. W. (1961). Training in Business and Industry. New York: Wiley. Mechanic, D. (1962). Sources of power of lower participants in complex organizations. Administrative Science QuarterlyL7L 349-364. Michel, P. A. (1986). Failures in strategic planning. In J. R. Gardner, R. Rachlin, and H. W. A. Sweeny (Eds.), Handbook of Strategic Planning; (pp. 11.1-11.13), New York: John Wiley & Sons. Moore, M. L. & Dutton, P. (1978). Training needs analysis: Review and critique. Academy of Manqgement Review, 3, 532-545. 119 Morano, R. A. & Deets, N. (1986). Employee training in America. Training and Development Journal, 40, 34—37. Munsterberg, H. (1913). Psychology and Industrial Efficiency. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Olson, L. (1986). Training trends: The corporate view. Training and Development Journal, 40, 32-35. Planty, E. G. , McCord, W. S. & Efferson, C. A. (1948). Training Employees and Managers. New York: Ronald. Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R. & Turner, C. (1973). The context of organization structures. In W. E. Scott and L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Readings in Qgganizational Behavior and Human Performance. (pp. 282-302), Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc. Salancik, G. R. & Pfeffer, J. (1974). The bases and use of power in organizational decision-making: The case of a university. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 453-472. Seaton, F. W. (1985). The development and empirical analysis of an information processing model of executive scanning and interpretation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University. Schein, E. H. (1980). Qgganizational Psychology; Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 120 Schneider, B. (1983). An interactionist perspective on organization effectiveness. In K. S. Cameron and D. A. Whetton (Eds.), Qgganizational Effectiveness: A Comparison of Multiple Models. New York: Academic Press. Schwab, R. C., Ungson, G. R. & Brown, W. B. (1985). Redefining the boundary spanning-environment relationship. Journal of Management, 11, 75-86. Steadham, S. V. & Clay, M. A. C. (1985). Needs assessment. In W. R. Tracey (Ed.) Human Resources Management and Development Handbook. (pp. 1338-1352). New YOrk: American Management Association. 1 Stone, T. H. & Fiorito, J. (1986). A perceived uncertainty model of human resource forecasting technique use. Academy of Management Review, 11, 635-642. Thomas, T. S. (1980). Environmental scanning—the state of the art. Long Rapge Planning, 13, 20-28. Weick, K. (1983). Managerial thought in the context of action. In S. Srivastava and Associates (Eds.), The Executive Mind. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Wexley, K. N. (1984). Personnel training. Annual Review of Psychology, 35, 519-551. Whittaker, J. (1978). Strategic Planning in a Rapidly Changing Environment. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. 121 Wilkinson, G. W. (1986). Strategic Planning in the Voluntary sector. In J. R. Gardner, R. Rachlin, and H. W. A. Sweeny (Eds.), Handbook of Strategic Planning. (pp. 25.1-25.23), New York: John Wiley & Sons. Zaleznik, A. (1977). Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business Reviequ55, 67—78. APPENDIX A Content Codes for Training Strategy Survey Respondent Position Titles 122 APPENDIX A Content Codes for Training Strategy Survey Respondent Position Titles Code Number Position Title 1 Training and Development Corporate Trainer Division Trainer/Employee Involvement Coordinator Education Manager Education and Training Manager/Supervisor Education and Training/Organizational Development Supervisor/Manager Employee Development Coordinator Excellence in Manufacturing Trainer/Coordinator Field Development/Training/Sales Technician Director Human Resource Development Director Labor Relations and Training Manager Organizational Development and Training Director/Manager Personnel and Training Manager Plant Manufacturing Training Supervisor Quality and Training Assistant Manager Safety and Training Manager/Superintendent Technical Training Coordinator Training Director/Leader/Manager/Supervisor Training and Development Coordinator/ Manager/Supervisor Training and Organizational Development Manager 2 Human Resources/Human Relations Human Relations Representative Human Resource Director/Manager/ Vice-President Human Resource Administration Manager Code Number 123 Position Title Personnel Personnel Administrator/Director/Manager/ Representative/Supervisor/Vice-President Personnel/Industrial Relations Director Personnel/Labor Relations Director Personnel/Office Manager Director Personnel/Safety Director Industrial Relations Industrial Relations Director/Manager Employee Relations Affirmative Action/EEOC/Employee Relations Manager Employee Relations Manager/Supervisor/Vice- President Organizational Development Organizational Development Director/Manager Executive Officere/Managers CEO Controller Chief Operations Officer Corporate Data Processing Manager/General Manager General Manager Manager Plant Manager/Superintendent President Vice-President Code Number 124 Position Title Functional Area Manager/Director Engineering Manager Finance and Administration Manager Material Manager Manufacturing Manager National Service Manager Operations manager Planning Manager Pre-press Manager Quality Assurance Manager Sales/Marketing Manager/Director Technical Service Manager Safety/Miscellaneous Account Representative Industrial Engineer Liaison Client Services Manager Program Administrator Rehabilitation Coordinator Safety Director and Facilitator Safety Manager APPENDIX B Training Strategy Exploratory Interview 125 APPENDIX B