.5... an .. A'; 'a. 1 ~. ~ 1 Tu, W . «ml v | n 1 v -‘1 'l.‘ n ' 'Zr‘M‘LL ‘ onuriu’gv'yvu «z Vii) 49-13512 J '3 "Mn .mm "8 ll lllllllllllllll"'llllllllll 1293 00903 1794 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled AN EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF TRAINING PRACTICES USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH PAY-FOR-KNOWLEDGE COMPENSATION PLANS presented by Marilyn Renwick Servais has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Doctor of Adult and Continuing Philosophy. degree in Education. g/ 1? fl? ( 5/nc.{_,\ Major professor Date //" Kg» 9/ MSU i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 ‘- *o.-¢. 0 ‘C—Q-..O--‘ “"' " LIBRARY “1951881! State University \ I PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. l oATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE “ ~ \T’T’j MSU Is An Affirmative ActionlEquel Opportunity Institution 6W ems-9.1 AN EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF TRAINING PRACTICES USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH PAY-FOR-KNOHLEDGE COMPENSATION PLANS By Martlyn Renwtck Servais A DISSERTATION Submitted to M1ch1gan State University 1n parttal fulftllment of the requtrements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Admtntstrat1on 1991 Ale This was payer-kneeleié were to detem‘lr the lite'ature i s'ectfces were t as: to detefinine Questionr PFK. Fifty-thre {Weenies were 5 letem'eu select est in daily 009 the survey instr The find‘l are consistently items in thi. sr‘ r .m goals 01’ avariety of Jim xeerieneed EleC ’l man as~needed t ABSTRACT AN EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF TRAINING PRACTICES USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH PAY-FOR-KNOHLEDGE COMPENSATION PLANS By Marilyn Renwick Servais This was an exploratory study of training practices used with pay-for-knowledge (PFK) compensation. The major questions of the study were to determine which, if any, of the training practices prescribed in the literature were being used by companies; to determine which practices were considered most important to the effectiveness of PFK; and to determine how systematic PFK training is. Questionnaires were sent to selected companies known to be using PFK. Fifty-three percent of the questionnaires were returned. Two companies were selected from survey respondents for on-site visits to interview selected personnel about how training practices were carried out in daily operations. The on-site visits helped confinniand support the survey instrument. The findings show that only a few of the recommended practices are consistently and frequently used in PFK training. Only a few of the companies in this study have highly systematic PFK training. The primary goals of PFK training are to develop and maintain competence in a variety of job skills. Work teams determine their own training needs. Experienced employees and managers usually develop and deliver training on an as-needed basis. PFK training is Job-specific, covering skills and iinfedge. ecu“ training is on-the' Respcnients ‘nsrtant to effes‘ 1) job task 2) training appropria 3) using cm training; ‘) using 0b; 5) training 5) before in fOCUSes c °l Skills The Survey 1 Either "Seam. evaluatlni an exist design a new PFK Dr and knowledge, equipment operation, safety, and quality control. Most training is on-the-job demonstrations and guided practice. Respondents identified several practices as being particularly important 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 5) to effective PFK training. These include: job task analyses; training prospective trainers in adult learning theory and appropriate instructional methods; using checklists and similar job aids to assure consistency in training; using objective performance standards; training prospective evaluators in using objective standards; before implementing PFK, conducting start-up training that focuses on team management skills and at least the minimum set of skills needed to complete an entire task. The survey instrument developed for this study can be used in further research. It can also be used by companies interested in evaluating an existing PFK program, or as a guideline for companies to design a new PFK program. 0 Copyright by MARILYN RENHICK SERVAIS 1991 F0 Paul Richard Servais For my best friend, with all my love. Thanks for standing by me. A DB'sor d‘ssertation. I :mtless othEr :cstrlbute bc‘.h elfi'ifi'le who pl like tc icing-,1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A person never works alone on a major project such as a dissertation. No matter how lonely the task may be at times, there are countless other people - family, friends, advisors, and co-workers - who contribute both directly and indirectly. I can't begin to thank everyone who played a part. However, there are several people I would like to acknowledge for their special contributions. First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge my parents, Donald and Florence Renwick, who instilled in me a love of learning, and without whose inspiration this project would never have been considered. My advisor, Dr. Cas Hellman, provided learning opportunities far beyond the classroom. His quiet, patient guidance and support saw me through some trying times. My committee provided expert guidance throughout. Dr. Richard Gardner helped extend my knowledge and interest in training. He also prodded me to aim for lively writing. Dr. Cas Gentry helped me clarify my thinking in order that my concepts would be developed and stated more logically. Dr. Janet Alleman introduced me to a broader world of management than I had previously known. She helped me think through the methodology and the data analysis process. She also stressed the importance of clear, documented writing. Although not part of my conmittee, three other faculty members need to be acknowledged. Dr. Joe Levine helped me understand what it neant to pursue a doctorate. His probing questions helped me decide vi not I vented to inialoaote guide develop a broads forward thinkine draft of my Sur little l to all the can. ITlCSE illllhg I MT! 2; P’E’Jal‘ing the technical pri I gran ”d Career E assistants i 318' fer Dali “Eibaso {Q the ch.Ssert hZ'Uf‘s QT Vi its: Ctun3e\°r, {Wanton I l (I) La 2‘” SEP" the” he. 2...} "' u'lre- .~ ”h ‘3 E what I wanted to be when I grew up. Dr. Charles Blackman provided invaluable guidance in my thinking about curriculum. He helped me develop a broader perspective on education and provided a model of forward thinking. Dr. Irving Lehman was very helpful in reviewing the draft of my survey instrument. Hhile I cannot thank each individual participant, I am indebted to all the companies, training directors, employees, and field experts whose willing participation made the study possible. I am extremely grateful to Diane Erley for her assistance in preparing the manuscript. I appreciate her perseverance in solving the technical printing problems. I gratefully acknowledge everyone at the Michigan Vocational and Career Education Resource Center for their support and for their assistance in locating resources, for providing a base of operations, and for being good friends. I especially wish to thank Dr. Gloria Kielbaso for her friendship and for her understanding and guidance in the dissertation process. A special thanks goes to Yeon Minn for her hours of work formatting and printing the survey questionnaire. Michelle King-Kramer was my sounding board, my kickstart, my counselor, and my friend. I appreciated having an understanding companion throughout the project. I could not have reached this point without the support and encouragement of Pearl and Philip Servais, my husband's parents. Last, but most important, I owe an immense debt to my husband, Paul Servais. He stood beside me in a project which tried his patience, taxed his compassion, and tested his conmitment. I gratefully acknowledge his support in helping me achieve a lifelong goal. vii LIST OF TABLES USTOF FIGURES . . SHAVER l INTRODUCT Backgrou' Outdate lechnc' Change: Global ASolutil Pay-for- Stateneo Research Signific Assunoti Definiti Scooe ar InfiTERZ RE IEH C Context Union Exist Manag Preva The Rol Prescri Plann Ass Ana Del Des Plant Tr; In' TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O BaCkground O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O Outdated Corporate Management Strategies Technological Developments . . . . . . . Changes in the Labor Market Global Competition . . . . . . . . . . . A Solution in "New Design" Plants Pay-for-Knowledge: A Selected Statement of the Problem . . . Research Questions . . . . . . Significance of the Research . Assumptions of the Study . . . Definition of Terms . Scope and Limitations of the Re Innovation 5 piece rch CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Context and Characteristics of Pay-for-Knowledge Union vs. Non-union Companies Existing vs. Greenfield Locations Management Context . . . . . . . . . . PrevaIence O O O O O O O O O O O O O O The Role of Training in PFK Prescriptions for a Pay-for-Knowledge Train Primary Functions Planning and Design: Assess Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analyze Jobs and Tasks . . . . . . . . Develop Objectives . . . . . . . . . . Design the PFK Program . . . . . . . . Planning and Design: Support Functions Train Managers and Supervisors . . . . Involve Relevant Employees . . . . . . viii 0 O O O O O O 0 do. 0 O 9 p a oeooeeeeOeee Plans O M O O O O O O O O m C O O Page xiii XV CHAPTER 2 REVlEH C DEVElC Se‘e Sele Arra Ha'i Pre: Davelc Sele Trai Invc Impler Offs IHSL Impler Evalua [Value Ide' Tra' "Onlt( "cont: Sunnary Cl-‘AFIER 3 METHODS; IntrOdul ldentif DEVElOQ SElECti oueStio SElECti on‘Site Analyst Analysi Smflnary 'F‘APTER ‘ FINDING CONTEXT Chara Reds: Goals FINDINC ComDc Pia l 5 l l CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE (Continued) Developing Training: Primary Functions . Select Content and Develop Course Plans Select Delivery Methods and Media Arrange Facilities . . . . . . . . . . Market Program to Trainees . . . . . . Prepare Instructional Materials Developing Training: Support Functions Select Instructors . . . . . . . . . . Train Instructors . . . . . . . . . . Involve Relevant Employees . . . . . . Implementing Training: Primary Functions Offer Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . Insure Transfer to the Job . . . . . . . Implementing Training: Support Functions Evaluating Training: Primary Functions Evaluating Training: Support Functions Identify and Select Evaluators . . . . Train Evaluators . . . . . . . . . . . Monitoring Training: Primary Functions Monitoring Training: Support Functions Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . Identification of the Population . . Development of the Survey Instrument Selection of the Sample for the Survey Questionnaire Administration . . . . Selection of On-Site Sample . . . on'SIte IRterVICWS e e o o o e e 0 Analysis of Questionnaire Data . . Analysis of On-Site Interview Data Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CONTEXT OF PFK TRAINING . . . . . . . . . . Characteristics of Responding Conpanies . Reasons for Implementing Pay-for-Knowledge Goals of Pay-for-Knowledge Training FINDINGS IN RELATION TO RESEARCH QUESTIONS . Components of PFK Training and Their Planning and Design Components . Identifying Training Needs . . Skill Progression Fonmats . . Training Plans . . . . . . . . Personnel Involved in Planning ix oeeeeo'fleee :7 Import n oeeoofieeooo CHAPTER 4 FINDINC In; Re CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS (Continued) Instructional Development Components . . . Skill Unit Topics . . . . . . . . . . . Bases for Selecting Skill Unit Content . Who Develops Skill Unit Instruction . . Implementation Components . . . . . . . . Location of Training - External . . . . Externally-Developed Training . . . . . In-House Training - Location and Group 2 In-House Training - Instructors . . . . Instructional Methods . . . . . . . . . Transfer of Skills to the Job . . . . . . Trainee Involvement in the Training Process 0 i e ooMooooooo Evaluation Components . . . . . . . Evaluating Trainees . . . . . . Evaluating the Training Program Monitoring and Renewal Components Tracking Employee Progress . . . Maintaining Skill Competence . . . Factors Leading to Revision of the Rooooo voooooo F Pr gra Provisions for PFK Program Problems . . . . Evaluating the Effectiveness of the PFK Program . Overall Effectiveness of the PFK Program . . . . Causes of Success and of Difficulty . . . . . . Configurations of PFK Training Components . . . . Relationships Between Reasons for Implementing PFK Various Program Factors . . . . . . . . . . . Reasons for Implementing and Training Goals . . Reasons for Implementing and Components of the Training Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reasons for Implementing and Perceived Effectiveness of PFK Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reasons for Implementing and Demographic Factors Relationships Between Goals of PFK Training and Various Program Factors . . . . . . . . . . . Goals of Training and Program Components . . . . Goals of Training and Perceived Effectiveness of PFK Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Goals of Training and Demographic Factors . . . Relationships Between Company Demographic Factors, Effectiveness Ratings, and PFK Program Components Program Components and Demographic Factors . . . Program Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implementation Site . . . . . . . . . . . . Workforce Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Program Type (Horizontal, Vertical, Depth) . Union Status . . . . . . . . . . . Primary Product or Service . . . . Effectiveness of the PFK Program . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I39 139 I39 140 140 I41 141 142 142 142 142 143 I43 I44 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUS ll Intro: Conclusi Apollc Demcgr Size Unto Prog Reason Goals Hritte Techni DEIErn Develc Involi CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND Introduction . . . . . . . . Conclusions and Observations Applicability of PFK . Demographic Factors . Size . . . . . . . . Unionization . . . . Program Age . . . . Reasons for Implementin Goals of PFK Training 9 PFK Hritten Training Plans . . . Techniques for Systematizing Determining PFK Training Needs . . RECOMMENDATIONS 'Doooooooooo the F an E i C r 1 ing Pro e 5 Development of PFK Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . Involvement of Employee Groups During the Training cyCIe O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Impact of High Employee Involvement Throughout Training Process . . . . Sources of Training . . . . Timing of Training . . Skill Unit Content . . Consistency in Training Instructional Methods Lack of Time for PFK Training EvaIuatIOn O O O O O O O O O 0 Tracking of Skill Progress . . . PrOblms O O I O O O O O O 0 Implications for Practice Systematize the Training Process . Start-Up Training Is Critical . Train Instructors and Evaluators . Use Job Analyses and Training Aids IHStrUCtIOn O O O O O O O O O 0 Design and Implement the PFK Training as Carefully the Compensation Plan Prog ram 0 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 Expand to a Continuum of Skills the oSta Bdaraiée as Expand the Focus of Potential Skills for the PFK Expand to Job-Support Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . Expand PFK to Technical, Occupations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Include a Performance Component in PFK Evaluations Recommendations for Further Research . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Managerial, and Professional Page 146 146 151 151 152 152 152 153 154 154 155 156 I56 157 157 158 158 159 159 159 159 159 161 162 162 163 163 164 164 165 165 166 166 167 168 168 170 172 APPENDICES A 8 Expert F Survey i Cor: On-Site Coding Criterl Prc iBLDGRAPl-rii , APPENDICES A Expert Panel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B Survey of Training Practices in Pay-for-Knowledge Compensation Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C on-51telnterv1ew5oooooooooooooooo D Coding of Open-Ended Questions . . . . . . . . . . E Criteria for Evaluating Degree of Systemization of PFK P r09 rams O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . xii Page 174 176 206 217 229 232 Ida Z: L1 L3 in Results of 5 Job Titles r Demographic Reasons lde Pay-for Goals ldent Trainir planning C! Identi‘ Hfltte Planning c PEFSQn Topics of InStrUCt‘c Bases Instruct1' Unit ' EXtErnal Ouali ProcedUre Duals PET50nn81 Trait Pei : External PFK I Pay LIST OF TABLES Table . Page 3'1 RESUICS Of 56111911119 PFOCBSS o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 68 4-1 Job Titles of Respondents to the Questionnaire . . . . . 79 4-2 Demographic Profiles of Companies Using PFK . . . . . . . 80 4-3 Reasons Identified by Companies for Implementing Pay-for‘KnOWIEdQEoooooooooooooooooo 83 4-4 Goals Identified by Companies for Pay-for—Knowledge Training 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I 0 O 85 4-5 Planning Components Identified by Companies: Need Identification, Type of Skill Progression, and Written Training Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 4-6 Planning Components Identified by PFK Companies: Personnel Involved in Planning . . . . . . . . . . . 92 4-7 Topics of Skill Units Included in PFK Training Programs . 94 4-8 Instructional Design Components Identified by Companies: Bases for Selecting Skill Unit Content . . . . . . . 96 4-9 Instructional Design Components: Developers of Skill unit Tra1n1ng I I O O O I O O O O O O O I O O I O O O 98 4-10 External Training Programs Used by Some PFK Companies to Qualify Employees for PFK Pay Increases . . . . . . . 100 4-11 Procedures for Selecting External Training Courses to Qualify Employees for PFK Pay Increases . . . . . . . 101 4-12 Personnel with Final Authority for Selecting External Training Courses to Qualify Employees for PFK Pay Increases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 4-13 Externally-Designed Training Provided In-House by Some PFK Companies to Qualify Employees for PFK Pay Increases O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 104 xiii LS 4.22 4%} L24 l-ZS l.27 Procedures it Courses Personnel vi Develoee PFK Pay lmlenentati A ln-House linoleum-tat ln-Housl Preoara of lrai IllClement-tat ln-Hous Trainir Trainee EYE lll [:0tfii UtihOds 0‘ Traini {value Compdt Evaluation Cunoa' GrOUC ResDonsib Progr Collie overall I ComDe FPCIOFS Rats CAUSES D Table Page 4-14 Procedures for Selecting Externally-Developed Training Courses to Qualify Employees for PFK Pay Increases . 105 4-15 Personnel with Final Authority for Selecting Externally- Developed Training Courses to Qualify Employees for PFK Pay Increases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 4-16 Implementation Components Identified by PFK Companies: In-House Training - Format, Location, Group Size . . 108 4-17 Implementation Components Identified by Companies for In-House Training: Trainer Qualifications and Preparation, Instructional Methods, and Transfer of Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 4-18 Implementation Components Identified by PFK Companies for In-House Training: Involvement of Trainees in the Training Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 4-19 Trainee Evaluators and Their Qualifications for Evaluating in Companies that Use PFK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 4-20 Methods of Evaluation Following External Training, On-Site Training, and Contingency Plans Following Poor Evaluations in Companies Using PFK . . . . . . . . . 118 4-21 Evaluation of Team or Department Training Programs in PFK Companies: Frequency of Evaluation by Employee Groups 120 4-22 Evaluation of Team or Department Training Programs in PFK Companies: Program Factors Evaluated by Employee Groups 0 O O O 0 O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O 0 121 4-23 Responsibility and Methods of Tracking Employee Skill Progress and Factors Leading to Program Revisions in Companies Using PFK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 4-24 Provisions for Problems in Companies Using PFK . . . . . 127 4-25 Overall PFK Program Effectiveness as Rated by PFK cmpan‘es O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 129 4-26 Factors Identified by PFK Companies as Influencing Ratings of Overall PFK Program Effectiveness . . . . 131 4-27 Causes of Success and Difficulty in PFK Programs . . . . 133 xiv “are l A Model 835 LIST OF FIGURES Figu re . Page 1 A Model Systematic Training Process . . . . . . . . . . 14 a. 149 XV The Noerican e sorted in major W r‘tten by economic a tuning the largest tts‘nesses and indus‘. "r order to survive. their involvement in nation and trainil large and sna ll orga‘ tr imertant reason nioyee development critical factor in i! treetiti veness l" a on did HE C“ torzerned for its egoroeveloonents 5‘ inuunntof Labor outdated t chnolog changes I CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background The American economy is facing hard times according to trends reported in major United States newspapers, business journals, and books written by economic and business analysts. The United States is becoming the largest debtor nation in the world (Hallow, 1990), and busi nesses and industries are having to make tough decisions and changes in order to survive. One of the major changes companies have made is in thei r- involvement in education and training. Company—sponsored education and training programs are a rapidly-expanding function of both large and small organizations. (Lusterman, 1977, 1982; Stanton, 1989) A" “innportant reason for companies taking on the responsibility of ”“91 Oyee development is the belief that job—focused training is a CMii‘ical factor in improving productivity, and in increasing U.S. competitiveness in a global economy. How did we change from a leading world economic power to a nation co"Icerned for its economic health? Part of the answer lies in four "‘32) or developments affecting American companies today (Gupta, 1986; U.S. Department of Labor, 1986): outdated corporate management strategies technological developments changes in the labor market, and global competition Outdated Coronete “a“ Current manage? systems used at the t. :iassical management. Sceotiiic Management strategies used in the iierrov,1979) Class voters as resources, til-599”: role was to ElPettional situations v‘thout question, vitt personal creativity. in lieoer's our (1)1 hierarchy of au‘. control the activitie' {CR tinuity and coordi Wines, (3) division degree of special izat evolution ref ineini the and motion st ”It 2 Outdated Conarate Management StrategLes Current management practices still bear the marks of management systems used at the turn of the Twentieth Century. At that time, classical management, Heberian bureaucracy, and Frederick Taylor's Scientific Management theory represented the primary management strategies used in the growing industrial segments of the economy. (Perrow, 1979) Classical management was characterized by a view of workers as resources, much like machines and raw materials. The manager's role was to plan, coordinate, delegate, and deal with exceptional situations. The worker's role was to do the work assigned, without question, without input into the process, and with little if any Personal creativity. Max Heber's bureaucratic model described organizations as having: (1) a hierarchy of authority such that higher levels of supervision cOntrol the activities of subordinates, (2) a system of rules to provide continuity and coordination of activities independent of personnel changes, (3) division of labor to accomplish conplex tasks, (4) a high deg Fee of specialization which improves performance through technical Qua} ifications, and through improvement and mastery of a limited range 0f skills, (5) impersonal, rational decision-making which ensures equal tr‘eatment for all employees, and (6) a career orientation with p"(motions based on seniority and/or achievement. (Weber, 1947) Frederick Taylor's Scientific Management in a sense was an e"Olution or refinement of the bureaucratic model. Taylor did extensive thin and motion studies in order to redesign jobs to make maximum use of h“Than abilities and to train people to best perform jobs. (Taylor, 1911) Scientific Management viewed workers as basically lazy. Horkers ”rad to be coerced to performing 0”” a m Folio-'8 to produce 65 learn. WW" 1979' BureaucraclES 4 effective and efficier FMver, major negati' coroe'tmeotalizing ta redeioancy. (Halton. ieber-laylor manageme growing problem in in 'Blue Collar Blues.