Training Strategy Exploratory Study interviewee Name TRAINING DIRECTOR'S INTERVIEW PROTOCOL Interviewed by: Title Company Date Address/Phone 126 Introduction (Following brief description overall of training project): in this phase of our study our objective is to talk to training directors in a few key organizations to broaden our understanding of how training is currently done in 'real' organizations. We would like to ask you some questions about your training department's development, history and role within your organization, as well as some questions on how you carry out specific training functions in your organization. A part of our intent in this interview is to try to determine the best way to word some of the questions and constructs we want to ultimately measure in this study. so we ask that you let us know if any of the questions or terms used are unclear to you. Please feel free to add comments for clarification as we go along. I. First. l would like to get some background information on your experience as training director. ' 1) How long have you been director [use exact title. i.e. coordinator, VP Training, etc.) in this organization? months years 2) ~Were you involved in training prior to becoming director? [Describe] 3) -Do you hold a degree or certification in training or a related field? [Record degree, institution. year completed]. 4) ~Does your title adequately reflect the level of responsibility! . importance of training in this organization? (e.g., you are VP Training: do you have the same amount of autonomy. decision making power, budget as other VP's?). ' 127 ll. Let's take a look now at the training department as a whole. 5) oHow long has your company had a training department? Do you know how it was started? By whom? What was the original mission of your training department? Has it changed? How? 6) At what level in the organization is the your position? a) vice president (or equivalent) b) division manager (e.g.. human resources) c) director of personnel department d) coordinator e) other 7) To whom do you directly report? (-Through how many formal channels must information go from you to reach the CEO?) For the following questions, l‘d like you to use this scale [Exhibit A) to anwer questions about the role and function of training in your company. 8) To what extent does your company's philosophy consider the T 8: 0 function central to the strategic planning process? 1 2 3 4 5 9) To what extent is information about training and development needs in the organization used in strategic planning? 1 2 3 4 5 oHow is this information used? 128 10) To what extent does your company link the strategic plan to T & 0 activities? 1 2 3 4 5 oHow is this done? 11) To what extent are you involved in strategic planning at the corporate level? 1 2 3 4 5 - Explain type of involvement 12) To what extent is the role of training and development in your [Exhibit 8] company to:' a) update skills of workers to meet changing needs of organization b) teach skills for other jobs within the firm to increase promotability c) teach skills for other jobs within the firm to increase lateral mobility d) retrain workers affected by technological changes e) teach skills for jobs that do not yet exist in anticipation of future company needs f) train new hires to prepare them for jobs g) maintain skills of experienced workers i) improve the performance of employees in their current jobs j) inform employees of educational opportunities available outside the organization 1 1 1 2345 2345 2345 2345 MN” 0050) #4545 MOI!!! 2345 2345 129 13) Approximately how many people are there in each of the following categories? What percentage of each of the following employee groups have received training in the past two years? [Exhibit C] How many % trained production workers technical specialists first-line supervisors middle management upper management clerical/ support staff research and development personnel 14) Of the company's annual budget in the last fiscal year. approximately what percentage was allocated for T 8. D? . °/o 15) To what extent are the following resources adequate to meet the organization's training and development needs? [Scale, Exhibit A] a) the current‘budget allocated forT& D 1 2 3 4 S b) the number of T&D staff in your unit 1 2 3 4 5 c) the adequacy of the KSA's of your T&D staff 1 2 3 4 5 d) the equipment available forT& D 1 2 3 4 5 e) available facilities (e.g.,conference rooms. office space) 1 2 3 4 5 16) How many people are currently employed in your training department? Trainers: full time part time student/interns clerical 8. support Total 17) Have there been any changes over the last two years in the number or characteristics of your staff? °/o °/c °/o °/o °/o °/o °/o 130 18) Have there been any significant changes over the last two years in your budget? if so. what instigated these changes? 19) How many classes/programs do you offer per year? (Include both external and in house programs). programs 20) . Within your training department, is there a system for evaluating the training programs? If so, who is involved in evaluating them? (e.g., training staff. employees. CEO or other division heads). Is there a formalized method to determine the effects of training on employee performance? If so, how is this done? 21 ). Have there been any changes over the last two years in the types of programs. people participating, methods for evaluating, or any other characteristic of your training programs? [explain]. lll. Next. I would like to talk about the process used by your training'unit to develop and implement training programs. In particular, l'd like to focus on some of the factors ouside of the training unit (e.g., in the overall organization, or in the external environment) which impact on the development and success of training programs. 131 Using this scale [Exhibit A] please answer the following questions: 22) To what extent have the following changes occurred outside the organization in the past five years? a) federal government regulations 1 2 3 4 5 b) state government regulations 1 2 3 4 5 c) local government regulations 1 2 3 4 5 d) competition from other companies 1 2 3 4 S e) technological advancements 1 2 3 4 5 f) quality of labor pool 1 2 3 4 5 g) supply/market changes 1 2 3 4 5 h) consumer preferences 1 2 3 4 5 i) status in industry . 1 2 3 4 5 j) economic volatility (e.g., mergers. deregulation) 1 2 3 4 s ' k) other 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 23) To what extent have changes in the following areas occurred within your organization? a) products or services produced 1 2 3 4 5 b) manufacturing or production methods 1 2 3 4 5 c) top management policy or philosOphy 1 2 3 4 5 d) human resources mix (e.g.. skilled vs unskilled) 1 2 3 4 5 e) types of customers serviced 1 2 3 4 5 f) office automation 1 2 3 4 5 g) information systems computerization 1 2 3 4 5 h) increased participation in decision making (e.g., greater worker input) 1 2 3 4 5 132 i) new control systems (e.g., cost or quality controls. performance appraisal) 1 2 3 4 5 j) materials handling/distribution practices 1 2 3 4 5 k) organizational goals 1 2 3 4 5 l) employee morale 1 2 3 4 S m) organizational climate 1 2 3 4 5 n) importance of strategic planning 1 2 3 4 5 0) change in workforce size 1 2 3 4 5 p) absenteeism and turnover rates 1 2 3 4 5 q) employee skill levels 1 2 3 4 5 r) other ' 1 2 3 4 5 IV. l'd like to turn next to questions about the amount of information you have on these changes occuring both within and outside your organization. As i read the list of changes, please indicate the extent (Scale. Exhibit A) to which you feel you have sufficient information about each change. By sufficient information, i mean do you have enough information to answer questions like: will this change actually occur? When? What impact will this change have on training? What does T& D need to do to effectively handle these changes? 24) a) federal government regulations 1 2 3 4 5 8nochange/not relevant b) state government regulations 1 2 3 4 5 8 c) local government regulations 1 2 3 4 5 8 d) competition from other companies 1 2 3 4 5 a e) technological advancements 1 2 3 4 5 a f) quality of Iaborpool 1 2 3 4 5 8 g) supply/market changes 1 2 3 4 5 a h) consumer preferences 1 2 3 4 5 a i) status in industry 1 2 3 4 s a 1) economic volatility (e.g., mergers. deregulation) 1 2 3 4 5 a k)other 123453 N U 5 U! G 133. 25) Organizational Changes no change/ . not relevant a) products or services produced 1 2 3 4 5 a b manufacturing or production methods 1 2 3 4 5 a c) top management policy or philosophy 1 2 3 4 5 a d) human resources mix(e.g..skiliedvs unskilled) 1 2 3 4 5 3 e) types of customers serviced 1 2 3 4 5 8 f) office automation ' 1 2 3 4 5 8 g) information systems computerization 1 2 3 4 5 8 h) increased participation in decision making (e.g., greaterworker input) 1 2 3 4 5 8 i) new control systems (e.g., COSt or quality controls. performance appraisal) _ 1 2 3 4 5 8 j) materials handling/distribution practices 1 2 3 4 5 8 k) organizational goals 1 2 3 4 5 8 l) employee morale 1 2 3 4 5 8 m) organizational climate . 1 2 3 4 5 a n) importance of strategic planning 1 2 3 4 5 8 0) reduction in work force 1 2 3 4 s 8 p) expansion in work force 1 2 3 4 5 8 q) absenteeism and turnover rates 1 2 3 4 5 a r) employee skill levels 1 2 3 4 s e p)other 123458 V. Next l'd like to look in more detail at the process you generally use for training needs analysis. and the ways in which you go about searching for and acquiring information on the needs of your organization as well as changes in the external environment which may call for training. ' 1'34 26) Please look at the following possible sources of information. [Exhibit D]. i would like to ask you if you use these sources to get various types of information. so as I read off the information type. name all the sources on the list you actually use to get that kind of information. [Check to see instructions are clear]. 27) Are there any other types of information collected in the needs analysis process? Vl. Now that we've talked a bit about sources of training information. let's explore the process. In particular, l'm interested in how actively you scan. or search for information relevant to specific training needs. 28) The following questions focus on how you typically obtain information on the trends. events and conditions in the following areas occurring inside your organization. A. What percentage of the total information you obtain in the following areas is gathered in response to a crisis? (as opposed to being gathered prior to being forced to do so by a crisis). 1 2 3 4 5 almost none less than 25% 25-50% 51-75% 76-100% 8. What percentage of the total information in the following areas results from your actively seeking that information (as opposed to receiving that information without special effort on your part) 1 2 3 4 5 almost none less than 25% 25-50% 51-75% 76-1007. I. Within the grganizafign A. B. a) organizational structure and goals 1 2 3 4 s 1 2 3 4 5 _ b) human resources 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 c) organizational products and processes 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 s d) implementation of technology 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 s e) organizational climate 1 2 3 4 5 12345 135 ll. Wasting a) technological advances 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 b) economical states 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 c) political/governmental states 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 d) Iabormarket 12345 12345 e) consumers/suppliers/competitors 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 29. What percentage of the total information you obtain on organizational changes comes to you in response to a direct request made by you? . 