‘ over rates, low worke 3’garizetional p5ych: Mao been system: said that workers Her MW 'the same be ”‘9 Wile workbench. ' all "r ”elation was a dire 4378a) ? urological Devel or I 3 had to be coerced to work, closely supervised, and they were capable of performing only a limited number of minutely specified rote tasks. Fail are to produce as expected was due to a lack of desire to work or to learn. (Perrow, 1979) Bureaucracies and Scientific Management practices did provide for effeecztive and efficient production in our early industrialized society. However, major negative outcomes included deskilling work, compa rtmentalizing tasks, and simplifying Jobs to the point of tedious redundancy. (Walton, 1978a) By the 19605, continued use of the Hebe r-Taylor management models appeared to be an important factor in a grown ng problem in industry. The popular press called the problem the ”Blue Collar Blues." The symptoms were growing absenteeism, high turn- over rates, low worker morale, and sabotage. (Walton, 1982) Organizational psychologists, sociologists, and behavioral scientists ""0 had been systematically studying organizations for several years 531d that workers were dehumanized and alienated by the crushing tedium 0f doing ”the same basic task hundreds of thousands of times a day at the same workbench.” (Northrup, 1979) According to many writers, this 3‘ 1enation was a direct result of the Weber-Taylor legacy. (Melton, 1978a) T"5\¢=llnological Developments In addition to growing worker alienation, companies in the 19705 we he faced with exploding technological developments which began in ea chest in the 19505 with the launching of the Space Age. Typically, cc"hpanies saw new technology as a way to save money and increase D"IIduction. Implementation of computers and automated systems t“Winged skill needs, and the benefits of installing new equipment often gene at the expense 0 lather than retrainln [any conpanies sidell the new machines. (Ma aggravated worker fru and loyalty to the c ‘ themes in the Labor Prior to the 1 'esolted from increase and increased amount c We is projected l trench, and a decline We”. growth in ( We highly trained, r “n 1986, pg, 1-2) The work force 335 in the 25 . 54 a,” 3. l hthdt age grOUD’ am I, tihhr,1984) hen te (”Meg Updates lltol 4 came at the expense of workers who were displaced by the machines. Rather than retraining existing workers for new skills and technologies, many companies sidelined those workers for new hires who could operate the new machines. (Majchrzak, 1988) The short-term gains of automating aggravated worker frustrations and contributed to reducing worker morale and 1 oyalty to the company. Charagles in the Labor Market Prior to the 19605, economic growth in the Twentieth Century resuI ted from increased life expectancy, increased length of schooling, and 1 ncreased amount of work experience. However, the remainder of the century is projected to have a decline in the rate of labor force growth, and a decline in the number of hours worked per year. Therefore, growth in productivity will depend on "a better educated, more highly trained, more motivated and adaptable work force.“ (Sum, et. el- . 1986, pg. 1-2) The work force is also aging. In 1972, 60% of the labor force "as in the 25 - 54 age group. By 1982, about 66% of the workforce was 1" that age group, and the U.S. Department of Labor predicts that the f"more will grow to 75% of the workforce by 1995. (U.S. Department of Labor, 1984) When technology developments demand frequent skill and k"Owledge updates, the pace cannot be met by hiring a dwindling nobulation of younger, more currently trained workers, whose skills Would soon be outdated, anyway. %al Colmetition Finally, the redevelopment of many nations around the world 7:01 lowing World War II, such as Germany and Japan, and the more recent “Evelopment of Mexico, countries in Central and South America, and oil- ri:nlliddle-Eastern C resulting in global c reflectivity. The 07 expense of long-term esoec'ially in steel, vith severely outdate rages, especially thr ’esv‘cements and the tezhnclogies left the Wis. (Naisbitt, The pace of te dmestic industries 99305 and Services DVCJEfiBd by some this century. (SL The combined influenc monies to look for M survival and the d. The search for tistudies in psychol t'lrarily in the 193C wooing into the 1 stancin 5 rich Middle-Eastern countries, has shifted the economic balance, resulting in global competition which is a stiff challenge to American productivity. The old heritage of short-term profit-making at the expense of long-term capitol reinvestment left many companies, especially in steel, automotive, and other durable goods industries, witti severely outdated production facilities. Morkers had gained high wages, especially through strong union efforts. The combination of wage requi rements and the expense to retool aging plants with new technologies left the United States at a decided disadvantage in world markets. (Naisbitt, 1982; Gupta and Jenkins, 1986) The pace of technological change and the restructuring of domestic industries resulting from changing domestic demand for goods and services and the pressures of foreign competition are projected by some analysts to accelerate during the remainder of this century. (Sum, et. al., 1986, pg. 1-2) The combined influence of these factors made it imperative for companies to look for solutions to the problems which threatened their 0"" survival and the economic security of our nation. A Solution in "New Design Plants“ The search for solutions to America's productivity problems drew 0“ studies in psychology, sociology, and behavioral science. Beginning D"ililarily in the 19305 with the work of Chester Barnard (1938), and continuing into the 19605 and 19705, major contributions to under- standing organizations have included work done by Elton Mayo (1933), K"l‘t Lewin (1951), Herbert Simon (1976), F.J. Roethlisberger and William Dickson (1939), Frederick i-lerzberg (1966), Abraham Maslow (1954), Peter I’f‘ucleer (1954), A.il. Gouldner (1954), Douglas McGregor (1960), Victor Vroom (1960), Daniel Katz and Robert Kahn (1966), Rensis Likert (1961, 1967), and Edward Lawler (1971, 1973). These people and many others studied organizaticna in the work environme raiesenent and leader and oe'fomm' Corrpanies turnl for ideas to help the: reactivity. Many il sciations for the Btu: tegether in vhat Laull early innovations 0cm other sec tors, such a e:a;ted the new ideas the bureaucratic mode if authority, a syste: ‘tcrovement and maste differences between t “5‘39” plants. A prl triers. An assumpti serially lazy and ne issretion is that we iriani 6 studied organizational issues such as social and psychological factors in the work environment, sources of motivation, the effects of various management and leadership styles, and relationships between satisfaction and performance. Companies turned to social scientists and organizational analysts for 1 deas to help them combat worker alienation and improve productivity. Many innovations came out of these efforts to find solutions for the Blue Collar Blues, an important set of which came together in what Lawler (1978) called "New Design Plants." While the early innovations occurred in manufacturing (thus “new design plants"), other sectors, such as insurance, banking, and service industries, adapted the new ideas to improve their own operations. Some elements of the bureaucratic model have been retained. These include a hierarchy 01’ authority, a system of rules, division of labor, and a focus on 1"lDl‘ovement and mastery of skills. However, there are some major differences between the traditional bureaucratic model and the new des1 9n plants. A primary difference has to do with assumptions about "Orkers. An assumption of the bureaucratic model is that workers are ba~“>‘|cally lazy and need coercive control. In new design plants, the as5|.Imption is that workers are motivated by making a contribution to the o"Qiinization through meaningful work and through involvement in the deCision-making process. Conmon characteristics of new design plants h19hlight other differences from the bureaucratic model. These include: (a) a flat hierarchy with few levels between production workers and too 91am management, (b) an organizational structure based on a product or 3"‘-"vice area rather than on a function such as maintenance, engineering, or Droduction, (c) a participative management style, where decisions are le rate at the lowest Fri '1 everyone in the ol ga levels, (it) involvene facts, and in the la relaxation and person seifnanaging in deci assig'ments, quality oesigred for autonon: anentire product or se‘ection decisions 0 till he placed, (h) 0 if the job, the penal easement style; and nether the job setti Mint and on~the-j training, and (1) pay than to functional JC the n at rate goes up Lawler (1978) ‘T'inentation of inr see. as vorker involh iirealistic expectat' constantly interestin is: other part “titer Sof th 7 made at the lowest level possible, or where input is gathered from everyone in the organization when decisions must be made at higher levels, (d) involvement of prospective employees in the design of new plants, and in the layout of machinery, equipment, work areas, and relaxation and personal areas, (e) autonomous work teams which are often sel f—managing in decisions such as production goals, daily task assignments, quality control, purchasing, and job rotations, (f) jobs des‘l gned for autonomous work teams so that a team has responsibility for an entire product or meaningful segment of a product, (9) employee selection decisions often made by the work teams where new employees will be placed, (h) orientation of prospective employees in the nature 0f the job, the people with whom they would be working, and the management style; and counseling to help them make a decision about whether the job setting would be right for them, (i) emphasis on 1“‘llilant and on-the-job training, as well as company paid off-the-job tra1 ning, and (j) pay which is often tied to skill development, rather than to functional job evaluations; as an employee learns new skills, the pay rate goes up accordingly. (Lawler, 1978) Lawler (1978) described problems which emerged in the early implementation of innovations. Because of the stress placed on things such as worker involvement and challenging work, many workers developed ‘ ““r‘ealistic expectations. They were disappointed when the job wasn't curIstantly interesting. Conflicts arose between the new design plants and other parts of the organization over perceived threats in the new strategies to traditional methods of operation. Many managers felt thf‘eatened by the reduction in levels of authority. Because many of the first-line supervisor's or foreman's responsibilities were turned over to work teamS. ' skills to build team! Ind‘l‘iduai different! soreoeople not ills“ of research has Show? innovations that are c'e‘er the more trad‘ Ether problems inciuc staidards without pa: t'aditicnal methods c It appears the ‘it‘enentatipn diffil l'ittices are becomil ”5‘9” Cmanies in 1 arm CGillllanies in There are many WOW" Sci ‘ tings, These inc“ 1 0H BI turnover rat“ Sat? ,1 . e 'U'iiorc es an it... ‘ d great. ‘a and Jenkins . 8 over to work teams, roles lacked clarity. Many people did not have the skills to build teams and function in a participative setting. Individual differences in needs, interests, and values resulted in some people not liking the redesigned work, even though a “great deal of research has shown that everyone responds positively to the kinds of innovations that are being tried in new-design plants. Some simply prefer the more traditional ways of doing things.“ (Lawler, 1978, pg.8) Other problems included timing of start-up decisions, establishing standards without past experience to go on, and regression to tradi tional methods during pressures of production after start up. It appears that most companies have overcome the initial "“01 einentation difficulties. Recent surveys show that new-design Practices are becoming increasingly popular. From a handful of new— des1gn companies in the 19705, the list has grown to an estimated 200 0" more companies in 1986. (Gupta, et. al., 1986; 0'Dell, 1986) There are many important advantages reported in the new-design SEttings. These include, but are not limited to, lower absenteeism, "War turnover rates, lower production costs, higher employee 531:1 sfaction, higher levelsof success in terms of production and quality of work life, a more flexible and more highly trained "Orkforce, and greater motivation for workers to expand their skills. (Gupta and Jenkins, 1986) Unfortunately, there have been very few studies done which p r‘Ovide hard data as to the advantages and disadvantages of the various individual new design innovations. One of the least-studied innovations 1 3 a pay system which has come to be known as skill-based pay, knowledge-based Dal facus of this study flay; pay-for-knol krow‘ed'ge-based Dal ctier compensation 'nrter, kind, and '.e:.‘ord, 1984, pg. perform at any give skills, they also, 'tSJonsibilities. The primary 3599“ plants was i (iiwlegge and Skill salfflnaianent an: mm“ Dali-for-) .8 WE has Kansas ‘ uh . 9 knowledge-based pay, or pay-for-knowledge. It is this area that is the focus of this study. Pay-For-Knowledge: A Selected Innovation Pay-for-knowledge (PFK) is also known as skill-based pay, knowledge-based pay, and multi-skill compensation. It differs from other compensation plans in that workers are paid according to the “number, kind, and depth of skills that they develop” (Lawler s Ledford, 1984, pg. 6), rather than for the job which they actually perform at any given time. As workers increase their pool of usable skills, they also, typically, have additional duties and responsibilities. The primary purpose for implementing pay-for-knowledge in new- design plants was to motivate workers to develop and expand their knowledge and skills, and to reward them for greater involvement in selfnmanagement and productivity. One of the earliest companies to implement pay-for-knowledge was General Foods' Gaines pet food plant in Topeka, Kansas, which initiated their innovative work plan in 1968, and implemented it in January, 1971. Walton (1982) described the philosophy underlying the design of the Topeka plant: . . . Our plant design was regarded as radical and counterintuitive at the time because we acted contrary to the received logic, initiated with the Industrial Revolution, by which productivity increases were sought through a progressive fragmentation of tasks, deskilling of jobs, separation of planning and implementation, control of the individual worker, reliance on external and formal controls, and pay pegged to the specific job. We proposed a work system in which normally separate jobs were combined to create whole tasks, skill requirements were deliberately increased, teams were made collectively accountable for a segment of the work flow, pride and peer pressure were substituted in part for external and formal controls, and pay was geared to what a worker knew and could do. Supervisors were to facilitate and lead, not direct and control. We tried to minimize status differences, rather than following hierarchy . - The Topeka and self-lllaliag‘i'Tl 'ead to high workl turnovers, increa: se‘f-dfagnosis am 252) Twelve year: “Eccrted that indc Wait and the ne SE'E'al Foods' pie regression that He has been able to 5 course with their Until 1986. say-for~knowledge vhich had implemer ”Elects indicated 10 than following the customary practice of using them to reinforce hierarchy . . . (pp. 261-262) The Topeka plan emphasized human development, individual worth, and self-management, under the assumption that these concepts would lead to high worker commitment, help alleviate absenteeism and turnovers, increase productivity, and result in a "high capability for self-diagnosis and for making midcourse corrections." (Walton, 1982, pg. 262) Twelve years after the start-up of the Topeka plant, Walton reported that indeed the workers displayed high commitment to the company and the new work plan, and productivity exceeded that of other General Foods' plants. Except for a brief period of management shuffling and start-up of another new plant, when the Topeka plant experienced a regression that was not immediately diagnosed and corrected, the plant has been able to self-diagnose and take corrective action to maintain course with their innovative work plan. Until 1986, the majority of information available on -pay-for-knowledge resulted from case reports of individual companies which had implemented PFK along with other innovations. None of these reports indicated the extent of PFK use, nor did they systematically identify characteristics of PFK plans. However, in 1986, Gupta and Jenkins of the University of Arkansas, with funding from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor-Management Relations, undertook a study to determine the extent and characteristics of PFK plans. In their study, they found that pay-for-knowledge plans typically had certain central features: 1. There l master: other i 2. Skill l of the Organiz other 0 best me 3. Some ore every 9; employee This Drc 4'COmDanie skill to Spent in Spent us to "Hint; 11 1. There were progressive skill levels in which a worker first mastered all the jobs in one work team, and then moved to other teams, until jobs on all teams were mastered. 2. Skill learning was usually sequential, but the determination of the sequence varied from setting to setting. Some organizations used a strictly prescribed sequence, while in other organizations, work teams decided what sequence would best meet current and future team skill needs. 3. Some organizations specified a minimum number of skills which every employee must learn, in order to ensure that each employee could contribute multiple skills to a work team. This provided flexibility for the company. 4. Companies often set time periods for progressing from one skill to another. This was to ensure that enough time was spent in training to master a skill, and that enough time was spent using the skill before moving to a new skill in order to maintain mastery of skills. 5. Some companies set quotas which limited the number of employees who could be at a given skill level or pay rate at any one time. 6. All companies using pay-for-knowledge had a plan which tied the pay rate to the skill units acquired. Besides exploring the extent and characteristics of pay-for- knowledge plans, Gupta and Jenkins also looked at a limited set of questions regarding training in pay-for-knowledge settings. The main purpose in the Gupta and Jenkins study for questions relating to training had to do with the nature of the compensation plan. However, a sletihy idea of cm- Host CO"! auc'ker could ‘ mintaln CW9“ ueeks for “0”“ average of 213 I aIToiatTe at a C In severa dz'ker could pro “sacked plant le wart or office) aleilable. Most mintained skill :mnenly, throug' ieoarted using 5: aTso used some f: result in elimina Emcunes in the atcmodate than: M " We restruci Although 1 “fl’”5 0? pay-1 H‘E Dicture of p; Nam), to the an 12 sketchy idea of PFK training can be drawn from the Gupta and Jenkins data. Most companies in their study limited the total number of skills a worker could learn, on the belief that workers would not be able to maintain competence in unlimited skills. It took an average of 32.1 weeks for workers in reporting companies to learn one skill unit, and an average of 213 weeks to learn the maximum number of skill units allowable at a plant or office. In several companies, position vacancies detenmined whether a worker could progress in skill training, but usually, once a worker reached plant level (i.e. had learned all skill units allowable at that plant or office), no additional PFK training opportunities were available. Most companies had a plan for ensuring that workers maintained skill competence, either through refresher training, or most commonly, through Job rotation. Most of the companies in the study reported using some type of formal evaluation of trainees, and several also used some form of peer evaluation. Technological changes which result in elimination of skill units presented a special challenge to companies in the study, but most had developed contingency plans to accommodate changes. Some provided retraining in existing skill units, and some restructured the work plan to include new skill units. Although the Gupta and Jenkins study is the most comprehensive analysis of pay-for-knowledge done to date, it leaves many questions. The picture of PFK training resulting from the study is limited prinarily to the relationship between pay rates and the amount, length, and sequence of training. There are many questions about the process of PFK training which are still unanswered. The prob?- they needed to it mintain a Como? salutions that me clever, existing issues related to 270.2731: for come is adequate to me do‘ng this study, Moments of pay. :‘lCt‘Ices which 55 ital-s. A review of Iltsielated traini. t’l‘ining, filllttl'on. 13 Statement of the Problem The problem on which this study was based was that companies felt they needed to improve their productivity in order to establish or maintain a competitive position in a global economy. One of the solutions that many companies implemented was pay-for-knowledge. However, existing studies of PFK have not thoroughly addressed training issues related to PFK. Productivity and efficiency may continue to be a problem for companies unless the training done in conjunction with PFK is adequate to meet the companies' competitive needs. The purpose for doing this study, therefore, was to determine the characteristics and components of pay-for-knowledge training and to identify training practices which seem most effective in helping companies achieve their goals. A review of the literature on pay-for-knowledge and on Job-related training yields extensive recommendations for systematic training. Sredl and Rothwell (1987) provide a framework for analyzing these reconInendations in terms of the elements of the overall training function. Using Sredl and Rothwell's work as a guide, the researcher developed Figure 1, A Model Systematic Training Process. Using this model, the recommendations for training were organized into thirteen primary functions and ten support functions grouped into five categories. A major question in this study was to determine which, if any, of the recommended practices were consistently incorporated in pay-for-knowledge training programs, and to determine the importance to the effectiveness of PFK training of identified practices, as perceived by field-based users of pay—for-knowledge compensation plans. A. Primary Fur"E 1. Assess needs 2. Analyze jobs/ta: 3. Develop objectiv 4. Design program i. SeTect content, plans 2. Select delivery I media 3. Arrange facilitil .liarket program tc 5. Prepare instructi 1. Offer 2 l instruction nsure transfer ti 1. Evaluate training 3. Individuals -lnstructional m c. Total program 1‘ "WW and manage \ FlQure 1 l4 l. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 5. 2. 1. 1. AMUD'EFSTSTEMATIC‘TRAIN‘ING‘PIEDCESS A. Primary Functions B. Support Functions I. Planning and Design Assess needs 1. Train managers & supervisors Analyze jobs/tasks 2. Involve relevant employees Develop objectives Design program II. Developing Select content, develop course 1. Select instructors plans 2. Train instructors Select delivery methods and 3. Involve relevant employees media Arrange facilities Market program to trainees Prepare instructional materials III. Implementing Offer instruction 1. Involve managers & Insure transfer to job supervisors IV. Evaluating Evaluate training 1. Identify and select a. Individuals evaluators b. Instructional modules 2. Train evaluators c. Total program v. Monitoring Monitor and manage program 1. Select monitors 2. Train monitors Figure 1 - A Model Systematic Training Process This study we education and traini pay-ior-knovledge co study had saven majo H N w o h (J1 o What are How lmpcr effective director? Hov effe: director? Vhat is ( training 15 there ‘ and BRy cl b. C. d. E. f. 9. h. 1. Is 3'10 float-‘0'” O intEP; the ve Perce' Progra HEW 0r HOrkfc DFOQra union type c there 5 0f the fol the ya pechj DFDgra "EV Or w0"ka DFDgra UniOn type 0 15 Research Questions This study was designed to determine the critical practices in education and training programs used in conjunction with pay-for-knowledge compensation plans. To get at these practices, the study had seven major research questions: 1. 2. 3. 5. 