1 2 3 4 5 almost none less than 25% 25-50% 51-75% 76-100% 30. What percentage of the total information you obtain on changes occurring outside your organization comes to you in response to a direct request made by you? 1 2 3 4 5 almost none less than 25% 25-50% 51-75% 76-100% Vll. Finally. l'd like to ask some questions about the results of your training needs analysis. that is. the actual plan. 31. Please check any of the following analyses that are conducted to determine which employees need to be trained and what types of training programs are needed. (Check as many as apply). a) basic statistical analyses (e.g., the average scores of items on employee surveys) b) Complex statistical analyses (e.g., factor analysis. item scale scores. regression analysis of employee surveys) c) Calculation of the predicted return on investment (or utility analysis) for new training programs d) Use of descrepany analysis to determine the difference between the desired performance levels and actual performance levels of specific employees 136 _e) Use of systematic procedures to identify whether performance problems are due to lack of skills or lack of knowledge. rather than due to factors beyond the individual's control (such as lack of supervisory support. non-rewarding nature of the work or problems with equipment). f) other When the results of quantitative (statistical) or qualitative (narrative) information used to determine the training needs of employees are summarized in the form of a written document. a formal training plan results. Typically, this formal training document includes recommendations regarding who needs to be trained. why the training is needed and which skills need to be trained over a specific period of time (e.g., over the one to two years). 32. is a training plan developed or created for specifying the training needs of this company? a) Yes. a formal written document regarding training needs is developed b) No formal written document is developed. but formal and/or informal discussions are held to identify training needs c) No formal written document is developed and no discussions are held to identify training needs I Skip to question 36 33. Check any the following hierarchical levels/functions for which training needs were identified and included in the most recently developed training plan: _upper management _middle management _lower management _technical staff production/line _clerical/support 137 34. To what extent does the training plan focus on meeting future training needs of the company? 1 2 3 4 5 no focus on somewhat focused to a large extent future needs on future needs focused on future needs 35. The training plan developed for the comming year is disseminated for review to the following groups (check all that apply): a) members of the training and/or human resources staff b) managers and/or supervisory personnel c) vice president in charged human resource management d) corporate strategic planning committee e) CEO/Board of Directors f) union representatives 9) other 36. To what extent does training and development activity in your organization provide an adequate return on investment? 1 2 3 4 5 not at all to some extent to a very great extent 37. To what extent do the type and number of training and development programs meets the needs of the following groups in your organization? a) production workers b) first line supervisors c) middle management d) upper management e) clerical support staff f) research and development personnel .34—5.3.3.4 NNMNNN mwmwww bb-hbbli U‘IUIUIUIUIUI 38. Answer the following questions in terms of the changes that have occurred in the training function over the last five years: a) The budget allocated for training and development in this organization: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 has decreased no change has increased very much very much 138 Exhibit A 1) not at all 2) to a limited extent 3) to some extent 4) to a considerable extent 5) to a very great extent Exhibit 8 Training Mission a) update skills of workers to meet changing needs of organization b) teach skills for other jobs within the firm to increase promotability c) teach skills for other jobs within the firm to increase lateral mobility d) retrain workers affected by technological changes e) teach skills for jobs that do not yet exist in anticipation of future company needs f) train new hires to prepare them for jobs g) maintain skills of experienced workers i) improve the performance of employees in their current jobs j) inform emP'Oyees of educational opportunities available outside the organization 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 139 Exhibit C 13) Approximately how many people are there in each of the following categories? What percentage of each of the following employee groups have received training in the past two years? production workers technical specialists first-line supervisors middle management upper management clerical/ support staff research and development personnel How many .% trained °/o °/o °/o °/o °/o °/o °/o APPENDIX C Training Strategy Survey 14o !-.P-'oc‘ ..o.o—, 13...}.- 7.35:3...“ 19.....63a \auslouvasxcugue... 5.2269. 5.3.... a. 33333:... 