6. What are the components of pay-for-knowledge training? How important are the various components in producing effective training as perceived by the PFK training director? How effective is training as perceived by the PFK training director? What is (are) the most common configuration(s) of PFK training components? Is there a relationship between reasons for implementing PFK and any of the following: a. intended goals of PFK training b. the various components of training c. perceived effectiveness of the PFK program d. program age e. new or existing site f. workforce size 9. program type (vertical, horizontal, depth) h. union status 1. type of company (primary service/product) Is there a relationship between the goals of training and any of the following: a. the various components of training b. perceived effectiveness of the PFK program c. program age d. new or existing site e. workforce size f. program type (vertical, horizontal, depth) 9. union status h. type of company (primary service/product) T is DdSEC 16 7. Is there a relationship between program components and any of the following: a. the effectiveness of the PFK program b. program age c. new or existing site d. workforce size e. program type (vertical, horizontal, depth) f. union status 9. type of company (primary service/product) Training is an integral component of pay-for-knowledge, since pay is based on the skills and knowledge a worker is trained to use. The relationship between training and compensation is an important one, because paying for knowledge attaches a value to that knowledge. Therefore, it is important to understand how that knowledge is transmitted. In order to understand the value of knowledge and skills (and thereby attach compensation values to them), a company must determine what knowledge and skills are necessary for it to achieve its ultimate goal, such as its final products or services. Then ways must be devised for employees to get the necessary skills and knowledge, usually through some form of training. Because of the compensation value attached to knowledge, training must be accountable in design, delivery, evaluation, and monitoring. The literature on training and on pay-for-knowledge contains many prescriptive recommendations for a systematic training process. However, none of the pay-for-knowledge studies have systematically investigated whether companies have incorporated these recommendations in their pay-for-knowledge training plans. Therefore, the focus of this study was on the process and structure of pay-for-knowledge training. §1gnificance of the Research Training has often been of secondary importance in business and industry. When times were good and funds could be spent easily, 1928555.? eifr—ina‘. rely on exert is Willis: Bil-for. We be their I Call be in the basis C ‘1‘ ' 17 training was promoted. Hhen times were hard and belt-tightening was necessary, training was often one of the first functions to be cut or eliminated. (Lusterman, 1977) Today, training is taking on greater importance as a means to achieve company goals, but frequently companies rely on vendors and other outside resources because they don't have the expertise internally to develop effective training programs. (Lustenman, 1977, 1982) Because training is an integral part of pay-for-knowledge plans, it becomes critical to have in-house experts who can maintain the training process on a daily basis. (Majchrzak, 1987) Part of the training expertise lies in knowing what works and what doesn't work for particular types of training. The major contribution of this study is the identification of specific training practices which have been found by companies which use pay-for-knowledge to be effective in helping to achieve company goals. Company administrators and training personnel in companies which use pay-for-knowledge compensation plans can use the results of the study to make better decisions about how to design, deliver, monitor and evaluate their training programs. It is anticipated that the research instrument can be used as a guide in designing PFK training programs, and as a tool in the evaluation of PFK training programs. This research is also a basis on which to conduct further research on the effectiveness of various designs of PFK training programs. Assumptions of the Study Inherent in the design of this study are four major assumptions. First, it is assumed that pay-for-knowledge is a viable compensation concept which will continue to be used and expanded in appropriate settings. In 1970, the term "pay-for-knowledge" and all related terms such as Skill-based vere not even in the These terms first ca studies such as D'De humminoru continue to grow at oav-ior-knovledge, vi i :mensation plan be research. A second set and industry. It is vorthvhile endeavor studies at this time loo-related traininc Ienii' ,..imate corporate ilrd HCGlfflll, 1987) Athird set ( "films. It is ass moments and that six: - .S-Snatically inve. c I literent settings lease “Sethere will beidentmed and ‘ E .Gli rd ‘ 18 such as skill-based pay, multi-skill compensation and pay for skills, were not even in the lexicon of key words used in research data bases. These terms first came into common use in the early 19805, and now studies such as O'Dell's (1986) and Gupta and Jenkins' (1986) project that up to 10% of U.S. companies are using PFK and that the number will continue to grow at a steady pace. It is also assumed that pay-for-knowledge, when appropriately implemented, is an effective compensation plan based on a foundation of decades of organizational research. A second set of assumptions has to do with training in business and industry. It is assumed that training is an effective and worthwhile endeavor of business and industry. There are very few studies at this time to support this assumption, but the literature on job-related training does indicate that job training is a necessary and legitimate corporate enterprise. (Majchrzak, 1986; McCord, 1987; Jacobs and McGiffin, 1987) A third set of assumptions has to do with the structure of training. It is assumed that any training function has certain common components and that these components can be identified and systematically investigated. It is also assumed that when training in different settings is directed toward similar ends and for similar reasons, there will be similarities in the training structure which can be identified and evaluated for effectiveness in achieving the goals toward which the training is directed. The final set of assumptions concerns the population of pay-for- knowledge users and the sites which have implemented PFK. Based on evidence from the literature, it 15 assumed that there are a significant noter of org mar Of CU It is assune: participate. reresentatic that respond" f.o:tions an: lav-ior-knovl according to us‘ng, rather icing at any i‘terature, i ”WEGQEDBS W5 are ess far the purpo T“Felice. to hing gentra “to? 19 number of organizations using PFK, although only a relatively small number of companies were actually clearly identified in the literature. It is assumed that the companies selected for the study wanted to participate, and therefore, their responses reflected as accurate a representation of their training as possible. It is further assumed that responding individuals were able to differentiate between training functions and other aspects of their PFK program. Definition of Terms Pay-for-knowledgg: a compensation plan in which employees are paid according to the repertoire of skills and knowledge they are capable of using, rather than being paid for a particular job which they may be doing at any given time. There are several similar terms used in the literature, including skill-based pay, multi-skill compensation, knowledge-based pay, and pay for skills. Plans which use the various terms are essentially the same in structure, content and intent, so that for the purposes of this study the terms can be considered synonymous. Therefore, to simplify communication, pay-for-knowledge or PFK will be used throughout this study to represent all plans of this nature. Hhile knowledge generally refers to mental concepts and infonmation, and skills generally refer to the ability to perform physical actions, both knowledge and skills are important and integral parts of job-related training. Use of the term pay-for-knowledge includes all knowledge and skills developed as a part of the job-related training in pay-for- knowledge compensation plans. Systematic Training: one way of analyzing training is to look at the type of structure of the training components. Training designs can range from a rather random structure to a highly systematic structure. systematic trainir viere each phase ‘ Systematic trainir procedures, and ii random training ma apply the componer unclear objectives reasures. [:33 Comments to: process, the i M "at! up the 3” PFK training 3‘lferent program: training that is ‘ WNW at a Site courses, technvca similar program C is anti-hall ‘desi Ii 20 Systematic training arranges components according to a logical sequence where each phase of the training cycle builds on preceding phases. Systematic training has clearly defined objectives and training procedures, and it has observable and measurable outcomes. In contrast, random training may not consistently include the same components nor apply the components in a consistent fashion. Random training has unclear objectives, inconsistent procedures, and may not include outcome measures. Program Components: include the people, the training site and context, the process, the resources, the actions, the policies, and the outcomes which make up the training program. Any key factor which has a bearing on a PFK training program can be considered to be a program component. Different programs may have different components. External Training: as used in this study, external training is any training that is designed and delivered by a source external to the company at a site away from the work place. This could include college courses, technical school, commercial training programs or any other similar program completely external to the work place. Externally-designed Internal Training: as used in this study, this is training which is designed by a source external to the company but delivered at the work place. This could include customized training offered at the work place by a community college, vendor training delivered at the work place, and purchased commercial training packages which may be video or computer-based. Internal Training: as used in this study, internal training is any twaining for-PFK which is designed and delivered completely in-house. Instruction is provided by and for in-house employees. .o'ca'ie mp ; thiner rgiatad .on:a~y ltf-dlr’s 5C’Struc {we ...h as .53 the bud Ettecti .v :3!" JEI‘ s 55‘5ct: - V 21 xggggg Training: typically a vendor in business and industry is another company which provides goods or services. In some cases, vendors have as their sole purpose to provide training such as management training, conmunication skills, project management, or sales training to other companies. In other cases, a vendor's primary purpose is to sell machinery or equipment to other companies. Training is an important related function for these vendors, so that employees of the client company can learn to safely, effectively, and efficiently operate the vendor's products. Greenfield: a term used to describe plants or offices which were newly constructed and designed to implement innovative management practices, such as pay-for-knowledge and team based operations. In the 19705, it was thought that greenfield settings might be a prerequisite for effective implementation of innovations. Subsequent investigations, however, found that innovative concepts could be implemented equally effectively in existing operations as long as veteran employees were involved and oriented to the new concepts. (Gupta and Jenkins, 1986) Horizontal Skill Progression: a term used to describe the type of skills which may be learned in a PFK program. In this case, horizontal skills are all at approximately the same level of responsibility. An example of horizontal skills might be learning all the skills for one work team, and then learning all the skills for a second work team. Usually, the sequence of learning horizontal skills does not matter except within a set of team skills which may require learning how to use a particular process or piece of equipment before learning a more complex operation on the same team. 22 Vertical §3111 Prggression: a second type of skill organization commonly used in PFK programs. Vertical skills are at increasingly higher levels of responsibility. An example of vertical skills might be learning all the skills for a work team, and than learning skills to be a team leader. Learning vertical skills is likely to follow a pre-established sequence based on learning prerequisite skills before learning more complex skills. Depth Skill Progression: a third type of skill organization commonly used in PFK programs. This type of progression is common in technical occupations where entry level workers have a basic level of understanding while experienced workers have a deeper understanding of the theories and concepts associated with the job. The sequence of learning is important in developing depth of knowledge and skill. Scope and Limitations of the Research The research population was limited to those companies which were identified in the literature or through network contacts as using some form of pay-for-knowledge compensation plan. Hithin those companies, the research was limited to investigating training which was specifically intended to develop the skills and knowledge which were designated as part of the pay-for-knowledge plan. It did not include other training practices which were not directly compensated by the pay-for-knowledge plan. Hhile it would have been ideal to select from all companies using PFK pay plans, many innovative companies prefer to remain anonymous. Many cases were reported in the literature using only pseudonyms and disguising details which might identify the companies. (Gupta and Jenkins, 1986) Therefore, there was no systematic way to identify all conpar tne st ids ifl QUEStll conceal actuall Ciizter researc Conclus CigCtEr 23 companies using pay-for-knowledge plans. As a result, the findings of the study can not be generalized to all users of PFK compensation plans. The research sample was limited to those companies who were willing to participate. In the first phase of the study, the research was limited to those companies which actually returned a completed questionnaire. The second phase of the study was limited to those companies which indicated a willingness to have on-site visits and were actually available for such visits. The review of related literature is reported in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 contains information on the design of the study and the research methodology. Chapter 4 contains the findings of the study. Conclusions and recommendations based on the study are presented in Chapter 5. 24 Chapter 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Pay-for-knowledge (PFK) is a relatively recent compensation plan. In fact, the Index to Business Periodicals had no term for this type of compensation plan prior to 1987. Now the Index to Business Periodicals lists related articles under the term "skill-based pay“. Other research data bases, such as BRS, InfoTrak, and Nexis, can perform free form searches so that any term related to PFK can be accessed. The majority of information available on PFK comes from journals, newspaper articles about companies using PFK, and documents from agencies engaged in studying employment and work issues. Most of these articles have been written since the mid-19705. PFK compensation plans were developed primarily as a means of increasing productivity, improving employee motivation and satisfaction, and rewarding employee growth and development. (Gupta and Jenkins, 1986). However, PFK has not been implemented in a vacuum, nor has it been a replacement for other compensation systems without other changes being implemented along with it. In all cases of PFK reported in the literature, PFK was implemented as part of a package of innovative changes related through their assumptions about employees and about effective work environments. Weisbord (1985) described the context of PFK as three related sVstems: the human system, the work system and the reward system. The e.“ ".Ig #' 5‘ 25 human system has to do with how people relate with one another on the job. In traditional settings, employees typically had one specific but small job to do in the chain of production in the organization. It might be putting a set of bolts on an endless stream of automobiles, or it might be assigning a tracking code to an endless stream of insurance claims. Each employee depended on the previous employee in the process to do their part efficiently and correctly. If an employee were absent or lax in their work, it affected all other employees down the line. Tardiness, absenteeism, poor work habits, and poor work quality all reduced productivity in traditional organizations. In contrast, innovative human systems typically employ work teams structured around a product or complete process. Employees on work teams learn all the skills needed by the team so that there is greater flexibility in who does what on any given day. The work system involves infonmation and policies for managing how the work gets done. In traditional settings, decisions are typically made by managers. Employees are given little information and much direction. This style of management, which McGregor (1960) called Theory X, was consistent with the bureaucratic structure and scientific management principles prevalent in most organizations. Innovative work systems give employees the information and resources necessary for managing their own work responsibilities. They may make decisions about ordering supplies, making daily work assignments, identifying problems, and suggesting solutions. In general, employees in innovative work systems have greater control over how their work gets done. The reward system is simply how employees are compensated for the work they do. In traditional settings, employees are paid for the W o'c.‘ Skii' 26 specific job to which they are assigned. Raises in compensation are based on length of service with the company and on promotions to jobs of greater responsibility in the company. Innovative reward systems tie pay to other factors such as performance, productivity, or corporate profits. In the case of PFK, the reward system is tied to gaining new skills and knowledge. In the case study reported by Weisbord (1985), the employees in his forms-printing company first developed and implemented a PFK plan in 1967. Weisbord initially restructured the human system in his company into work teams in order to increase productivity by overcoming problems created by absenteeism and other production bottlenecks. Each team was responsible for a group of customers, and the team had to know all the skills to process a customer order from beginning to end. The teams were actively involved in a series of weekly meetings to identify and solve work system issues. In the early meetings it was clear that many people had limited knowledge about what they were doing. The hourly employees had relied on supervisors to make the majority of day- to-day decisions, and supervisors relied on top management to make decisions about larger problems. Through the weekly meetings, work teams gained the information they needed to be more self-directing and independent in their daily work. The question came up as to how to administer wages when people were no longer assigned to a specific job. An employee committee studied the issue for several weeks and finally recommended that wage increases should be based on learning new skills. Weisbord learned from this process that: the essence of effective organization was learning, not producing mindlessly. . . . With a shock I realized that the way we had been running our business was anti-learning. We had no tolerance w... a - J) 3 f '3 cm eds tank i 27 for mistakes. I wanted everything done right the first time, including solving problems nobody had ever faced before. . . . Instead of giving people learning time, I leaped to solutions. I did not understand the subtle connections between learning, self-esteem, and productivity. (Weisbord, 1985, pg. 13.) Weisbord's management changes were implemented in an existing company with seasoned employees. A much more widely publicized project took place in a "greenfield", or newly built facility, with newly hired employees. This second project was General Foods' Topeka, Kansas, Gaines Pet Food Plant. In the late 19605, top management personnel at General Foods were concerned about productivity, quality of work, and worker disaffection. With assistance from consultants at the Harvard Business School, General Foods decided to build a new plant, hire new workers to staff the plant, and implement a series of radically different management practices from those used in traditional organizations. As in Weisbord's company, self-managing teams were the cornerstone of the redesigned organization. Walton reported that 'an attempt was made to design every set of team tasks to include both manual skills and mental functions such as diagnosing mechanical problems and planning" (Walton, 1978a, pg. 42). Team leaders replaced foremen. Their role, in part, was to facilitate production decisions made by team members. The plant itself was designed to encourage informal gatherings of team members during work hours. Status symbols, such as executive dining rooms, separate entrances, and reserved parking spaces, were eliminated. As in Weisbord's company, pay increases at the Topeka plant depended on learning new skills. The Topeka system became a model for other innovative companies. Several studies were done at Topeka to determine how well the new practices were achieving their intended purposes. Schrank (1974) ”in .ie c J" \‘l :9 &h L' 'i v. "we? 28 . reported that workers had freedom to move around and communicate: had high levels of satisfaction, commitment and self-esteem; and participated in decision-making. An Institute for Social Research study showed high levels of worker satisfaction at the Topeka plant. (Lawler, Jenkins, a Herline, 1977). Walton (1978a) reported that savings resulting from the work innovations at Topeka were around one million dollars annually; there were no lost time accidents in the first 3 3/4 years of operation; and absenteeism and turnover rates were greatly reduced. Given the positive outcomes reported by the Topeka plant, other companies became interested in adapting the Topeka system to their own situations. During the years following these early work redesign projects, pay-for-knowledge gained increasing acceptance in a wide variety of settings. However, it was not until 1986, when a study done at the University of Arkansas was published, that the extent of use and. the characteristics of pay-for-knowledge plans were systematically studied and reported. Context and Characteristics of Pay-for—Knowledge Plans Union vs. Non—union Companies Pay-for-knowledge plans have been implemented in both union and non-union settings. Early in the process of experimenting with PFK, a common argument was that PFK would not work in unionized companies, because PFK was inconsistent with such traditional collective bargaining issues as job assignments, salary levels, and seniority (Gupta a Jenkins, 1986; Poza a Markus, 1980; Walton, 1978b; Walton, 1982). However, Holusha (1989) reported that the American Flint Glass Workers innon participated willingly in a Corning Glassworks experiment at a plant in Blacksburg, Virginia. The union supported the compensation st'u than 29 structure in which about 70 production employees were salaried rather than paid by the hour, and pay increased as employees learned new skills such as statistical process control, machine maintenance, and shipping procedures. Jackson (1989a) described a five-year contract between Eaton Corporation's Fluid Power Division in Marshall, Michigan, and UAW Local 220. PFK was part of a plan to ”improve quality and productivity and to make the plant more competitive." (Jackson, 1989a) Several General Motor's plants also implemented PFK in union settings (Espo, 1985; Apcar, 1985; Cherry, 1982; Jackson, 1989b). It is clear from these reports that PFK has been successfully implemented in unionized companies. Gupta and Jenkins (1986) report that data suggest PFK can be quite effective in unionized settings as long as labor-management relations are good, and labor officials and members are involved in development and implementation of the plan. According to Schweizer (1986), one of the researchers in the Gupta a Jenkins study, there are at least three reasons why unions can support PFK plans: 1) PFK and its related innovations increase productivity which makes companies more competitive. 2) The more flexible workforce associated with PFK plans makes for a more stable workforce with fewer layoffs and therefore, greater job security for union members. 3) PFK is also usually associated with somewhat higher wages. Existing vs. Greenfield Locations Another assumption of early experiments with PFK was that it could not be effectively implemented in existing organizations. Many of the first New Design plants were built in locations removed from other existing corporate facilities. Except for a few managers within the corporation who were emitted to the new system, most employees were 30 newly-hired in order that they not have any preconceived notions about the corporation (Gupta a Jenkins, 1986). However, Weisbord (1985) successfully implemented PFK in his existing facility. PFK has also been successfully implemented in other existing facilities such as Eaton Corporation's Fluid Power Division in Marshall, Michigan (Jackson, 1989a); the Clark Manufacturing Plant in Detroit (Jackson, 1989b); several General Motors facilities, and companies in the garment industry (Jenkins a Gupta, 1985). Mangement Context PFK systems are typically implemented in conjunction with management philosophies which emphasize human success as well as economic success (Walton, 1982). The newer management philosophies focus on employee participation and on creating a work environment which preserves the dignity and self-esteem of all employees (Walton, 1982; Weisbord, 1985). These philosophies also tend to emphasize employee development. They tend to demonstrate a commitment to employee growth and learning by providing the resources and facilities needed for development to occur. The majority of PFK programs reported in the literature have been implemented in conjunction with self-managing or autonomous work groups. (Apcar, 1985; Cherry, 1982; Holusha, 1989; Jackson, 1989a, 1989b; Lawler, 1978; Poza a Marcus, 1980; Walton, 1975, 1978a, 1979; Weisbord, 1985). PFK is well-suited to work teams because of the emphasis on developing multiple skills needed by the team. Gupta and Jenkins (1986) found several factors that contributed to the success of PFK programs. Openness and communication between workers and management were seen to promote trust and shared goals. iamiactur“ between par Context for interested and flaxlb‘ important ' employs suita: veil dl ODDOrt: underS‘ 9030 El 1966, I Gup‘. facilities ind Nail YOI lad increag times as me ”'9 years We”, 19 9"" by 122 Survey Who i fUt'u're. Th iii-trade“! ”C are rallied ‘ ill'oving Dar Wedge wit 31 Manufacturing or work processes which depended on interdependence between parts of the organization were considered an appropriate context for PFK. Employees most suited to PFK were those who were interested in learning, able to plan and solve problems, open-minded and flexible, and able to communicate well. Practices considered important included: employment selection procedures that allow for selection of suitable employees; highly structured training programs with well defined tasks that must be demonstrated over time; opportunities for advancement through skill acquisition; understanding at all levels of the organization; team design; good evaluation tests; and stable employment. (Gupta 5 Jenkins, 1986, pg. 108). Prevalence Gupta and Jenkins (1986) found that PFK was in use in one or more facilities in about 8% of the U.S. corporations listed on the American and New York stock exchanges. D'Dell found that the use of PFK progrems had increased significantly in the years between 1980 and 1985. “Three times as many pay for knowledge systems were implemented in the last five years (68 percent) as in the prior five years (23 percent).' (D'Dell, 1986, pg. 10). O'Dell also found that PFK was projected to grow by 122%. This figure was based on the number of companies in the survey who were not using PFK but were planning to implement it in the future. This is the highest projected increase of all types of non-traditional reward systems (such as all-salaried, gain sharing, profit sharing, group incentives, individual incentives, and lump sum bonuses) included in 0'Dell's study. These increases in the use of PFK are related in part to the perceived effectiveness of the program in improving performance. 0f the firms in 0'Dell's study who used pay for knowledge with production workers, 89% of them felt the impact on 32 performance "has been positive or very positive." (O'Dell, 1986, pg. 15). In summary, PFK is a compensation plan that has been implemented to provide flexibility for management and better pay and quality of work life for employees. This is characteristic of the more cooperative labor management relations which have been on the increase since the 19705 and 19805. Cooperative arrangements are increasing as American industries undergo fundamental changes in labor relations practices and policies in order to become more productive and competitive. Major benefits include greater workforce flexibility and employee development, increased productivity, greater workforce stability, improved employee attitudes and behaviors, and improved labor-management relations. The Role of Training in PFK Gupta and Jenkins (1986) indicate that there is still no information on the effectiveness of PFK as an innovation separate from other innovations with which it is commonly implemented. One of the contributing elements of effectiveness is the training that is done to provide employees with the skills and knowledge for which they will be paid. Feurer quotes Gerald Ledford of the Center for the Study of Effective Organizations at the University of Southern California as saying, "Because the whole system is built around training, it's imperative to do the training well and cost-efficiently." (Feurer, 1987, pg. 63). Galagan (1988) stresses the importance of workforce training for the coming years. She indicates that workers will change jobs five to six times during their careers. By the year 2000, up to 15 million 33 jobs in manufacturing will require different skills than they do today, so that "75% of all workers currently employed will need retraining." (Galagan, 1988, pg. 16). Majchrzak (1988) indicates that unstructured on-the-job training (OJT) is a primary method of job skill training. She also points out that this form of training falls far short of the training needs in companies today, especially for those companies which are moving toward processes using sophisticated automated technologies. Majchrzak recommends that companies institute structured job training with an emphasis on in-house training programs. Many of the articles on PFK contain prescriptions for implementing PFK effectively. Most of the prescriptions have to do with the design of the plan itself, such as how the work will be organized, how pay will be tied to specific skills, and the timing for employees to move from one skill to another. Some of the prescriptions are peripherally related to training, such as the numper of skills that can be learned, the sequence of learning, and how skill competence should be assessed. However, specific training prescriptions are fairly limited. There is a larger body of literature on training in industry which addresses issues relevant to PFK training. It was possible to draw on the combined bodies of PFK literature and the more general training literature to develop a set of prescriptions which serve as a model for PFK training. Prescriptions for a Pay-for-KnowledgeTraining Process Figure 1 in Chapter 1 presents an outline for a systematic training proce55. This outline was developed by the researcher, drawing on Sredl and Rothwell's ASTD Reference Guide to Professional Training_ the I 34 Roles and Competencies (1987), and it is used here as the organizing framework for discussing the prescriptions for a model PFK training process. The model consists of five phases of a training cycle. Within each phase, there are a set of primary functions and a set of support functions. The primary functions are actions which lead directly to the outcome goals for each phase. The support functions are actions which help make it possible to carry out the primary functions. Although many of the prescriptions in the PFK literature deal with issues such as salary plans and management philosophy, these will not be included in this discussion unless they are directly related to a training issue. Planning and Design: Primary Functions The primary functions in the planning phase include assessing needs, analyzing jobs and tasks, developing objectives, and designing the program. ASSESS NBEdS Walton (1979) cautions against relying on hunches as a basis for planning. Instead, he advocates doing a hard analysis of the organization using a systematic approach to determine those points in the system that would benefit from a PFK design, as well as to determine the “potential benefits that might accrue if the cultural ideals are actually realized" (pg. 97). Lawler and Bullock (1978) recommend conducting a two-part analysis of the existing situation. Part one would identify objective facts about current practices and procedures, administrative procedures, training, decision-making processes, and resources and limitations within the organization. This would also include an assessment of the available space versus the needed space for ti‘ngs sessic the S) eos'ity c'imat P t:,|fi hitte‘ 35 things like work team meetings, problem-solving and decisionemaking sessions, and training. Part two would assess employees' perceptions of the system. This should include views about internal and external pay equity, the relationship between pay and perfonmance, organizational climate, the nature of jobs, and superior-subordinate relationships. The survey of employees should include all who will be involved in the PFK program, including management, union, and employees, to determine their needs, perceptions, and values. According to Walton (1982), in union plants, both management and union leadership must be committed to the PFK project in order for it to succeed. The importance of assessing the values of the organization, according to Lawler and Bullock (1978), is to ensure that compatibility of values will exist in the PFK program. Lytle states that one cannot carry out change in one portion of an organization "independently of the values, nonms, attitudes, and practices of the remainder of that organization." (Lytle, 1975, pg. 133) Lawler and Olson (1977) recommend analyzing the demographics of the expected workforce, and the expected markets from which employees will be drawn. An analysis of needs should identify the jobs, the nature of those jobs, and job levels within the organization which might come under the PFK plan (Lawler and Olson, 1977; Lawler and Ledford, 1985). The analysis should also identify the types of training necessary to enable employees to competently perform their jobs. Types of training might include such areas as job skills and knowledge, task operations, team-building, quality control, and safety (Walton, 1978a). Many experts recommend that the needs assessment should be conducted in light of what is known about PFK. PFK appears to be most 36 successful where it is congruent with three other areas: the reasons for adopting PFK, the management philosophy and practices, and the work design. . First, an organization should examine the reasons that are appropriate for adopting PFK, and determine if their needs are consistent with these reasons. (Lawler and Ledford, 1985) According to Lawler and Ledford (1985), PFK can result in efficiency because it provides flexibility to cover for absenteeism, turn-overs, and employees in training. It can also provide flexibility to adapt to frequent product or process changes, such as those resulting from technological developments, as long as the administrative requirements for training, evaluation and record keeping are not unwieldy (Lawler and Bullock, 1978). PFK can also provide flexibility to accommodate interruptions in production or processing, such as parts shortages or equipment break-downs. Lawler and Olson (1977) indicate that PFK is appropriate where companies want to change the base pay system, especially if the desired change is toward a performance-based pay plan. PFK is appropriate if a company desires to increase employee participation and communication. Lawler and Bullock (1978) indicate that PFK is appropriate where there is high interdependence among tasks and individuals which requires or would benefit from employees having broad knowledge of the work setting. A second area of comparison in determining whether PFK would be appropriate for a company is the management philosophies and practices. Lawler and Ledford (1985) indicate that PFK is especially suited to use inth a participative management style which gives employees a Perspective of the the entire organizational operation, how it is moaged. {1975) s villingo availaol with arc-r functiOr in: norm IC'KETS. 'l’kers' 37 managed, and what information supports management decisions. Lytle (1975) states that participative management requires trust and willingness to share power. For example, information traditionally available only to management, such as costs and schedules, is shared with workers. Support groups may be asked to give up some of their functiions, at times serving as consultants to workers. Professionals who normally would deal with supervisors may instead deal directly with workers. (Lytle, 1975) Gupta and Jenkins point out that enlarging workers' scope of influence increases employee identification with the product: or service and creates greater feelings of self-worth. However, this requires a high degree of commitment at both the plant and the corporate level. (Gupta and Jenkins, 1986) It also requires training so employees know how to apply the information and shared power. (Supta and Jenkins (1986) say that organizations structured to fit and evolve with the needs, desires, and abilities of the work force Provide a healthy context for PFK programs. PFK works well in a sociOtechnical system where management goals include both human success as we] ‘I as economic success. The commitment to human and economic success is conveyed symbolically, through policies such as no lay-offs and egalitarianism, and this elicits worker commitment. rAppropriate management philosophies value employee development and are optimistic about the capabilities and potential of employees. Such companies are willing to make a large investment in training. (Lawler and Ledford, 1985) They promote learning, growth, skill acQuisition, flexibility, mutual trust, informality, open Communications, and equality (Gupta and Jenkins, 1986). Where companies 38 use work teams, the teams are given authority to determine their own training needs. (Inman, 1975) The third area which should be analyzed for congruence with PFK design is the design of work within the company. PFK fits well with work teams, especially if the performance of one person or subgroup affects others and depends on good coordination and teamwork among individuals. Examples of such instances include process production situations; batch or mass production which depends on ability to cover for absenteeism, turn-overs, production bottlenecks, maintenance and repair of equipment, and changes in product mix; and non-manufacturing situations such as banking, insurance paper processing, and other situations which require coordination or flexibility. (Lawler and Ledford, 1985; Gupta and Jenkins, 1986) PFK also fits well in situations of knowledge-based work, such as technical ladders used with engineers and scientific professionals. PFK is a viable choice where vertical moves within the organization are limited, but horizontal moves are available. (Lawler and Ledford, 198 : Gupta and Jenkins, 1986) Analyze Jobs and Tasks The second of the primary functions in the planning and design - stage is identifying what positions in the organization will be covered under the PFK plan, and analyzing the jobs and tasks which need to be done within those positions. While it may be more difficult to identify, measure, and quantify skills for managerial, technical, professional, and research and development positions, it is still possible to do so. It involves such issues as which skills a person should learn, whether it is important to reward learning upwardly and/or downwardly vertical skills, whether it is important to reward learning . - (I) (I) 39 skills in greater depth, deciding where skills may be learned (such as within the company, or in college), and determining how skill change will be assessed. Job and task analysis also includes identifying the skills needed to perform those jobs and tasks. (Lawler and Ledford, 1985) Lytle advises doing an analysis which intensely examines each portion of the operation, including its processes, equipment, and layouts, and which determines the resulting impact on worker skills, skill identification, cycle time, pacing, decision-making, and feedback. (Lytle, 1975) Any performance or job characteristic must be able to be measurable in a publicly discussable and defensible manner in order to be considered as a basis for paying individuals. Therefore, it is important to describe job characteristics with as much specific detail as possible. (Lawler and Bullock, 1978) Job analysis includes not only motion patterns and observable performance, but decision rules and mental processes as well. (Gardner, 1981) Gardner states that an exclusive focus on motion patterns is insufficient analysis to define job components in order to devise appropriate training interventions. He recommends the following process for analyzing jobs. First, analyze the performance of skilled employees. List job tasks in order of priority, indicate what tasks can be interrupted for others, and indicate at what stage(s) in executing a task interruptions could occur to attend to other demands. Determine what subtasks are actually performed simultaneously rather than sequentially. Compare skilled performance with novice performance and with medium performance, and note specifically what differentiates between degrees of skill in performance, such as speed, efficiency, simultaneous completion of 40 subtasks, anticipation, or decision processes. A precise definition of what distinguishes skilled performance from rudimentary performance includes infonmation about feedback. Determine the source of the feedback (visual, kinesthetic, tactile, or auditory), and describe how it is obtained in skillful execution of a task. Determine exactly what is anticipated, how it is attended to, and what preparations are made for it. These details will be important later in order for instructors to effectively coach learners. Gardner states that job organization involves concurrent job demands and task interruptions. He recommends grouping tasks into categories for job organization such that schedules and priorities can be established. Job categories might include required processing tasks, make-ready tasks, emergency tasks, preventive tasks and routine cleaning tasks. Full job competence also includes coping with unusual circumstances which may confront a job and interrupt nonmal processes. List the anticipated unusual circumstances and potential emergencies, and describe appropriate reactions to them. (Gardner, 1981) If the sequence of skill learning is important, define the sequence or establish a process for making learning-sequence decisions. (Gupta a Jenkins, 1985) This can be done by breaking out the simplest and most necessary aspects of the job for early training, identifying those parts which can be developed at a mid-level, and those which are expected at the expert level. Develop Objectives The third of the primary functions in planning and design is to develop objectives. A company must decide if PFK is to be implemented as part Of a new plant start-up 0i" as part Of a change in an existing pl a- at it. u,iiv - 41 plant. (Walton, 1979) They must also make an explicit statement about the goals that PFK is supposed to achieve in the organization, clearly stated in a way that allows objective assessment of the system. (Lawler and Olson, 1977) One of the very first activities in developing objectives is to make or confirm decisions about the management philosophy in order to test congruency and consistency of other PFK decisions with the chosen philosophy. The philosophy should include statements about decision-making processes, communication, reward levels, and organizational performance goals. (Lawler and Olson, 1977). Design the PFK Progggm The last of the primary functions in the planning and design stage is to design the PFK program. The organization must make a strong commitment of time, effort and personnel to design and implement PFK. (Lawler and Ledford, 1985; Lawler and Olson, 1977). Walton (1979) indicates that companies must keep economic as well as human considerations in mind. If it is economically necessary for workers to have stable assignments and to master their jobs in order to control new technology, then PFK should be structured in such a way as to delay movement among jobs and learning of multiple skills until it is more economically feasible. In other words, Walton recommends designing the program to pay for depth of knowledge when stability and mastery are important, and to pay for breadth of knowledge when flexibility and change are important and feasible. Walton also recommends designing in reassurances that PFK is not a "management gimmick" to weaken the union nor a program that will result in loss of authority and prestige for managers. Walton (1979), and Lawler and Bullock (1978) recommend 42 designing in watch points or pulse taking functions because situations in the organization will change, and it is important to respond to problems and situational changes as they occur. Where changes may seem threatening, such as when managers are asked to share power, pay-offs must be built in and directly linked to the change in order for affected personnel to accept it. (Lytle, 1975) Because PFK is a compensation plan, pay structure is an important design consideration. However, since the pay structure only indirectly affects the training process, it will only be discussed briefly here. According to Lawler and Ledford (1985), the pay rate schedule should be set up to pay for the number, kind, and depth of skills the organization needs and the employee is currently willing and able to perfonm, whether or not the employee is currently actually performing those skills. Gupta and Jenkins (1986) indicate that the company must determine how to handle differentials in skill difficulty to avoid real or perceived inequities in pay progression potential. For example, higher level employees who perform more difficult skills which take longer to learn may object to lower level workers having more rapid pay progression because their skills are easier to learn. The value—skill ratio is probably not one-to-one, according to Gupta and Jenkins (1986), so planners will have to figure out how to assign some weighting to skills to help equalize potential. The pay system should accommodate frequent changes as employees learn new skills and move on the pay scale. (Lawler and Ledford, 1985) Planners also must determine whether the pay rate will include a performance factor such that advancement on the pay 43 scale depends on meeting a performance standard, or that better performance results in somewhat higher pay. Where PFK is to be implemented with a team concept, team design must be planned. Lytle (1975) indicates that teams should have no more than 15 to 20 members. Teams should include all persons who contribute significantly to team output, including support personnel, and supervisors. Team development, maintenance and utilization must be deliberate to accomplish intended goals, and teams should understand their interdependence with other teams. Teams should have latitude to design their own way of operating. They should be given both group responsibility and the necessary tools to exercise that responsibility, including training, information, time, and space. Gupta and Jenkins (1986) indicate that planners must determine how team leaders will be selected and what the length of service of the team leader should be. An important issue in designing the PFK training program is the nature of skill progression. First, planners must decide what positions an employee can try to qualify for, such as skills for one work team, skills for all work teams in the organization, or requirements for moving beyond work teams into other positions, such as management. (Lawler and Ledford, 1985) The design should specify the skill progression within and among related skills, as well as progression requirements for moving to marginally or totally unrelated skill areas. The design should establish the minimum number of skills a person must learn for contribution to the team and to organizational flexibility. It should specify the minimum and maximum time limits for learning one skill, the minimum and maximum time limits for performing a skill before moving to a new skill, and the maximum number of skills an employee can 44 learn at one facility (plant, office, or other work site). (Gupta and Jenkins, 1986) Planners must determine whether to use "pay back periods“ or other limits on employee movement in order for the organization to regain some of the investment in training by having employees perform at mastery level for a specified length of time. (Lawler and Ledford, 1985) Planners also need to determine if there should be a quota on the number of workers at one skill level at any one time. Walton (1978a) indicates that quotas are not particularly good. Training is enhanced when there are no quotas, since employees are willing to train each other when there is no risk or penalty in doing so. Gupta and Jenkins (1986) indicate that planners must decide where and when training should occur. Decisions should include whether training occurs on-the-job, in a classroom in-house or at an external site; whether it is done before or after work; and the frequency and