55...:— s:§.:ade..u .2937”. 42...... .1). :31. .33-.3. _g_n-u.c.s ..c..l .33-«:0... 3.3....- cot-23”.; so... 1. 3.2.3 1:... 3...?! 7d»...— 2.22.33... .52. 5 9.2.8 4:: .3333 .41.; 1‘ 3:32.430 25; a. 3......» do: 33.-4:5). :23..- 42523 oer-cacao... :3. reasons: pension 3:215 .32-23:. .33-fuss :3!!! .98-ta. 3.3.3.5... .335 .23—=35: to..- 3.6:. [733: .5163 :3. outdo ‘9... Zoom ‘33:...8 «.44—18 .53 :33 no a .m .o 2.13.25... 0.! Ir; \.4o..._os 13.82:... an 13:54 _la—szpccgatn 21:: 23.35.:— _o¢c.::_§:.E .3 .3. 22:32.?— ...=._ 55 a .5358 nun-3.... ecu-ac:- s... a 32.2.... cola: :63 :- _ lasso 73:13:05: loo... 2.. .3: .353 7.3. .37-30 $9.917. 141 APPENDIX C Training Strategy Survey CfRfI'S Center for Redevelopment of Industrialized States College of Social Science Michigan State University 142 INSTRUCTIONS This survey is designed to gather information about the ways in which training and development activities are used as a competitive strategy in Michigan manufacturing companies such as yours. The survey questions are organized into five major sections. Section I seeks information on your background in training and development. while Section II focuses on the role and mission of training in your company. Section lll explores the extent to which important changes have recently occurred inside and outside your company. and the information available to you relevant to those changes. Questions in Seetion IV and Section V seek information on the training needs analysis process and training development plans. mpectively. MARKING INSTRUCTIONS Your responses will be read by an optical mark reader. Your careful observance of the following rules will be appreciated. PROPER MARK 0 Use only the black lead pencil enclosed ' CDC/CI). 3 (or other No. 2 pencil). OMake heavy black marks that fill in the circle. OErase cleanly any answers you wish to change. IMPROPER MARKS OMake no st'ay marks of any kind. K®V®Q Please respond to the following questions before turning to the survey. A. Please fill in the circle next to the description that best identifies your company. 0 single independently owned and operated business @ company with several divisions or branches (9 fully owned subsidiary of another corporation (9 other (specify) 8. If your company consists of several divisions or branches, or is a subsidiary. please fill in the circle next to the description that best identifies the location at which you are employed in the company. 3 corporate level; working at headquarters @ division or branch level; working at specific unit (9 not applicable C. What is your position title in your company? Please note that the word “companv' throughout the survey refers to the unit in which you are employed. For example. if you are at corporate headquarters. ”company" refers to your corporation as a whole. If you are not located at cor- porate headquarters. ”company" refers to your specific division or branch. Please read the instructions for each section carefully before marking the appropriate responses. Please continue -‘ lllllllllllllllllIlllllllllllllllllllIllIIlllIl-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I. 163 BACKGROUND INFORMATION This section requests background Information on your experience it training and development. 2. Howlongheveyoubeenthsheedofthe trainingunlththiscompany? .______yeers Howmuchexperiencelidyouhavelnthe training field prior to assuming your current position? Have you had feline! education in the field of training or a reislea lute (e.g., HRD. management. adult education)? OYES Have you participrzed in any form' training program (e.g., classes. weir-be rs. whirl inrlt. set! an emphasis on how to assess raw-lg s 0025;. 0 YES A1 whet lave! ir. tilt comr-eny it- your position? 9 exearths Ins; to: mrepernent Q middit moneys-nu: Cl bfs'CI Itef' mararr-nzen‘. 0 other Ira-east specify:- month years—_monthe ONO ONO What it the position title of the person to whom you directly report? Aw-rcs'rrrtr'y what percentage 0' your time is devoted to the following train-n; and development activities: . training needs assessment . devefopinp her: training programs . retiring olc’ training programs . evaluating tra'ntng programs . securing top management support for training unit publicizin; and set? '1; training within the company . selecting and training. the training staff . ensuring first training programs setisfy legal requirements other (speci‘t t TOTAL 9'3090QOF- Other than yourself. how many people are currently employed in your training «31mm? Trainers: full time __ part time Studentsl'lnterns __ Clerical 'Support Other iplease specify) TOTAL ##3##!!88 § .2 Pleasecontlnue -O 144 m . II. ROLE OF TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT Section It addresses the role of training and development in your company. Please use the rating scale below to answer questions 8 - 13 in this section. The rating scale descriptions in the box below correspond to the numbered circles in each question. V g o o to no to some to a large 1 extent extent extent 8. To what extent does your company consider the training and development ‘0" 9 ‘0‘ function central to the company's strategic planning process? ©®®®® 9. To what extent does your company use information about training and development needs for strategic planning? ®®G®® 10. To what extent does your company use training and development to implement goals ano actions specified by the company's strategic plan? @@@®@ 11. To what extent do you participate in strategic planning with top level management (e.g., attend meetings. make presentations)? @®@®® 12. To what extent is the role of training and development in your company to: a. update skill: of employees to meet the company's