length of training sessions. Methods for detenmining the outcomes of training are an important part of the planning and design phase. Planners must decide how competency will be assessed, such as through peer-group assessment, supervisor judgment, written questions and answers, self-appraisal, or a combination of several types of measures. Assessment procedures should also be specified, such as when and how often assessment is done, what happens if an employee doesn't meet the assessment criteria, and what happens if competence in skills learned earlier drops off. Criteria need to be established for evaluating mastery of skills. (Lawler and Ledford, 1985) The standards must be set objectively and concretely in order to be able to assess growth of knowledge and tie compensation to appropriate job-related skills and 45 knowledge. (Gupta and Jenkins, 1986) Lawler and Ledford (1985) indicate that planners must determine the acceptable level of trade-off between production and skill acquisition. This will be an evolving issue, related to worker competence, and affecting the timing and scheduling of training. Planners should set up a tracking system to keep track of who is qualified to do what. The plan should specify who manages the system, how often it is updated, and what details and data are kept on it. (Lawler and Ledford, 1985) Lawler and Ledford (1985), and Gupta and Jenkins (1986) indicate that companies must determine how to handle "hold-ups" and "topping out." Hold-ups occur where a worker is ready to move but no position is available. The authors recommend considering a special compensation rate for the time a worker is held back. Topping out occurs when workers reach the top of the PFK pay scale, and there are no additional options available. This typically takes two or three years, and can lead to discontent for workers who have become accustomed to learning, growing, and receiving higher pay. Methods for handling topping out should include training options as well as compensation adjushments. Lawler and Olson (1977) recommend that part of the PFK program design should be a communication protocol for informing employees about all aspects of the PFK system. This protocol should include pay, benefits and fringes, training, job roles, advancements, and additional opportunities. The PFK program design must consider not only content issues, but context issues as well. For example, the plan must provide for space 46 for team meetings or other employee meetings to engage in problem-solving, decision-making, and training. (Lytle, 1975) Planning and Design: Support Functions Train Managers and Supervisors Employees, whether in work teams or in more traditional work environments, must have management that understands and appreciates their operations. Managers and supervisors must have knowledge and skill in motivation and job design, the use and development of work teams, leadership, and intergroup relations. (Lytle, 1975). Since PFK is often used in conjunction with work teams in a participative management context, it is important to provide training in participative management techniques to managers and supervisors. The roles of directing and controlling work operations, traditionally held by supervisors, often shift to team leaders in a PFK setting. The supervisor's role then becomes facilitating and providing leadership for team leaders. This change in roles may blur the lines of authority for decision-making and responsibility, and may seem threatening to experienced supervisors. Therefore, it is important to carefully plan how supervisors will be recruited, selected and prepared for their new roles. Supervisors should be recruited based on the technology used, the experience level of the workforce and the needs of the company. They should be selected on the bases of their expertise, the compatibility of their management philosophy with that of the company, career paths available to supervisors, and capabilities of management levels above supervisor. They should be trained in human relations skills (performance appraisal, problem-solving, team meetings, . 47 communication), the work process (such as manufacturing or services), and how the work system functions. Finally, supervisors' evaluation and rewards should be tied to team or employee group development. (LeBlanc, 1990) In companies which use a team structure, team leaders also need to be trained in such management skills as planning, making work assignments, follow-up, problem-solving, and communications. (Gupta and Jenkins, 1986) Involve Relevant Employees The second support function in the planning and design phase is to involve relevant employees in the process. Lawler and Olson (1977), Ledford (1989), and Ledford and Bergel (1990) indicate that involving all employee groups who will be affected by the PFK plan in the design process will increase trust and communication in the organization, and acceptance and understanding of the plan. Lytle (1975) and Ketchum (1975) caution that someone with authority to make decisions must be in a leadership role of conceptualization and implementation of the PFK program. This person or people should be personally secure in the organization. Others to involve include top level management, supervisors who will work with the PFK plan, union leaders, technical consultants, and team members or similar employee work groups. (Lawler and Olson, 1977; Lawler and Bullock, 1978; Lytle, 1975; Ketchum, 1975; Gupta and Jenkins, 1986; Ledford, Tyler and Dixey, 1990) Management needs to be involved in order to demonstrate commitment and in order to be knowledgeable about outcomes. Corporate and local management can demonstrate commitment by emphasizing personal growth, problem-solving, and decision-making, and by providing the time and the resources necessary for planning all aspects of the PFK system 48 from management philosophy and rewards to training and production issues. (LeBlanc, 1990) ’The time and resources required should not be underestimated. (Lawler and Olson, 1977; Lawler and Bullock, 1978; Gupta and Jenkins, 1986) Union leaders need to be involved in order to address contract issues, and in order that the union understand and support the new design. Understanding and support can come through building trust, exchanging information, participating in training in PFK methods, and through joint experimentation and evaluation. (Ketchum, 1975) Technical consultants should be involved in the planning and design process in order to provide information about work design, management practices, training design, and compensation and reward issues. If PFK is being considered for an established organization rather than a greenfield setting, Lawler and Ledford (1985) recommend involving veteran employees in planning in order that their fears and concerns are addressed and in order to benefit from their understanding of the skill requirements of the jobs to be affected. If PFK is being considered for a new start-up operation, Lawler and Olson (1977) recommend hiring some employees early in order to involve them in planning and design of the PFK program. Careful consideration must be given to the extent of employee involvement desired in design decisions, as well as which employees to involve. Gupta and Jenkins (1986) recommend assessing potential sources of resistance and involving employees in creating solutions to overcome resistance. Potential sources of resistance include skilled trades who may have to share some of their previous responsibilities, supervisors 49 who fear loss of power through participative management, and non-pay-for-knowledge employees who fear wage disparity. Since so many groups of employees will be involved in the planning and design process, Lawler and Bullock (1978) recommend making clear decisions about who is to study, recommend, and make final decisions about each aspect of the pay-for-knowledge plan. Finally, Gupta and Jenkins (1986) indicate that it is not enough to have a strong design for start-up. Companies should provide an on-going planning process so that the program and related training evolve with the needs, growth and changes in the company. Developing Training: Primary Functions The second phase of the training cycle is developing the instructional program. There are five primary functions in this phase: selecting content and developing course plans; selecting delivery methods and media; arranging facilities; marketing the program to trainees, and preparing instructional materials. Select Content and Develop Course Plans Lawler and Ledford (1985) recommend that part of the course plan should include tests and measures that can be used to determine whether, and how well an individual has learned the skills involved in a training module. Davis, Alexander, and Yelon (1974) indicate that it is important to develop such tests and measures early in the course planning process in order to base instructional plans on the desired outcomes. Lytle (1975) indicates that course content should include basic knowledge about the product, work processes, machinery and equipment, villi“. lit is lent‘: Sit-l9. orccs tear.- aooro Dress Slug.“ mean tasl skill, . overall, dialing V issues thl reCfiihlend Gar trier to r Sister T 'l‘ice to k units ihi t “W be i Lit: again! dnd 50 quality control, and the business or industry context in general. If PFK is to be implemented along with a team work design, Gupta and Jenkins (1986), and Lytle (1975) indicate that some orientation training should involve whole teams, and should cover team building, group process, and decision-making. According to Lytle (1975), the timing of team building seminars and other basic training factors must be cycled appropriately with start-up procedures so as not to be lost in the pressures of starting up a new program. The seminars should be held far enough ahead to not conflict with the start up but close enough to have immediate application. In general, safety and quality statements should be embedded in job task descriptions, and would therefore be taught as part of the job skill. However, Gardner (1981) indicates that if there are some overall, general safety or quality factors, such as procedures for dealing with a fire, these should be addressed as separate training issues that are not job specific. Ledford, Tyler and Dixey (1990) recommend that such topics be covered in a classroom setting. Gardner (1981) recommends developing needed skills quickly in order to readily incorporate new employees into a high-performance system. Training should focus on "need to know“ skills rather than on "mice to know" skills. Training content should be broken into learning units which result in performing purposeful skills, and the training should be based on principles of adult learning. Lytle (1975) indicates that training should be cyclical rather than one-shot. There should be refresher seminars to cover topics again, and to expand on the topic in greater depth. the mth: it‘s“ ) a: lie recor structurl incliidu. videotap. ‘Taioe I & Ti training deliverei external if at d killing ”Shoo 51 Select Delivery Methods and Media The second primary function of the development phase is to select the methods and media by which training will be delivered. Majchrzak (1988) advocates using active learning methods, such as simulations. She recommends using off-the-job classroom training, followed by structured and supervised on-the-job experience. She also recommends individualized training modules which use computers, audiotapes, videotapes, or written materials. Arrange Facilities The third primary function of the development phase is to arrange training facilities. Training may be conducted in-house or it may be delivered through an external source. When training is provided by an external source, the training facilities may be on-site at the company, or at a site designated by the external resource. For in-house training, Majchrzak (1988) advises companies to set aside specific classroom space for training. Market nggram to Trainees Trainees must be infonmed of the training opportunities available to them, and of the schedule of training. (Sredl a Rothwell, 1987) Prepare Instructional Materials As training is scheduled, course developers need to prepare specific instructional materials for the upcoming training. (Sredl a Rothwell, 1987) “liars. train "ill si t.- J- o 5 r1 uniQUES reinI‘Ol‘ceme TnSt’UCtlon \Rei fie tril'liln Sklils to b in: Olson ’ 52 Developing Training: Support Functions The support functions of the development phase include selecting instructors, training instructors, and involving relevant employees. Select Instructors Majchrzak (1988) recommends using a variety of employees as instructors, including managers, supervisors, manufacturing engineers, skilled workers, and others with the knowledge and expertise appropriate to the skill area. Train Instructors Lytle (1975) advocates conducting train-the-trainer workshops so that more experienced workers will know how to train less experienced workers. Gardner (1981) indicates that, at a minimum, instructor training should include the principles and processes of learning, techniques of effective instruction with an emphasis on feedback and reinforcement, methods for analyzing learning difficulties, and instruction in how to correct learning problems. Involve Relevant Employees It is important to involve relevant employees at all phases of the training cycle. Determining who to involve depends on the job skills to be trained and the nature of the involvement desired. (Lawler and Olson, 1977; Lawler and Bullock, 1978; Lawler and Ledford, 1985; Lytle, 1975; Ketchum, 1975; Gupta and Jenkins, 1986) the 1 learr C“°' on th lfoce assoc 32:70) lie-ifs faci li use fe l“oncti SD‘EEd i fillies lies 53 Implementing Training: Primary Functions There are two primary functions in the implementation phase of the training cycle: offer instruction, and insure transfer of newly learned skills to the job. - Offer Instruction Gardner (1981) describes five stages of training, each building on the outcomes of the previous stage. Stage one training covers procedural steps in executing a task, and the gross motion patterns associated with performing a task. Gardner calls this a first cut approximation of the skill. Stage two training focuses on eliminating ineffective or incorrect motions and functions, gaining speed and facility with the task, and gaining greater efficiency in learning to use feedback during task operations. In stage three, correct task functioning should be in place, so the focus is on developing greater speed or facility in performing the skill. Stage four training emphasizes organizing multiple tasks, setting priorities, using decision rules, and doing advance planning for anticipated work. Stage five training focuses on coping with unusual conditions, adjusting the job routine, scheduling, and correcting or easing situations resulting from adverse circumstances and problems. Gardner indicates that full job competence is not attained until an employee is capable of coping independently with unusual or abnormal conditions. Training in coping should include a definition of what may be considered abnormal, such as unusual atmospheric conditions, long-term lack of supplies, or a major 54 breakdown of equipment. Training should also include practice with multiple “what would you do if . . . " situations. Some tasks may be performed simultaneously rather than sequentially. However, in teaching the subtasks, it is usually necessary to present them sequentially, in a predetenmined order which facil 1 tates later integration of the subtasks. It is also important to provide feedback to assist trainees in integrating the subtasks into a simul taneous operation. Davis, Alexander, and Yelon (1974), and Gardner (1981) emphasize the importance of allowing enough practice time in between training sessions for trainees to assimilate the new skills. In general, this is true both within a training module as well as between different skill modules. Insure Transfer to the Job The second primary function of the implementation phase is to insure that trainees apply the new skills on the job. Various techniques can be used to support and reward the use of new skills on the Job. (Sredl and Rothwell, 1987) Implementing Training: Support Functions The critical support function in the implementation phase is to 1'"Volve managers and supervisors so that they understand what to expect from "any trained employees. Managers and supervisors should be involved in the training or informed about the changes in employee pe"filllnal'lce they can expect following training. They should also be encm‘rageci to recognize and reward employees for using new skills on the J°b- (Sredl and Rothwell, 1987) Supervisors should also be trained in g 55 coaching techniques to assist workers in perfecting their new skills on the Job. Evaluating Training: Primary Functions The primary functions of the evaluation phase are to evaluate indivi duals, instructional modules, and the total PFK training program. Gupta and Jenkins (1986) and Ledford (1989) indicate that skill assessment must be as well-defined and objective as possible to avoid a number of problems. For example, subjective assessments result in potential inequities in job movement and pay increases. Too rapid movement through the skills without concurrent demonstration of skill mastery may result in operational deficiencies. Peers have a tendency to gradually ease up on standards that are not clearly defined. If team members do not have enough training and skill in assessment, they may be unable to make objective judgments about team members' qualifications for Pay increases. Poor assessments may attribute higher qualifications than a worker possesses, thus forcing others to do work which the trainee cannot actually perform. Gardner (1981) indicates that performance evaluations must be d‘lEIQnost‘lc in order to identify specific performance which needs 1'“movement, the causes of the problem, and the solutions to effect a Change in performance. He also indicates that evaluation of individual task Performance should be on-going in order to identify and reward SUCcesses and to identify and work to correct deficiencies. Gupta and Jenkins (1986) recommend including a mastery component in the evaluation of individuals so that workers must demonstrate not a n '3’ that a skill has been learned but also that it has been mastered. k 56 Skill mastery is especially important when workers must stay competent in mul tiple skills. Sredl and Rothwell (1987) indicate that the instructional modules and the total program should also be evaluated. Such evaluations may try to determine the reaction of various groups of employees to the traini ng, the overall extent of learning among trainees in the module or program, changes in behavior on the job which may result from the traini ng, and other results of training such as reduced production costs or greater productivity and worker motivation. Evaluating Training: Support Functions The two key support functions during the evaluation phase include identifying and selecting evaluators, and training evaluators in appropriate assessment techniques. Identify and Select Evaluators Sredl and Rothwell (1987) indicate that the people involved in needs assessment should also be involved in the evaluation of the program in order to determine the degree of success in meeting intended goals. These should include trainees, supervisors, top managers, trdiners, union representatives and perhaps even external experts and cOnsultants. Gardner (1981) indicates that individuals should be evaluated by Others who are experts in the skill area being trained. It may be advisabie to have input from a variety of sources including peers, SunervisOrs, trainers, and other content experts. Gupta and Jenkins (1985) indicate that the level and qualifications required for those c c"jamming performance appraisals should be carefully defined and g 57 specified. The trainee should also self-evaluate. The trainee should then discuss with the team leader or supervisor the combined evaluation results to identify any areas of improvement needed, and to determine the next steps to take. Train Evaluators Gupta and Jenkins (1986) and Gardner (1981) emphasize the importance of training evaluators. They should be trained in what to look for as the trainee performs the new skill imnediately following training, as well as over a period of time on the job. If evaluation will be done by team members, they should be trained in conducting peer evaluations. If standards of performance are included as part of the traini ng in a skill, it will be easier for trainees to self-evaluate as they go along. Monitoring Training: Primary Functions The primary function of the monitoring phase is to monitor and manage the entire program. Walton (1979) advises companies to differentiate between actions and responsibilities during the start-up phase of a new PFK program, and the actions and responsibilities during steady state operations of the program. He reconmends designing in a transition phase to ease the difficulties created by implementing a new program. Skill maintenance is critical to the success of a PFK program, so employees should be required to periodically demonstrate proficiency in previously learned skills. (Gupta and Jenkins, 1986; Ledford, Tyler and Dixey. 1990) Lawler and Ledford (1985) and Gupta and Jenkins (1986) 58 recomend using such techniques as job rotation and refresher training to mai ntain skill quality. The company must also monitor changes in skill needs. There may be ski ll gaps, especially in the early stages of implementing a new PFK program. Supervisors or experienced'employees from other facilities may be used temporarily to cover for gaps until new employees can be trained in the needed skills. Skill surpluses may occur in cases where several employees have topped out or when no positions are currently available for employees to use their newly-trained skills. Pay adjustments, special project assignments, or temporary transfer to another facility are possible methods for acconmodating temporary skill surpluses. Skill 5 may also become obsolete, such as when a company replaces outmoded equipment with new, high technology equipment. Methods must be developed to balance the number of skills an employee has with the usefulness of those skills. Ideally, a company would anticipate such changes and provide replacement training ahead of the change. The monitoring and management process should include revisions of the training program as new skill requirements occur. (Lawler and Ledford, 1985; Gupta and Jenkins, 1986; Ledford, 1989) The monitoring and management phase should include a r‘ecord-keeping system. Records should include such information as Skills learned, performance ratings, refresher training and job rotation SChEdules, and involvement in training and program development. (Gupta and Jenkins, 1986) Lawler and Bullock (1978) caution that as Organization size increases, so does the complexity of administering the 59 PFK system.' The record-keeping system should be designed to simplify administration as much as possible. Monitoring Training: Support Functions The key support functions in this final phase are to select and train monitors. In team settings, the team leader may be responsible for keeping team records. In more traditional settings, record-keeping may be the supervisor's responsibility. Depending on the size of the company and the extent of the PFK program, record-keeping may or may not be centrally managed in the personnel or administration office. m The body of literature on job training in general, and on pay—for-knowledge training specifically, tends to promote a systematic trail-.1 ng process. The model used here to organize the training pract1 ces reconmended in the literature presents the training process as a f1Ve-phase cycle: planning and design, development, implementation, evenl-lation, and monitoring and management. The reconmendations d15cUs$ed in this chapter were incorporated into the survey quest-,1 onnaire used to gather data for this research project. A copy of the finestionnaire is included as Appendix 8. Its design and use are further discussed in Chapter 3. CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Introduction This study was a preliminary exploration of training practices ltSEBCi 'in conjunction with pay-for-knowledge compensation plans. The study was designed to identify the most frequently-used training practices, to estimate the importance of those practices to the effectiveness of a PFK program, as perceived by users in the field, and to compare actual field practices with reconmendations from the l ite rature. To accomplish these ends, the study was designed in two parts - The first part involved sending a questionnaire to PFK training directors in companies using pay-for—knowledge and analyzing the infortnation that was returned. The second part of the study involved Oil-Si te visits to selected companies. The purpose of the on-site visits was to supplement the information on intended practices obtained from the questionnaires with observations of actual practice within the (””93")! setting and across employee segments affected by the PFK pr°9ram. The specific questions to be addressed included: 1. What are the components of pay-for-knowledge training? 2. How important are the various components in producing effective training as perceived by the PFK training director? 3. How effective is training as perceived by the PFK training director. 4. What is (are) the most conmon configuration(s) of PFK training components? 60 61 5. Is there a relationship between reasons for implementing PFK and any of the following? a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. The remainder intended goals of PFK training the various components of training perceived effectiveness of the PFK program program age new or existing site workforce size program type (vertical, horizontal, depth) union status type of company (primary service/product) there a relationship between the goals of training and any the following: the various components of training the effectiveness of the PFK program as perceived by the PFK training director program age new or existing site workforce size program type (vertical, horizontal, depth) union status type of company (primary service/product) there any relationship between program components and any the following factors: the effectiveness of the PFK program program age new or existing site workforce size program type (vertical, horizontal, depth) union status type of company (primary product/service) of this chapter will present the procedures used to ident 1fy the population for the study, the procedures used to develop the Survey instrument, the sample selection process, and the procedures for administering the questionnaires and the on-site visits. Finally, 1'l‘fOI'Tnation will be presented on how data were compiled and analyzed. Identification of the Population The population for this study was elusive at best. Because of the lack of consistency in terminology, program definition, and program characteristics, and because some companies preferred to remain 62 anonymous (Gupta 3. Jenkins, 1986), there was no systematic way to identify a precise population. Lawler and Ledford (1985) estimate that there are at least 200 companies using PFK in some form. The Gupta and Jenkins (1986) study identified 63 companies using PFK, and estimated, on the basis of their survey, that 100 to 125 companies use PFK (BNA, 1988) . O'Dell (1986) found 85 (5%) of 1598 companies were using pay—for-knowledge in a 1986 compensation study. Overall estimates are that 5% to 101. of the companies in the United States, or an estimated 1 .000 plants or offices, may be using some form of pay-for-knowledge (BNA, 1988). An extensive literature review was done for this study in order to i dentify specific companies which had been reported as using pay— for-knowledge. From this literature review, 56 companies were identified. Given this list of 56 companies, the determination was made that enough companies could be located to do an exploratory study of trai n 1 ng practices. The next step was the development of the survey instrument. Development of Survey Instrument An analysis of the literature on paying for knowledge revealed 'ecmflnendations which related to training practices and policies for PFK m“39"‘ariis. This limited set of reconmendations was supplemented by a revue,” of the literature more generally related to job training in sett1 figs similar to those where PFK is used. These settings typically involve continuous process operations which go from raw materials to f‘ "3‘ products; mass production with repetitive operations; small batch Operations such as customized products made to customer specifications; or Service operations which focus on a customer need rather than a 63 particular function related to the service (Gupta, 1986). The resulting set of practices (see Chapter 2) were then grouped into 13 categories identified by Sredl and Rothwell in The ASTD Reference Guide to grofessional Training Roles and Competencies, Volumes I and II (1987). The categories are: 1) needs assessment 2) job and task analysis 3) developing objectives 4) program planning and design 5) selecting course content and developing course plans 6) selecting delivery methods and media 7) arranging for facilities 8) marketing 9) preparing instructional materials 10) delivering instruction 11) insuring transfer to the job 12) evaluating 13) monitoring and managing the program The American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) materials were Ch°sen as the basis for organization. 0f the many training models ava‘l'li'able, it seemed prudent to select a model which was rooted in 3°b‘T‘elated training. Questions were then written covering practices recoll'liiended in the literature. Response options for questions were based on a range of possible practices which were related to the reconmended practices. Questions were designed to determine the f"equency of use of practices, as well as to determine the importance of Dra(itices to the effectiveness of the PFK program as perceived by the 64 PFK training director. There were also a few questions which were open-ended. More will be said about the open-ended questions in the section on analysis of the data. The draft questionnaire included 50 questions. This draft was submitted to a panel of experts for review. (See Appendix A for a list of panel members.) The expert panel consisted of 6 researchers and/or czcyrisultants who have PFK as an area of specialty, 2 field-based practitioners, and a survey statistician. The DEHEllStS were selected based on the following criteria: 1) 2) 3) extensive experience in working in PFK settings involvement in one or more published research studies related to PFK experience in job-related analysis and training, and/or 4) experience in the design and analysis of survey instruments Except for the survey statistician, panelists were asked to evaluate the draft instrument according to the following questions: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Do the questions cover all pertinent aspects of training in PFK settings? If not, please suggest additions. Please suggest any questions which you feel should be deleted, and indicate why. Are questions worded in language which will be understandable to potential respondents? If not, please suggest changes. Are instructions for completing the survey clear and easy to follow? If not, please suggest changes. Please make any additional comments which you feel would make the survey more complete and informative. 65 The survey statistician was asked to review the draft instrument for ‘functional format, ease of data analysis, clarity of questions, and tzechnical quality. The panel review resulted in the following changes 1 n the survey instrument: 1) The response format was changed from ranking current practices and practices expected in 5 years, to rating the importance of practices on a 5—point Likert-type scale. 2) Multiple choice responses were added to a few questions to more completely cover options. 3) Some questions were rearranged to group related questions and to provide a smoother flow of questions from one topic into another. 4) Some questions were added to better get at the knowledge and skills developed through the training program. 5) Some questions originally had been set up in a table fohmat which was confusing. These questions were redesigned, and while they still were in table format, the revision was clearer and easier to use. The final questionnaire contained 75 questions covering demographics (5‘22 , number of PFK employees, employee classifications, union status, product or service, age, and implementation site), planning, design, 1“'lniflnentation, evaluation, monitoring and renewal of training programs. See Appendix B for the final survey instrument. Selection of Sample for Survey Phase A preliminary sample was drawn from the list of companies deVeloped from the population identification process. To supplement the preliminary sample of companies derived from the literature, a snowball 66 technique was used. In a snowball technique, known members of a population are used to locate additional members of the same population. If the snowball sampling technique is used with an original sample which i s randomly drawn, then data from the snowball sample can be generalized to the population. (Kish, 1965; Goodman, 1961). However, the reader is cautioned that since the original sample for this study could not be randomly drawn, the results cannot be generalized to the whole population of companies which use PFK. This is a constraint on the study resulting from the developmental nature of the body of knowledge on PFK. For each company on the list developed during the population identification process, the researcher obtained a contact person. Hhere speci fic individual sites had been identified in the literature, a phone numbe r for the site was obtained from directory assistance. Hhere only corpo rate names were identified in the literature, a contact telephone numbe r for corporate headquarters was obtained from directory assistance or th rough one or more business directories (Corporate Technology Inf0|"I'nation Services, 1989; Wright Investors' Service, 1989; Dun's Marketing Services, Inc., 1989; Standard and Poor's, 1989; National R891 Ster, 1989). The researcher telephoned corporate headquarters and asked to speak with someone who would be most knowledgeable about comDensation and training programs at individual plants or offices W1thin the corporation. This person usually was someone in human resOurces, personnel, or compensation. Typically it required speaking to More than one person at corporate headquarters until someone was contacted who knew about PFK programs and could identify specific sites "1 tl‘iin the company where PFK was used. In 21 cases, despite the fact 67 that the corporate name was identified in the literature as having sites :15ing PFK, it was not possible to pin down specific sites through ¢:orporate contacts. This may be due in part to one or more of the {following reasons: 1) Decentralized management policies may have resulted in corporate headquarters not having specific information about compensation and training programs at individual sites. 2) There was a tendency in some companies to protect what they viewed as a competitive edge by not revealing information about their PFK programs except in a very general way (DNA, 1988; Gupta & Jenkins, 1986; Walton, 1978a; Ziskin, 1986). 3) As reports of PFK programs became more common, companies who were known to be using PFK were inundated with requests for information from researchers, other potential users, and others interested in learning more about PFK. These companies began to restrict access to their PFK programs in order to protect their own time and efficiency. 4) During the lapse of time between reporting of programs in the literature and contact with some of the companies for this study, reorganization occurred and PFK programs were phased out. Once specific sites and contact numbers were obtained for the pre] lminary sample, the researcher made contact with each site on the list, and asked to speak with the PFK training director. Whether or not “‘15 was the title used, the ultimate contact was the person with the gt‘efitest responsibility for managing and making decisions about PFK tralning. The purposes of the telephone contacts were to: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 68 verify that the company site was still using PFK describe the nature of the current study, and the nature of the involvement of the company in the study, should they choose to participate obtain verbal commitment that the company would participate in the study obtain permission and mailing information in order to send the questionnaire to the company obtain information from the contact person about other companies which they were aware were using PFK. Seventeen additional companies were identified as using PFK as a result of this snowball technique. These 17 companies were contacted in the same way as those in the preliminary sample. This sampling procedure resulted in 30 companies from the OI‘ig‘i nal list of 56 possibilities plus 17 snowball possibilities being wil l i :19 to participate in the study sample. Table 3—1 summarizes the resu‘l ts of the sampling process. Table 3-1 Results of Sampling Process 56 Identified in the literature 17 Identified through snowball technique 73 Total possible companies for the sample 21 No contact reference available from corporate headquarters 4 Program no longer exists 2 Company out of business 2 PFK dropped due to merger, consolidation, or reorganization 1 PFK not yet set up 3 Used in a pilot survey 10 Not willing to participate 30 Willing to participate 69 Identities of participants are not revealed in the study in order to protect the interests of companies and individuals within participating companies. Questionnaire Adninistration The first set of questionnaires was mailed during the last week of October, 1989. Included with the questionnaires were a cover letter explaining the study, a company visit authorization form to indicate wi llingness to participate in the on—site visit portion of the study, and a self-addressed, stamped return envelope (see Appendix 8). Pi fteen questionnaires were initially returned. Reminder cards were ma i led to non-respondents in mid-November and again in early December. No additional responses resulted from the reminder cards. A second identical questionnaire was mailed to non-respondents in early January, 1990 - Three additional questionnaires were returned following this mai 1 1 ng. A total of 18 questionnaires were returned, 16 of which contained usable data. This represents a 53% response rate. Selection of On-Site Samle Raw data were initially analyzed to determine which PFK training PVOQ Pams were more systematically structured, and which were more ranI'iomly structured. Systematic structure is characterized in part by a 1“Site” arrangement of training components, clear objectives, consistent profiledures, and measurable outcomes. Random structure is characterized 1“ part by unclear objectives, inconsistent procedures, components which are not consistently used or applied, and a lack of outcome measures. This analysis was to have been the basis for selecting companies for the second phase of the study. Companies who had indicated a willingness to 7O participate in the on-site visit phase of the study would be randomly selected from these two broad groups. Ideally, two systematically structure programs and two randomly structured programs were to be selected for on-site visits. Two problems occurred which required adjustment of the original design. First, only four of the sixteen respondents were willing to participate in the on-site visits, so it was not possible to make a random selection of companies for on-site visits. Secondly, because of the limited number of respondents for the second phase of the study, it was not possible to divide them according to patterns of program structure. Fortunately, one of the companies . selected for on-site visits had a relatively systematic structure while the other company had a relatively random structure. Based on responses on the company visit authorization forms included with the questionnaires, four companies expressed willingness to participate in the on-site visit portion of the study. One of those respondents was only willing to have the researcher attend a standard con-pany workshop designed to disseminate information about their PFK prOgram to other companies and individuals interested in learning more llbout PFK programs. Since the research design for the on-site portion 01' the study involved interviewing selected enployee groups, this particular conpany was not deemed a viable possibility for an on-site ViSit. Therefore, the researcher contacted the other three respondents ’10 verify their continuing willingness to participate in the study. Two 0' the three were willing and able to continue. The third conpany was 1"terested in continuing but due to complications of their imnediate 71 work schedule demands, they were unable to participate at that time. The two on-site visits were completed in early May, 1990. On-Site Interviews One day per site was spent interviewing selected employees at each of two sites. The first site was a company where interviews were conducted with the vice president for human resources, the training d i rector, a production department supervisor, two work team leaders, and three work team members. Team leaders and team members conducted training, and team members received training. Therefore, questions re 1 ated to trainer and trainee issues were addressed to the team leaders and team members. There was no department manager between the supervisor and the vice president for human resources. The company was not unionized, so no union interviews were possible. At the second site, interviews were conducted with a plant manager, the PFK training coordinator and the counterpart union PFK trai n ing coordinator, a team leader, three production team members, a skil 1 ed trades team leader, and two production support team members. As in the first company, experienced team members did the training for other team members, so questions related to trainer and trainee issues were addressed to team leaders and team members. Interviews had been SChEduled with a group of welders and a group of supervisors. However, last- Ininute scheduling problems necessitated canceling interviews with “‘01“! two groups. Some information about the welders was provided by the training co-coordinators. Team leaders and team members, as well as the training co-coordinators, were able to provide some information at’Out the supervisors' roles, responsibilities, changes since implementing PFK, and acconmodations required as a result of 72 imp‘l ementing PFK. Both on-site visits also included a tour of company ope rations to clarify the context of the PFK programs. The interviews had four broad purposes: 1) to observe first-hand how intended practices as described in the questionnaires were actually implemented in daily company operations. 2) to determine whether the program as described by the PFK managers was consistently understood and agreed upon across all employee groups affected by the PFK program. 3) to get information on the frequency and importance of training practices from a variety of employee sources in addition to the views of the PFK training director. 4) to get information on the effectiveness of PFK training and the overall effectiveness of the PFK program in general, from a variety of employee sources in addition to the views of the PFK training director. Interviews were conducted in a semi—structured format. That is, br1>a1<1 topics were established prior to the interviews so that all 9’le oyees would be asked to respond to the same issues (see Appendix C).. However, interview questioning was informal, and interviewees were e“COuraged to expand and elaborate on questions in order to give a more t°mfitblete understanding of the essence of the program. Analysis of Questionnaire Data Because of the large number of variables covered by the questionnaires, data were analyzed on an IBM 3090 mainframe computer at 73 Mi ch 1 gan State University. The following types of quantitative data resu 1 tEO from the initial computer analysis: 1) frequency counts for each practice identified on the questionnaires 2) frequency distributions of the ratings of importance on a 5-point Likert-type scale. The scale values were: 0 . don't know 1 - not at all important somewhat important very important imperative hUN I I 3) sum scores for each of the practices identified on the questionnaires. Sum scores were figured according to the formula, f x rv a 55, where: rv s the rating value of positive importance ratings (3 and 4 only) f s the frequency of each positive rating (3 and 4 only) 55 = sum score Hi thin each question, practices were then rank ordered by sum scores to identify those practices which were used most frequently and were con 5 idered by the PFK training director to be of greatest importance to the success of the PFK program. The decision to use sum scores rather than frequencies or means for~ r‘anking training practices was based on the desire to balance frequency of response with ratings of importance. Using frequencies as a basis for ranking would not give any weight to importance ratings. Using mean rating scores would not give adequate weight to the frequency of‘ r‘esponse. For example, a practice with a frequency of one and a rating of 4 would have a mean of 4. This practice would therefore rank MSher than a practice with a frequency of 12 (six ratings of 4 and six tiltings of 3) and a mean rating of 3.5. Sum scores combine the tr‘equency of response with the ratings of importance by multiplying the 74 frequency of response for each rating value by the rating value and add 1 ng the results. One purpose of the study was to try to determine which training practices were considered most important to effective PFK training as pe r‘ceived by PFK users. Ratings of 3 (very important) and 4 (1 mperative) were considered to reflect the strongest perceptions of importance. Therefore, sum scores and the subsequent rankings of practices were based on ratings of 3 and 4 only. Further analysis of responses was done by grouping related sets of questions together within each respondent to determine if there were any patterns. For example, six questions scattered throughout the que stionnaire had to do with who made decisions at various stages in the PFK training cycle. For each respondent, these six questions were compared to see if there were any patterns such as only upper management made decisions, or decisions were made within teams, or decisions resulted from input from many groups. Any patterns that were identified within respondents were then compared between respondents to see if the re were any prevailing patterns. Five questions on the questionnaire were open-ended. Responses to these questions were grouped into categories according to the general theme of the response. There were many possible ways to categorize teSponses, so the researcher essentially made an informed decision at3Out how to categorize open-ended responses. It is possible that anOther observer might choose a different categorization method. Hmalever, given that the criteria for categorizing responses were clearly Specified, and a consistent process was used for assigning responses to tlategories, it is assumed that the reader can follow the categorizing 75 method used by the researcher. It is also assumed that another person us 1 ng the same criteria and procedures as the researcher would produce es sentially the same assignment of responses to categories. The same cri teria were used to categorize responses for all five open-ended Questions. The criteria are as follows: Criterion 1: The statement must be related to training for questions 6 (goals of training), 66 (training-related causes for success of the PFK program), and 67 (training-related causes for difficulties with the PFK program). The statement must not be related to training for questions 64 (non-training causes for success of the PFK program), and 65 (non-training causes for difficulty with the PFK program). Criterion 2: Statements that use the same or synonymous terms are grouped together. Criterion 3: Statements that have a cause/effect relationship are grouped together. Criterion 4: Statements that are outcomes of the PFK program rather than goals (question 6), or results of success or difficulty (questions 64 through 67) are not included in the final analysis of responses. ADDendix 0 gives the assignment to categories of the complete set of responses to the open-ended questions. Analysis of On-Site Interview Data No coding was done of responses in the on-site interviews. I"Stead, where it was appropriate, responses were used to provide adciitional evidence related to the findings obtained on the questionnaires and reported in Chapter 4. In other cases, interview 76 responses were more appropriately included in broad, general impressions wh i ch are reported and discussed in Chapter 5. Surmary The population for this study was based on information available in the literature on pay-for—knowledge programs. The study sample was se 1 ected from companies which had been identified in the literature as us 1 ng PFK, or companies which were identified by other companies- through a snowball technique. The questionnaire used in the first of the two stages of the study was developed from recormiendations in the literature on pay-for-knowledge and in literature on job-related training. The questionnaire was submitted to a panel of experts for review. After rev 1 sions, the questionnaire was mailed to 30 companies. Sixteen of eighteen returns contained usable data. Four of the sixteen respondents indicated they were willing to participate in the second stage of the study. Two of the four were selected to participate in on-s i te interviews. Data from the questionnaires were analyzed for frequencies of practices, importance of practices and combined frequency/importance ratings. Responses were also analyzed for intra-respondent and inter-respondent patterns. Data from on-site 1M”-erviews provided additional evidence related to data obtained from QUEStionnaires, and also helped to fill out the broad picture of PFK tra1 ning. Findings from the study are reported in Chapter 4, in relation to the research questions. Conclusions and general impressions obtained from data analysis and on-site interviews are further discussed in Chapter 5. CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS The focus of this research was on training practices used to prepare employees for jobs compensated on a pay-for-knowledge basis. Th 1 5 study was exploratory in nature, because pay—for-knowledge is a re 1 atively new concept, because the population of PFK users is still poorly defined, and because the research base on PFK is still very l 1 mi ted. A great deal of data were obtained from a small number of cases. The diversity of responses is likely due to the wide range of practices whi ch come into play in PFK settings, rather than specific factors which might be attributed to differences between respondents. No attempt can be made to generalize the findings to other users of PFK. Instead, the findings provide a preliminary picture of PFK training on which further research can be based. The findings reported in this chapter were obtained from re'5lbonses to questionnaires sent to 30 companies and from interviews V” th selected personnel at two of the responding companies. Potential companies were identified in the literature and through word-of-mouth t°ntacts (snowball technique). 