changing needs ®®®Q® b. tea:h skills for Other jobs within the company to increase promotability ®@®©© c. cross-train for Other jobs within the company to diversify skills ©®®®© d. retrain employees affected by technologlcal changes _ ®®®®® e. teach skills for jobs that do not yet exist in anticipation of future company needs ®®®®® f. tra:n new hires ®®®®® g. maintain skills of experienced employees ®®®®® h. improve the skills of employees in their current jobs ®®®®© i. inform employees of educational opportunities available outside the company ®@®®® j. train to increase employee morale and commitment ®®®®® 13. To what extent are the following resources adequate to meet the compaan training and development needs? a. the current budget allocated for training and development ®®@®© b. the number of training and development staff in your unit ®®®®® c. skill adequacy of your training and development staff @®@®® d. the equipment available for training and development ®®®G® e. available facilities Ie.g., conference rooms. office mace) ®®®@® 14. Approximately what percentage of each of the following employee groups have received training within the last two years? a. production workers (skilled and unskilled) 96 b. technical specialists/engineers % c. first-line supervisors/team leaders % d. middle management/department heads N a. higher level executives K f. clerical/support staff N g. research and development personnel K h. professional staff Ie.g., finance. pereonnell N r i I i 15. 37. 18. M5 '0 Approximately what percentage of all employees it your company have received training within the last two years? Ontheavarage.howmanyhoursoftrainingareprovidadtoaach ernployeeparysar? COMPANY CHANGE This section explores the extent to which changes have recently occurred inside and outside your company and the amountofinforrnationyouhaveonthesechanges. Plasseusetheratingscale belowtoanswerallquestionsinthis section. 0 ® 0 G to no to some extent extent To what extent have the following changes occurred inside your company wrthin the last two years? f?‘."30"0°.flv- l. m. n. o. . products or services produced . manufacturing or production methods . union activity . human resources mix (e.g., skilled vs unskilled) . office automation .’computerization . increased participation in decision making (e.g., greater employee input) . new control systems (e.g., cost or Quality controls, performance appraisal) . materials handling/distribution practices company goals or policy company structure le.g.. reorganization) . employee morale company culture importance of company-wide strategic planning change in work force size absenteeism and turnover rates To what extent have the following changes occurred outside your company within the last two years? 90990999 govemmant regulations competition from other companies technological advancements .qualityoflsborpool supplier market consumer preferences . company's relative standing h industry . economic conditions 0 to a large On“)! I :3». ":5" ”a. a, GOGGOGGGGGGGGGGe @99090999999090 @99999999999999 GOGGGGGGGGGGGGG @999699999999095 OOOOO ®®®®® @QOGO ®®®®® QOQGO 00000 @0600 03000 146 to. Pleasehdicatstheextemtowhlchyoufeelyouhsveenoughinformetion ebouteachofthafollowingchengestodetenmmelrlmpactcnuehhg anddevelopmantJlthenbnochangeordwereabnotnleventbcektMgmd ”a. ‘5, .13.. ~-..,. devebprnennnurknunber‘i". I I: .productsoraarvlcesproduced o . .rnanufacturingorproductionmethods unionactivlty . human resources mix (e.g., skilled vs unskiladl office automation/c: muteriaation increased participation in decision making is. g.. greater employee input) ...newcontrolsystemsleg. costorquelirycontrols, performanceepprahsll .materials handling/distribution practices company goals or policy comgany structure (e.g., reorganization) employee morale campany culture m.importance of company-wide strategic plannning n. change in work force size 0. absenteeism and turnover rates p. government regulations q. competition from other companies technological advancements quality of labor pool supplier market . consumer preferences v. company's relative standing in industry w. economic conditions rrrrspeenpoe B99? GOGOGGQGQGGQQGOQOGGGGGG QGQGGGGGQQQQOOGOOGGGGGG OQOQQQQQOQGQQQQOOQOGOQGs @QQQQGQGGGGGGGGGGGOGGGG OQOOQQGOOQQQOQOOGGGOGGG” OQQOQGGOOOOOGGOOOOGOGGG IV. TRAINING NEEDS ANALYSIS PROCESS This section asks you to indicate the process you generally use for assessing training needs. and the ways in which you go about searching for and acquiring information on changes occurring inside and outside your company. Please follow the individual instructions for each question. 20. Towhatextentdoyouuseuchofthfoflowhgaourcastoobuinhformetiononclungasoccunhgh- sideandoutsideyourcompany? I! ”ts. 5,. o a. compenvmwm ('D'GGGC'DP‘I b. conuny personnel skill inventories O®®®G c. employee surveys OGOOG d. mules/letters from others in your corwany OQGGO a. verbal contacts withothersktyourcompeny GGGGQ f. formal meetings withothersinyourcon'oany ®©®®® g. external publications Ie.g., trade joumab) @GGGG h. extamal consultants GGGGG i. training professionals in other W G®©®® ]. consumers/customers/euppliars ®@@®@ lt. professional meetings le.g., ASTDl 0®®®® l. drectobeervetion O®®®® rn.formal training steering cormulrtee meeting GQQGO Pleaeacona’nue- i ”-*--b-----—-—-——--———s—--—sa-_-——-a--—-—-—-h—----—--- 21. A. 147 Information concemlng organizational characteristics, human resource Issues, technological advances and Implementation, and changes in the external environment may be acquired to assess training needs. Please indicate the sources that you use to obtain Information in these four areas. Ilf you do not acquire information in an area. mark number “14".) ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS: e.g., goals, structure. climate, products, processes (please mark all that apply). Ocornpenyrecordsandreports @aclrerenypereonneldthiwentorias um @rmmcslbturafrcmotharahyour m @verbelccnractawldtothsrshyour WW .®formalrneetinpwlthotharshyour company @extemal ptiblicetiore Ie.g., trade W) @extamsl consultants @treinrng professionals in other companies @cor-rmars/cuatomars/ewpliers @profeuional m Ie.g., ASTD) @dlrect drearvetion @formal trawling sis-mg convenes rnaetings @not applicable HUMAN RESOURCES: e.g., knowledge. skills, abilities (please mark all that apply}. ©company records and reports @compeny personnel dials hventories (Darrow-om @rnemos/Iettersfrom cellars it your Why @verbal contacts with others at your Why @forrna: meetings with others it your W'ty @eneriial publication leg . trade journals? ©extema' consultants @training professional: in other companies (13 consumersIcustomsrs/eterpiiers @ professor-tel meetings leg. ASTDi ® direct much @— formal training steering commmee meetings ts not applicable TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES AND IMPLEMENTATION: e.g., robotics, office automation (please marfr all that apply}. ®companyrecordsandteports ®corrtpanypersonnelakiilshventories W @rr'mos/Ienersfrornmharshyout wmpany Qwrbelmctswld'icthershyour m ©iorme' meetings wrthothers 'm y0ur Wit) @externa! publications le.g.. trade 'purnalsi ©extema‘ cortsurtants Quarning profesioriais in other companies @consumersiwetomars/suppliers @p'ofessionai meetrngs lc.g.. ASTD) @drrect observation @romi training steering committee maetmgs @nor applicable EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT: e.g., political and economic states, consumers, suppliers (please mad: all that WY). Wreath-um Wmum Warm Ounce/mammary!” WW melrhctharshyour m ~©Wmmmomeim my @m' pirbicetions Ie.g., a'ede iourr'ieisl ®extsma|consulrants @trainingprofee-‘cnelshcther W ®consumarsIcustomersluppIisn @profeseional maea'ngs Ie.g., ASTDl @diflct observau‘on @formal om sis-rm cormrlrtee m @not appicabie Please continue —-e 148 Thaaeerchforinformationontrainingneadsmeybeinitiatedandcerriedwthseveraldifferentweys.Thefolowing questions ask how you personally search for and acquire information on your company‘s training needs. Please use theretingacalebelowtoanswerquestionsZZ-Z'l. 24. O G) o G) ' infrequently sometimes very frequently ' How often do you initiate a search for information on changes occurring inside f f your company as a response to a mandate Ie.g., directive from top management) f to solve a problem or determine training needs? 0090® How often do you initiate a search for information on changes occurring outside your company as a response to a mandate le.g., directive from top management) to solve a problem or determine training needs? @0096 Once you recognize a need to obtain information on changes occurring inside your company. how often do you actively seek that inforrnetion (as opposed to receiving that information without special effort on your part)? 063906 Once you recognize a need to obtain information on changes occurring outside your company. how often do you actively seek that information (as opposed to receiving that information without special effort on your part)? 099639 How often to you obtain information on changes occurring inside your company in response to a crisis situation li.e., unanticipated critical event)? 0 G) G) G G) How often do you obtain information on changes occurring outside your company in response to a crisis situation (i.e., unanticipated critical event)? ®@®®@ Looking at your training unit as a whole, to what extent are you responsible for the initiation, search, and acquisition of information relevant to the training needs of your company? 0 ® 6) G) (D to no to some to a large extent extent extent Pleasecontinue—a U Ill‘lllt‘lll'llllllllllllllIllllllllllllllllllIllllllllllllllllllll V. 149 TRAINING DEVELOPMENT PLAN Thbaectionesksyoutoconsidertheresultsofyourinformationgatheringontrainingneads. thathhetypescfanalyaas used and the actual plan. Please follow the individual instructions for each question. 3. Please hdicate which of the following analyses are conducted within your unit to 31. determine which employees need to be trained and what types of training programs are needed. (Mark all that apply). Q) basic statistical analyses (e.g., the average scores of items on employee surveys) Q) complex statistical analyses (e.g., factor analysis. item scale scores, regression analysis of ernpioyee eunreys) Q) calculation of the predicted return on investment (or utility analysis) for new training programs 9 use of discrepancy analysis to determine if a performance problem exiSts Q) use of systematic procedures to determine if training is a solution to a performance problem When the results of quantitative (statistical) or qualitative lna-rative) information on training needs are summarized in the form of a written document, a formal training plan results. Typically, this formal training plan includes recommendations regarding who needs to be trained. why the training is needed and which skills need to be trained over a specific period of time (e.g., over one to two years). Is a training plan deveIOped or created for specifying the training needs of this company? Q) Yes, a formal written document regarding tra‘ning needs is developed (9 No formal written document is developed, but formal and/or informal discussions are held to identify training needs (3 No formal written document is developed and no discussions are held to identify training needs (Skip to question 33) For which of the following hierarchical levels’funcrions we'e training needs identified in the most recently developed training plan? (Mark all that apply). 