0f the 73 possible companies identified, 30 agreed to participate in the study. Of the 30 questionnaires sent olIt, 18 were returned, 16 of which contained usable data. 77 78 General information about respondents is reported first in Tab 1 e 4-1 through Table 4-4. This includes the characteristics of responding companies (size of company, number of PFK employees, age of PFK program, product or service, union status, and PFK implementation 5 1 te), reasons for implementing pay-for-knowledge, and goals of PFK t ra ining. Findings are then reported in relation to the seven research questions. The majority of findings are reported as follows: 1) the frequency of responses indicating use of specific training practices, 2) the frequency distribution of ratings of importance of specific training practices, as rated on a 5-point Likert scale where: 0 . Don't know 1 . Not at all important 2 - Somewhat important 3 s Very important 4 . Imperative, and 3) sum scores, which were obtained by totaling the products of the frequency of rating times the rating value for scale values 3 (very important) and 4 (imperative). The sum scores give a weighted value which can be used to identify practices which are most commonly considered important in the field. A"Necdotal information from the two site visits is also included where it: contributes to a clearer understanding of the data on related cpinponents. 79 CONTEXT OF PFK TRAINING Characteristics of Responding Companies The questionnaire was to be completed by the person with the g reatest responsibility for managing the PFK training. Most frequently, th "I 5 person was a human resources manager or a training coordinator. None of the respondents had management of PFK training as their sole re sponsibility. Table 4-1 shows the job titles of persons responding to t h e questionnaire. Table 4-1 Job Titles of Respondents to the Questionnaire Number Title Reporting Human Resources Manager 5 Training Coordinator 5 Vice President 2 Assistant Vice President 1 Personnel Director 1 Other - not specified 2 Total Respondents IE Table 4-2 presents company demographic profiles for all sixteen rESIliondents. Column two of Table 4-2 lists the primary products or services of the responding companies. These products and services can be compared with the Standard Industrial Classifications (SIC) to get a ge'leral impression of the economic sectors represented by responding cc’lllpanies. SIC codes were developed by the United States Department of LElbor to classify all establishments in the country by the type of a(Itivity in which they are engaged. There are ten SIC categories. The 80 ou—>com node ._ocucou xuoum ace-ounce: - .ucowcaou .coo—e mo_nm up_ouo¢ —oupczuoh\_ucopmmoeoca u an o—no—Fc>a we: con-=2 u «a .Stzu.czu geozause "ounce uo__exm . em to o-.u as o_a._.u>. so: DON—EOE: I x COED-fie...» u tori 9.21:: OOhO—g pouch u + ”nausea cope: "nee—uuu.c_mmu_o on o_nsm ca aux « ”neon-:2 coho—a-m B: :4 8v 2... 8o 8. .9... .33.. 2 x x x 3.2 m~.m k o. no k.mk mmu a.” coca mu lua.eu.xm oo.m mo ~.sm ONH mo .um ou.cco .H x x x x ac.»m.xm o mmw oaks + mma.fi oa=< nu x x x x x»: k~.k as m can a" «.mm «Hm 9mm .cocuuo_m ~H (Tue—ou_xm Ne." one ¢.k~ mam om" oueuesmcu as x x lua.um.xm oo.~ um Nee m.. ooo.m m- ou=< OH 302 mm . mm «a «a «k «a n . 8 so." so too“. a Tue—am.xm m~.o - o.o_ auu - abundance a x x 3.2 mk.HH me cus a.~k ”as Nae m.~u..¢=o k ue_a»_xm mm.~ ooc.om m.~o co°.oo oco.om ._.».m o 3oz oo.mu .. .. .. k.om co co .cocpuo_m m u=.m.xm so.“ mu o~ as am ace c.OOu was mas uooa s x x 2oz wk.._ .. .. ~.~m mmm omm oa=< m gm: oo.o~ mu NcN «.mo NmN muN none N 3.: mk.H~ oNN h.¢o keN o- none a o».m «coo» mocha—asm node ao_o em e\a co.u.¢ a. _.aao¢ eta use: to.u cm coca .aaoe mo¢»o_a-m moose—and ou.>com acne-cu -co-u_auu ca.a as use .uuoh yea \uuauoea you wmmucoa ammo—p an nauoum care: to om< enmopu an mooaop wrung co coneazll momma—gem s 2:: see no crook Q s 32.3: Eases 81 respondents in this study fell into three of the ten categories: nuanufacturing, finance/insurance/real estate, and retail trade. The size of responding companies, in terms of total nmnber of employees, ranged from 90 to 80,000 employees. In most cases, data referred only to the plant or office responding, even if it were part of a larger corporation. However, in the case of the largest company, the national office developed all the PFK training, so the size (80,000 employees) represents a national figure rather than a site figure. The percentage of employees who were included in the PFK compensation program ranged from 4.5% to 100%. The average percent of PFK employees in responding companies was 621.. Production workers were most likely to be included in the PFK program. This is based not only on the number of companies who include production workers (13 of 16), but also on the percentage of all PFK e"liployees who are in production. Of those reporting employee numbers by Classification, production workers were, on average, 81% of all PFK employees. Skilled trades and clerical positions were also conmonly l ncluded in PFK programs. positions were far less likely to be included in PFK programs in this Professional/technical and management Study. The average age of PFK programs was 7.49 years. The newest program was to be implemented within 3 months following this data CO] lection, and the oldest program was 19 years old. Ten of the pr‘t’grams were less than 10 years old. Nine of the programs were implemented in new sites. Early r‘elimrts in the literature on PFK concluded that it was best implemented 82 However, seven programs in in new installations, or greenfield sites. This this study were successfully implemented in existing sites. finding is consistent with conclusions in the Gupta and Jenkins study (1986) that PFK could be successful in either new or existing operations. Employees were unionized in 6 of the 16 cases. In all six cases, production workers and skilled trades were unionized. In three of the six cases, clerical workers were also unionized, and in two of these three cases, the professional/technical workers were also unionized. In sunmary, the average PFK program was 7.5 years old. In 56.25% of the cases, it was implemented at a new site. It covered about.62% of the employees, most of whom were production, skilled trades, and clerical workers. Employees were most likely to be engaged in assembly Or process operations, but only about a third of the companies were unionized. Reasons for Implementing Pay-for-Knowledgg Table 4-3 shows the ranking by frequency and importance of the r‘fieasons for implementing PFK. Seven of the top ten reasons for implementing PFK focus on enhancing employees as individuals. This is. consistent with the growing trend toward considering human needs in the deslgn of work and the work place. The majority of reasons for adopting pFK reflect a positive response to management problems such as absenteeism and productivity rather than a reaction to such pressures as Co rporate directives or union demands. Although six of the companies were unionized, union factors were not considered very 1"‘DOF‘tant in deciding to implement PFK. 83 Table 4-3 ReasonsT Identified by Comanies for Imlementing Pay-for-Knowledge F Rati Scale Distr bution Response *Sue Reason Fremency 1 2 3 4 Scores For flexibility in placing uployees 14 5 9 51 To promote employee growth and development 14 2 7 5 41 To gain ilproved up oyee performance 13 2 8 3 36 For better quality of work life 16 6 5 5 35 To promote greater employee satisfaction 15 4 9 2 35 To gain higher employee comitment 14 4 6 4 34 To uprove emloyee motivation 15 4 10 1 34 To increase productivity 10 2 3 5 29 To have smaller work force 9 2 5 2 23 To save dollars 3 1 2 11 To imrove labor-management relations 6 2 3 9 To reduce voluntary turnover 3 1 2 6 To increase pay rates 3 1 2 6 To pay conpetitive wages 2 1 1 4 To motivate to learn conplex technology 1 1 4 To be consistent with other management systems 1 I 4 To reduce absenteeism 3 2 1 3 To keep coman non-unionized 3 2 1 3 To reduce tard ness 2 1 1 3 To reduce layoffs 3 1 1 3 To cowl y with corporate PFK directive 1 1 3 To cowl y with corporate management policy 3 3 0 To reduce union influence 2 2 0 To conpl y with corporate PFK policy 1 1 0 Pressure from organized labor 1 1 0 To reduce external marketability 1 1 0 Don't know Not at all imortant Somewhat imortant Very ilportant Imerative AwNHO ea Ill * Sum Scores are based on the frewency times the rating value for values of 3 and 4 only, to show those factors which are considered of greatest inportance. \ 05: Why was pay-for-knowledge (PFK) iwpleeented in this co'lpany? T "‘0 éist of reasons appearing on the questionnaire was adapted from Gupta and Jenkins (198) 84 Goals of Pay-for-Knowledge Training Table 4-4 sunmarizes the goals of pay-for-knowledge training iclentified by respondents.‘ Respondents were asked to list the intended goals of training for the PFK program. They were also asked to rank their goals in their order of importance. There was no limit on the number of goals which could be listed. Respondents listed a total of 47 goal statements, with an averageof 2.94 statements per respondent. These statements were reduced to eight categories based on similarity of the intent of the goal statements. (See Appendix 0 for the process used to assign responses to categories.) Three respondents included statements which were considered to be management goals rather than training goals. However, the majority of respondents were very clear on their training goals, and the primary focus of training was on improving Job performance. The goals of training were consistent with the reasons for implementing the PFK program. Only seven respondents ranked their goal statements. Because the "Wber of goal statements varied across respondents, and because not all respondents ranked their goals, it is not possible to produce a composite ranking of goals. However, for those who did rank their goal Statements, goals related to improved performance tended to rank r”ghast, goals related to flexibility tended to have a mid-range rank‘H'lg, and goals related to employee satisfaction tended to rank in the lower range of importance. This pattern seems logical in that improved performance can be directly attributable to training, while fle’flbi lity and employee satisfaction follow from improved performance a "d are a more indirect result of training. 85 Table 4-4 Goals Identified by Companies for Pay-for-Knowledge Training Frequency Goals Repgrted 0 develop and maintain competence in performance for increased safety, quality, and productivity 19 To develop a variety of skills for flexibility 11 To increase quality of work life, commitment, stability, and satisfaction 7 To provide a basis for determining equity 3 To devélop knowledge and skills needed to use new technologies 2 To give knowledge and skills to be self-managing 1 To develop individualized education/learning plans 1 Management-related goals (non-training) * 3 * Includes: reduce classifications, reduce labor costs and manpower, and written Job movement policy. 06: What are the intended goals of training for the PFK program. Please list as many as appropriate and then number them in order Of importance. 86 FINDINGS IN RELATION TO RESEARCH QUESTIONS Components of PFK Trainigg and Their Importance The first two research questions deal with the components of PFK training and their importance. The questions are: 1) What are the components of pay-for-knowledge training? 2) How important are the various components in producing effective training, as perceived by the PFK training director? The majority of questions on the questionnaire dealt with the components of PFK training, and their perceived importance. In order to clarify the findings from these questions, components have been grouped according to phases of the training cycle adapted from Sredl and There are five phases, each one consisting of several Rothwell (1987). 1) planning and design components, consisting of subparts. These are: the subparts a) identifying training needs, b) personnel involved in planning, c) skill progression formats, and d) training plans; 2) instructional development components, consisting of the subparts a) Skill unit topics, b) bases for selecting skill unit content, and c) developers of skill unit instruction; 3) implementation components, cOnsisting of the subparts a) location of training (external, externally developed in-house training, and in-house), b) instructors (qua) ification and preparation), c) instructional methods, d) transfer to the Job, and e) trainee involvement; 4) evaluation components, COOS‘I sting of the subparts a) evaluating trainees (who evaluates tra1 nees, evaluator qualifications, evaluation methods, and follow-up), and b) evaluating skill units and the training program (who evaluates 5""1 units and the training program, how often are evaluations done, a "d What factors are evaluated); and 5) monitoring and renewal 87 components, consisting of the subparts a) tracking employee progress (who does the tracking, and how is tracking done), b) maintaining skill competence, c) factors leading to program revisions, and d) provisions for problems (topping out, training hold-ups, placement hold-ups, and obsolete skills). Planning and Design Couponents One set of components in the PFK training process has to do with planning the overall PFK training program. This provides the structure for the rest of the training process. The components in the planning and design phase include a method for identifying training needs, a format for skill progression, a training plan, and personnel to do the planning. Table 4-5 and Table 4-6 sumnarize findings about the planning process. fientifying Training Needs The top part of Table 4-5 displays how respondents identify training needs. The literature stresses the importance of doing needs analyses and Job and task analyses as a basis for making decisions about the PFK program. However, only six of the respondents indicated that they use such analyses for identifying training needs. The literature a'30 stressed the importance of involving all relevant employees in the pTanning process. In one case, the manager alone identified training needs , but in six cases, respondents used at least four sources of 1"fpfination to determine training needs. The method most comnonly used to identify training needs was for teams to determine their own needs. In"Dr‘mation from site interviews supported this finding. These 1ntET‘V1ews also revealed that decisions about training needs were typically made by individual team members in response to personal needs 88 Table 4-5 Planning Components Identified by PFK Cowpanies: Need Identification, Type of Skill Progression, and Hritten Training Plans Cowani es *Sum Scores Methods for Identifying Training Needs (08) 123456789 Key to Rating Values: 0 - Don't know * Sum Scores are based on the fre ency times the 1 = Not at all important rating value for values of 3 an 4 only, to show 2 - Somewhat inportant those factors which are considered of greatest 3 - Very inportant inportance to the effectiveness of the PFK 4 . Imperative training program 07: Which statement(s) below most accurately represents your PFK plan(s)? Q9 : Do you have a training policy manual for your entire PFK program? 019 : Does each of the PFK subgroups in your company such as departments or teams) have a written training plan for the tra ning done in their own 011 : What is included in the training policy manual for your PFK program? 89 to learn a new skill in order to complete a Job, or by a team leader who needed to train a team member in a team Job function. Skill Progression Formats Pay-for-knowledge programs may be categorized according to the nature of the skill or knowledge progression: 1) horizontal, 2) vertical, and 3) depth. In horizontal skill progression, employees learn a variety of skills which are all at approximately the same level of responsibility. An example of this would be learning all the Jobs on one team. In vertical skill progression, employees learn a variety of skills having lower to higher levels of responsibility. An example of this would be learning skills for team Jobs, and then learning skills to be a team leader. In depth skill progression, employees learn a great deal about a few skills and in essence become more expert. This type of plan is often found in technical Jobs where technicians may start as assistants and eventually move up to senior technician positions as they develop greater expertise. Table 4-5 displays the type of skill progression used in responding companies. All 16 respondents in this study had either a horizontal or a vertical skill progression or a combination of both. However, only five respondents also included depth of knowledge in the PFK program. Training Plans Table 4-5 summarizes data on written training plans. Respondents were asked to indicate whether they had specific written training plans, and if so, whether the plans were company-wide, or team or department based. Hhile all respondents had some type of written plan describing the overall PFK program in terms of pay requirements, only seven 90 _ respondents had written plans specifically laying out the PFK training program. Four respondents had written training plans for the entire PFK program. Two of these were centrally developed, and two were compiled from plans developed by individual work units. Three other respondents had written training plans only at the department or work team level. While written training plans were not conmon among respondents in this study, those who did have written plans tended to include specific details which would assist in implementing and evaluating training. The most important topics included in both company level and work team level plans were: 1) specific objectives for each skill unit, 2) evaluation policies, and 3) requirements and procedures to qualify for PFK increases. It was rare for a PFK plan to be written as part of a broader training plan. Interviews and materials gathered at the two site visits support this finding. One of the plans was developed at the company level, and the other was compiled from plans developed at the team level. The written plans were quite detailed in describing specifics related to job tasks which could be learned for pay increases, time periods for learning and performing new skills in order to be considered for pay increases, and the pay schedule associated with skill advancement. In one case, the written plan also included the skill areas which were training priorities, and described how much time could be allotted per week to training, both for trainees and for managers and team consultants who could do training. However, at the time of this study, training time allotments were being significantly reduced because company production goals made it impossible to meet daily workload demands and adhere to the training time plans as well. 91 Personnel Involved in Planning Respondents were asked to indicate who was involved in developing the overall PFK training plan. Table 4-6 presents data for those involved in planning at the company level and at the team or department level. Respondents who had a company-level written training plan, considered employees, managers or supervisors, and the training director as the most important planners. Respondents who had a work team level written PFK training plan considered work team members, and work team trainers as the most important planners. In general, team or employee involvement was rated more important than manager/supervisor involvement. One point is clear in relation to the involvement of personnel in the planning process. In all cases, planning was done with input from more than one source, with the average being three different sources of input. It is also clear that employee involvement is important at the company level of planning as well as at the work team level. At one of the sites visited, PFK plans were developed primarily by members of the work teams. At the other site, the PFK plans were developed primarily by managers and supervisors with input from lexperienced employees. The employees at this site expressed more (iissatisfaction with their training than did the employees in the company where work teams designed the PFK plans. In summary of the planning process, identification of training needs tended to be based on informal procedures rather than on a Systematic evaluation of company or team needs. Skill progression was priflfiarily horizontal and or vertical. Hritten training plans existed 7" TEESS than half of the cases. Of those who reported having written 92 Table 4-6 Planning Components Identified by PFK Companies: Personnel Involved in P anning Companies 3r **Sum Comany-Level Flaming (015) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111 I I I 16' Scores Employees Nanagers/sgpervisors Training director 3 «bum‘ Plant manager Other T 2 3 * Team members 3 wuwbaav Corporate administrators 3 Traini department 2 er: Includes fieldTpersonnel, represen at ves and directors, company auditors, operations personnel, plant engineer, personnel department. Team-Level Planning (024) 3... O Team members 3 3 4 Trainers 3 4 Certification board 3 Outside resources 3 PFK training director 3 Department manager 3 Team leader 3 Corporate administrators 3 WUWWWWWV Department committee 3 Trainigg department 2 Key to Rating Values: * Respondent did not rate this factor. 0 - Don't know ** Sum scores are based on the frequency times the I - Not at all important rating value for ratings of 3 and 4 only, to show \ 2 - Somewhat important those factors which are considered of greatest 3 - Very important importance to the effectiveness of the PFK r 4 - Imperative training program. 015: Rho developed thi’written training policy? a 024: Who developed the written training plan for each department or work team? 93 training plans, half were at the company level and half were at the work team or department level. Training plans were most likely to include specific objectives for each skill unit, requirements and procedures for qualifying for PFK increases, and evaluation procedures. Hritten training plans were most likely to be developed with input from a number of groups. Employee involvement in planning was important at both the company level and at the work team level, while management involvement in planning was most likely to be considered important at the company level. Instructional Development Conponents A second set of components in the PFK training process were related to instructional development. Components in the instructional development process include topics included in the skill units, a basis for selecting skill unit content, and personnel involved in the development of skill unit instructional plans. Table 4-7 through Table 4-9 give the distribution of responses related to the instructional development process for all 16 cases. Skill Unit Topics As shown in Table 4-7, a broad range of topics was covered in PFK skill units. The least number of topics included in a program was three and the greatest number of topics was 15. The most important skill unit topics were job specific. These were: 1) equipment operation for performing the job, 2) procedures and knowledge for performing job tasks, and 3) troubleshooting and adjusting for unusual circumstances. Health and safety and quality control topics were also important skill unit topics. Basic reading and math skills were included in the PFK program in only one company. While other companies Topics of Skill Units Included in PFK Training Programs 94 Table 4-7 Companies Topics 1 2 3 4 s e 7 e o 1011 1 1414mm» Equipment operation for Job 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 47 Job task skills, knowledge, and procedures 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 4 4 3 46 Troubleshooting, adUusting for unusual circumstances 4 3 4 4 3 2 4 3 4 3 3 35 Health and safety 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 35 Quality control 4 3 4 3 2 3 3 4 3 4 3 34 Decision-makinglproblem-solving 3 2 3 4 3 2 4 3 3 4 3 2 30 Flow of work beyond skill unit 4 4 4 3 3 2 3 4 2 3 28 Record keepingi 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 26 Team buildingigroup/process 4 2 3 4 3 3 4 3 2 24 Planning/prioritizing work 3 3 4 3 2 3 4 3 2 23 Leadership skills 3 4 3 3 4 3 20 Cost control skills 3 2 4 3 4 3 17 Time management skills 3 4 3 4 14 Basic readinggskills 4 4 Basic math skills 4 4 Train the trainer 3 3 Communication skills 3 3 Key to Rating Values: - Don't know . Not at all important - Somewhat important - Very important - Imperative hunts-to * Sum scores are based on the frequency times the rating value for ratings of 3 and 4 only, to show those factors which are considered of greatest importance to the effectiveness of the PFK training program. 