0 production workers (skilled and unskilled) 6 technical specialists/engineers O first-line supervisors/team leaders (9 middle management/department heads © higher level executives 0 clerical/support staff 0 research and development personnel. 0 professional staff (e.g., finance, personnel) 150 6 O I Pleaseusethefollowingscaletorespondtoquestions32-35. ; l '. 0 ® 0 C9 C5 j l to no to some to a large ! i extent “‘9'“ extent ; . I &_ To what extent does the training plan focus on meeting the future ‘0‘: ‘0; 03‘ training needs of the company? OQJQGGS 33. In your opinion, to what extent does training and development activity in your company provide an adequate return on invesrment? 093309 34. To what extent do training and development programs meet the training needs of the following groups in your company? a. production workers (skilled and unskilled) C Q G G (9 b. technical specialists ’engineers O C G G) (9 c. first-line supervisors/team leaders (3 G) (9 (a) G) d. middle management /department heads 0 ® G G) G) e. higher level executives Cl (DC?) G) (9 f. clerica' 'support stall C) Q G) (c) Q) 9. research and development personnel 0 (2) G) G) C!) h. professional staff. (e .g.. finance. personnel) 0 G) @ Q) G 35. Overall, to what extent do the training and development programs meet the needs of your company? OQG QC) " i" '5 ’ 34‘“! *filfl-Mr‘}: «4‘1" ‘ W ,. ' The following information is requested to describe the general Characte°istics of our survey respondents. 3. Please indicate the highest educational level you have achieved. 0 High school or GED (9 1-2 years college or technical training (9 Bachelors degree 9 Masters degree @ Ph.D. degree 37. Please indicate your sex: QMale QFemale as. Please indicate your age: Thank you for your assistance. If you would like the results of our survey, please provide the following Information: Name of Respondent (optional): Position Title: Manila Address: Please continue —e 151 [0000000000 m 10000000000 locoococeoo N l0000000000 . W 00000000 m s m m. w m m we mm D S w . mm m m m we w . m m e i m s . u... m . m m m ..u. i m an m n e n .... m m m S m e m. 55.. mi» mm W m n. m .0 a z. urea 52 co m m . mem » APPENDIX D Training Strategy Survey Cover Letters 153 CthI°S Center for Redevelopment of Industrialized States 403 Olds Hall Michigan State University College of Social Science East Lansing 0 Michigan 0 48824 Dear Manager; The Center for the Redevelopment of Industrialized States (CRIS) is a research center in Michigan State University's College of Social Science. A major purpose of CRIS is to address critical issues relevant to the competitive challenges faced by Michigan manufacturing companies. Researchers at CRIS are currently examining the use of employee train- ing and development as a competitive strategy. The purpose of the enclosed survey is to gather information about changes your industry is aperiencing and how training and development of employees fits into your competitive mtegy for dealing with these changes. THE PERSON WHO RESPONDS TO THIS SURVEY SHOULD BE THE PERSON MOST DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH TRAINING AND DEVEIDPMENT ACTIVITIES. THE ENCLOSED SURVEY INVESTIGATES YOUR VIEWS CONCERNING THE ROLE OF TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT IN YOUR COMPANY. IF YOU ARE NOT THE PERSON MOST DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES. PLEASE FORWARD THE ENCLOSED SURVEY TO THE MOST APPROPRIATE PERSON. 'I'hesurveywilltalienomoiethsnlSnflnutesmcornplnePleesemmnthecompletedwveyintlnselfeddmud stampederwelopeendoaed.Wewfllprovideyouwithacopyoftherauluifywmdiauthhintheepeceprwided ettheendoftheaurvey.SurveyrespomeswillbeheldinstrietconfidenceasonlytnernbasoftheCRISstaffwill haveaecetstotherespotuesNoperaonorfinne-lllbeidentifiedinanyteportastheinformetionsrillbeanslyaed internisofrypesof'industries. ummdmmmmmatmmwmmqmwdm chelkngamdopportunhiesthatbeinthehumOnlypermllhyounelf.involvedlndteuaeeftninlngand Wuammmmmmmmmmnflmhmm daLHpuhwmquedmuamreprdimthhmmluemeauuthemmbaswfled below. 1. Ford. Ph.D. Felicia V. Satori. Ph.D. Telephone 517-3530166 313-577-2878 APPENDIX E: TABLE 13 Scanning Acquisition Strategy Interitem Correlation Matrix 154 APPENDIX E: TABLE 13 Scanning Acquisition Strategy Interitem Correlation Matrix ITEMS A B C D F A Other-initiate 1.00 inside company2 (242)1 B Other-initiate .41* 1.00 outside company3 (242) (242) C Actively search -.37* -.19* 1.00 information (240) (240) (240) inside company D Actively search -.14* -.48* .45* 1.00 information (241) (241) (240) (241) outside company E Crisis-response .30* .19* -.27* -.19* inside company‘ (241) (241) (239) (240) F Crisis-response .12 .43* -.18* -.39* 1.00 outside company5 (238) (238) (236) (237) (238) Scale Coefficient Alpha = .10 1 Number of cases are printed in parentheses. Items were reversed scored. .05 level. ‘ Two-tailed significance at p < APPENDIX F: TABLE 14 Complexity of Information Search Subcomposites Descriptives and Intercorrelations 155 APPENDIX F: TABLE 14 Complexity of Information Search Subcomposites Descriptives and Intercorrelations ITEMS Mean SD A B C D A Organizational Characteristics 6.05 3.03 1.00 (249)1 B Human Resources 5.62 3.05 .67* 1.00 (249) (249) C Technological Advances 4.25 2.79 .63* .60* 1.00 (249) (249) (249) D External Environment 4.10 2.67 .59* .59* .67* 1.00 (249) (249) (249) (249) Scale Composites Coefficient Alpha = .87 1 Number of cases are printed in parentheses. x Two-tailed significance at p < .05 level. MICHIGAN srnr: UNIV. LIBRARIES “WWW“WWWWllllWWIHWN‘I 31293005645746