044: What topics are included in your PFK training? 95 may have had basic skill training available, it was not possible to receive PFK pay increases for training in reading and math. Only one company reported giving PFK pay increases for being trained in specific training techniques, and only one company reported giving PFK pay increases for training in communication skills. It is clear that the majority of PFK training is focused specifically on job content. Bases for Selecting Skill Unit Content Table 4-8 presents data on the instructional development process. Respondents were asked to indicate how specific skill unit content was selected. In 8 of the 16 cases, it was considered very important or imperative for skill content to be selected by a committee of training specialists, job experts, and managers or supervisors. In seven cases, trainer expertise was considered important in selecting skill unit content. This is consistent with the fact that much of the training was done on the job by experienced workers for other team members. Job task analyses were important in only one-fourth of the cases. In most cases (11 of 14), skill unit content decisions were based on input from at least two sources. However, as with decisions about training needs, the process of selecting skill unit content is most likely to be informal rather than based on a systematic process of job or needs analysis. Hho Develops Skill Unit Instruction Although a small percentage of PFK training is provided through external resources (see the section on implementation of training), the majority of PFK training is planned, developed, and implemented in house. Therefore, the question of who develops specific instruction for each skill or knowledge unit, as discussed here, pertains only to 96 Table 4-8 Instructional Design Components Identified by PFK Companies: Bases for Selecting Skill Unit Content {— Companies Bases for Selecting content 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 e 9 10 11 121 13' 1.11:1 1 £232. (:":::§t::nglgtat.s skil] 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 27 Trr-ainer expertise 2 3 3 3 2 3 4 16 Job/task analysis 2 4 2 3 3 4 14 leeeeds analysis 3 3 3 3 12 Trainer/trai nee agree based on comny and individual needs 4 2 4 3 ll Pro-packaged materials 4 4 Teams determine content 3 3 lJrsion determines content * Key to Rating Values: * Respondent did not rate this factor Don't know ** Sum scores are based on the frequency times the Not at all important rating value for ratings of 3 and 4 only, to show Somewhat iuportant those factors which are considered of greatest Very ilportant importance to the effectiveness of the PFK Inparati ve training program. hUNHO I seen BBB: How is specific skill unit content decided upon? 97 . in-house PFK training. Table 4-9 gives information on who developed the details of instruction for each of the skill units in the PFK program. In nine cases, skill unit instruction was developed by two or more individuals or groups. It was most common for managers or supervisors and/or an employee committee to develop skill unit instruction. It was less common for the training director to be involved in developing skill unit instruction. Only 4 respondents included instructors or trainers in developing instruction for which they would be responsible. In summary of the instructional development components, the most important topics of skill unit instruction were those directly related to improving Job performance. It was most likely for skill content to be based on input from several sources (such as a committee of training specialists, job experts, and managers and supervisors) or on trainer expertise. Managers or supervisors and employee committees were most likely to develop actual skill unit instructional plans. Inpl ementation Connonents A third set of components in the PFK training process were inpflementation components. These include: 1) the location of training (external, externally-designed but provided in-house, or totally in- homse), 2) instructors (qualifications and preparation for training), 3) instructional methods, 4) transfer of new skills to the Job, and 5) trainee involvement in the training process. Tables 4-10 through 4-18 give information about implementation of the PFK training program. 98 Table 4-9 Instructional Design Components: Developers of Skill Unit Training Companies Developers of Skill 2] “Sum Unit Training 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ID 11 1 I 14!1 1 Scores Managers/supervisors 4 2 4 4 2 * 4 3 3 22 Employee committee 4 4 3 3 * 4 3 21 Training department 3 4 3 10 Instructors/trainers 3 2 3 3 9 Training director 4 3 7 Union/management committee 4 4 Local Operations Personnel 3 3 Regional Personnel Staff 2 Key to Rating Values: * Respondent did not rate this factor. 0 - Don't know ** Sum scores are based on the frequency times the 1 - Not at all important rating value for ratings of 3 and 4 only, to show 2 - Somewhat important these factors which are considered of greatest 3 - Very important importance to effectiveness of PFK tra ning. 4 - Imperative 035: Who develops specific plans for each skill unit in the in-house PFK traini pr ram? (Please note: as used in this survey, a skill unit is one unit 0 tra ning which qualifies an employee for one increment of additional pay.) 99 Location of Training- External As Table 4-10 indicates, in six cases, employees could earn PFK increases through external training. However, respondents indicated that external training accounted for less than 5% of all PFK training. Technical school certification was considered the most important source of external training. College courses and college degree programs were of little significance in the PFK programs included in this study. This table is significantly different from other tables in that nothing was rated 4, and only 4 of 22 responses were rated 3. It is clear that external training is not considered very important as a source of PFK training. Respondents were asked to indicate how external courses were selected for the PFK training program and who had final approval over whether an external course could qualify an employee for PFK increases. Table 4-11 summarizes the procedures for selecting external training. Companies which used external training frequently had some type of systematic process for selecting which external training could qualify employees for PFK increases. Either the course had to match pre- established company objectives, or the course had to be reviewed for suitability by a committee of company employees. 100 Table 4-10 External Training Programs Used by Some PFK Companies to Qualify Employees for PFK Pay Increases Companies J *Sum Program 1234567891011111116lScores Technical school certification 2 2 3 2 3 6 Vendor training, 2 2 3 2 2 3 Workshops, seminars 2 2 3 2 3 Technical school courses 2 2 2 2 0 College courses 2 2 D Collgge degree programs 2 2 D Avegagd Percenta e of PFK training doneexernally 2d0025150015000001oo 4.13 Key to Rating Values: 0 - Don't know * Sum scores are based on the freguency times the 1 - Not at all important rating value for values of 3 an 4 only, to show 2 - Somewhat important those factors which are considered of greatest 3 - Very important importance. 4 - Imperative 025: What types of education or training offered off-site can qualify an employee to be paid for additional skill or knowledge? 026: About what percentage of your overall PFK training is conducted off-site? 101 Table 4-11 Procedures for Selecting Extegggl Training Courses to Qualify Employees for Pay Increases Companies Procedures 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 9 101.11le 1 141615.33!“ Course must match company objectives 3 3 3 3 12 Committee reviews for suitability 3 7 Company rep. visits course to determine fit 3 3 6 Trainees select courses for personal needslgoals 3 3 6 Trainees/supervisors select for mutual plan 4 2 4 Key to Rating Values * Sum scores are based on O - Don't know the frequency times the l - Not at all important rating value for values 2 - Somewhat important of 3 and 4 only, to show 3 - Very important those factors considered 4 - Imperative of greatest importance. 027: What criteria are used to determine whether an external course should be used to qualify an employee for a PFK pay increase? 102 Table 4-12 gives a sunmary of the personnel who approve use of external training. Most frequently and of greatest importance, a committee of trainers, supervisors, and managers had final approval over whether an employee could take external training to qualify for PFK pay increases. Externally-Developed Training As shown in Table 4-13, four cases reported using PFK training which was designed by external resources but delivered in-house. This type of training represented an average of only 3.7% of all PFK training. Vendor training was considered the most important type of externally-designed training. Table 4-14 gives the procedures used to select externally- developed programs. In the four cases where externally-developed training was included in the PFK program, the selection process tended to be systematic. Most frequently, a company representative worked with the external developer to design training which met company needs, or the external developer had to design a course to match pre-established company objectives. Table 4-15 presents information on who has final authority to approve externally-designed courses for qualifying employees for PFK pay increases. It was considered most important for final approval to rest with a committee of trainers, supervisors and managers. 103 Table 4-12 Personnel with Final Authority for Selecting External Training Courses to Qualify Employees for PFK Pay Increases Companies J J J J '5‘“ Person or Group 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 1 1 1 16' Scores Committee - trainers, supervisiors,4managers 3 3 4 10 Trainingidepartment 3 3 Team leader 3 3 Work team members 3 3 Committee of PFK employees 3 3 Trainees select, must pass on-the-job evaluation 3 3 Key to Rating Values: Don't know Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Imperative ‘WNHO I I I II * Sum scores are based on the fr ency times the rating value for values of 3 an 4 only, to show those factors which are considered of greatest importance. 028: Who has final approval over whether an external course can qualify an employee for a PFK pay increase? 104 Table 4-13 Externally-Designed Traini Provided In-House by Some PFK Companies to Qualify Emp oyees for PFK Pay Increases Companies *Sum Program 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112'1J14‘15llq5cores Vendor training 3 2 3 6 Purchased generic programs 3 3 workshops, sginars 2 2 0 Percentage of PFK training designed externally but delivered in-house D D D 100 D 304 0 D D 0 D 0 130 3.7% Key to Rating Values: 0 - Don't know * Sum scores are based on the frgguency times the 1 - Not at all important rating value for values of 3 a 4 only, to show 2 - Somewhat important those factors which are considered of greatest 3 - Very important importance. 4 - Imperative 030: What types of education or training designed by external resources but delivered on-site can qualify an employee to be pa d for additional skill or knowledge? 031: About what percenta e of your PFK training occurs through externally-designed courses given on si e? 105 Table 4-14 Procedures for Selecting Externally-Developed Training Courses to Qualify Employees for PFK Pay Increases TTTDistribution Sum ‘ on Scores* Procedure Frequency Ratin Scale T Company rep. works with external developer 2 2 6 Stourse muSt match company objectives 1 1 3 Trainees/supervisors select for mutual plan 2 2 D "Trainees select courses for personal needs/ oals 1 1 D *Commitfee reviews or suitability 1 1 D Key to Rating Values Don't know Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Imperative Jib-IMHO Sum scores are based on the frequency times the rating value for values of 3 and 4 only, to show those factors considered of greatest importance. 032: in-house PFK training? How do externally-designed courses become part of your 106 Table 4-15 Personnel with Final Authority for Selecting Externally-Developed Training Courses to Qualify Employees for PFK Pay Increases *Tbistribution Sum Person on Scores* or Frequency Rating Scale Group D I 3 4 ‘Committee - trainers, supervisors, managers 2 2 6 Committee 0 superv sors and employees 1 1 4 'Training director 1 1 3 , Team leader I I 6 Work team members I 1 (T Key to Rating Values * Sum scores are based on a PFK pay increase? 0 a Don't know the frequency times the I . Not at all important rating value for values 2 - Somewhat important of 3 and 4 only, to show 3 . Very important those factors considered 4 s Imperative of greatest importance. 033: Who has final approval over whether externally-designed courses delivered in-house can qualify an employee for 107 In-House Training - Location and Group Size Table 4-16 presents information about the implementation of training in-house. For training which was designed and delivered in- house, informal on-the-job training and fonmal on-the-job training were considered by far the most important. While classroom training was done in nine cases, it was considered only somewhat important. Since the majority of PFK training was either informal or formal on-the-job training, it is not surprising that the training location considered most important was the job site. However, 12 of the 16 respondents also had a training location away from the job site, such as a general purpose room or a special in-house training facility. These locations were used in addition to the job site rather than in place of it. The most common group size reported for PFK training was either one person or a small group of from 2 to 8 people. This is consistent with the fact that the majority of PFK training occurred on the job. In-House Training- Instructors Table 4-17 presents information about instructors, instructional methods, and transfer of training to the job. An important issue in implementing PFK training is the question of who can qualify to be an instructor (036). Employees with expertise in a skill were by far the most common trainers in this study. Managers or supervisors with expertise in a skill area also frequently conducted training. In only one case were employees left to learn the skills primarily on their own. Interviews at the two site visits support this data. One site was a manufacturing company and PFK employees were primarily production workers. An employee who needed to learn a skill was paired with an 108 Table 4-16 Implementation Components Identified by PFK Companies: In-House Training--Format, Location, and Group Size Companies 21.14"“ In-House Training Formats (034) 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 It 1 1 1 1 1 Scores Formal on-the-Job training, 4 4 4 4 3 ,2 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 46 Informal on—the-job training 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 43 In-house classroom training: 2 3 g 2 3 2 g, 3 3 12 Workshops, seminars 2 3 2 3 3 2 9 Stugy books with written tests 3 3 Reading_g;9ups 2 Perform job until performance goals are met * In-House Training Locations (040) On-the-job 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 * 3 4 3 4 56 Cafeteria/conference/ all purpose room 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 15 Special in-house training [ facility 3 4 3 3 g; 13 Common area near work station 3 3 2 3 2 3 12 Size of Training Group (041) One X X X X X X Small group (2 - 8) X X X X X X Medium grogp (9 - 15) X X X X Key to Rating Scores * Respondent did not rate this factor 0 - Don't know 1 - Not at all important ** Sum Scores are based on the fr ency times the 2 - Somewhat important rating value for values of 3 an 4 only, to show 3 - Very imgortant those factors considered of greatest importance. 4 - mperat ve 034: What types of education or training designed and delivered in-house can qualify an employee to be paid for addit onal skill or knowledge? 040: Where does in-house PFK training occur? 041: What is the typical size of an in-house training group? ~ 109 employee experienced in the skill. The experienced employee would demonstrate the skill, would describe what to look at, what to think about and how to tell if the job were done right, and would identify health and safety issues related to the job. The experienced employee would also monitor and correct the performance of the trainee as they worked together during the learning process. The other site was an insurance company and PFK employees were primarily account representatives. Work teams were responsible for all aspects of a customer's account. Teams were made up of employees who covered the full set of skills needed to handle customer accounts, but each individual team member initially was experienced in only one or two of the skill areas. As team members processed their accounts and encountered a task they didn't know how to do, they would ask a team member with experience in the skill area to help them out. When several people on a team needed a skill at the same time, the team consultants, who were experienced in all skill areas, could conduct training. However, due to work load demands, consultants usually only did initial training of newly-hired employees, but did not have time to do follow-up training. The literature recommends preparing instructors for training by giving them information on adult learning theory and instructional techniques, and by giving them training and practice in coaching. In nine cases (037), companies provided some combination of these specific instructional skills to prospective trainers. However, in seven cases nothing was done to help prospective trainers prepare for training. (Based on their responses, companies 5, 6, and 7 were judged to do nothing specific to prepare prospective instructors.) 110 Table 4-17 Implementation Components Identified by PFK Companies for In-House Training: Trainer Qualifications and Preparation, Instructional Methods, and Transfer of Training Companies 4 5 6 7 8 9 oyee skil or knowl sk ll or know area skill or knowl area ng Spec skil l l r own Instructor Preparation for Training (037) instructional 4 3 3 on their own 3 3 4 3 3 3 instructors 3 3 3 c ng or in coachi 4 3 ence in the skill Hone Instructional Methods (039) the- ob demonstration 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 Case studies (Continued on next page) 111 Table 17 (Continued) Companies 1 2 3 4 5 a 7,3 9 101M1114115bfilggas Promoting Transfer of Training to the Job (050) "'PFK pay increase alone reward using new skill 4 3 4 O 3 3 3 4 2 4 28 WIHSTBT" 801101.3th GIG f0 on-the-job training 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 26 ‘Training as close to real Job as possible 3 2 3 3 9 Reward system in addition to PFK pay increas 4 4 Job rotations 4 4 Managers/supervisors get training to support use of new PFK skills 3 3 Key to Rating Scores * Respondent did not rate this factor Don't know ** Sum scores are based on the frequency times the Not at all important rating value for ratings of 3 and 4 only to show Somewhat important those factors which are considered of greatest Very iggortant importance to the effectiveness of PFK training. mpera ve button-0° I me me 036: Who can qualify to be an instructor for in-house PFK training? 037: What tra;ning do instructors get in order to be qualified to conduct in-house PFK ra n ng 039: What are the most common instructional methods used in your PFK training? 050: What methods are used to promote transfer of training to the job? 112 One of the companies visited did not provide any train-the- trainer activities for prospective trainers. The other company claimed to provide train-the-trainer assistance. However, interviews with trainers indicated that they had not received any special preparation for training. Instructional Methods Table 4-17 (039) shows that the top-rated instructional methods were guided practice on the job, and on-the-job demonstrations. Classroom lectures came in a distant third. Surprisingly, computerized tutorials were reported in only three cases, and were only rated as somewhat important. Transfer of Skills to the Job A frequent concern in job training is transfer of the newly developed skills and knowledge to the job setting. It is fairly common for companies to implement policies to promote use of new skills on the job, and this practice is recommended in the PFK literature. Respondents in this study were asked to indicate what was done to promote transfer of training to the job. As shown on Table 4-17, (050) PFK pay increases were considered most important in rewarding the use of new skills. In many cases, transfer of new skills to the job was considered automatic, since the training occurred on the job. However, sometimes conditions exist which interfere with employees using new skills. Such conditions might include negative feedback from managers or supervisors who are more comfortable with more familiar procedures, or returning to more familiar procedures when work pressures build up. The literature recommends giving specific training to managers and supervisors sc Skills. This Trainee Involv Responc information at Table 4-18 (04 were team, de; The mos (046) were to oath, and to c Specified limi Specific trair A" impc to be activel) 1'8"” 't (042) tTBlHEQs have where eleOyeE lmortant and 113 supervisors so they will better understand how to support the use of new skills. This occurred in only one case in this study. Trainee Involvement in the Training Process Respondents were asked to indicate how trainees received infonmation about PFK training opportunities available to them. Table 4-18 (045) indicates the most important sources of information were team, department, or unit meetings, and team leaders. The most important ways for trainees to qualify for training (046) were to follow a pre-detenmined training sequence for their job path, and to choose the training they would like to receive, within specified limits. Only one respondent indicated that they develop specific training plans for each employee. An important principle in adult learning theory is for learners to be actively involved in decisions about what they learn and how they learn it (042). However, in seven cases, respondents indicated that trainees have no input in what training they get or how they learn it. WMere employees do have input in their training, it is considered most important and most common for trainee effort to determine the progress they can make in a pre-detenmined training unit, or for trainees to select the learning method they prefer for learning pre-determined training content. In summary of the implementation process, PFK training is most likely to occur either formally or informally on the job on a one-to- one or small group basis. Experienced employees or managers, some of whom may have had some specific preparation for training, are most likely to conduct the training, using guided on-the-job practice or on- the-job demonstrations. Transfer of training is felt to be automatic Inple l _____________ lrioraaflon abou ' Team, Be—parféen eeetinos eae ea r ‘ Incivi'aiai and meetings ' Wieral announc lralner FIVC'S £631,630 9%! C s w Til. Cd ion r resentatiw m ”"99”! pox cy . rtunit m l for ob 3th filth limits e” 'OUD recon ecomeooa on C w “ill m limits W or 099m ll “or, Or a to attend 'Olee Still area i e'37-annua. ra, m W ra ix 9%” ”Q U nb W T res: learni 5t 18 W 114 Table 4—18 Iuplementation Couponents Identified by PFK Comanies for In-House raining: Involvement of Trainees in the Training Process ey to Rating Scores * Respondent did not rate this factor Don' t kwno - Not at all inportant ** Sum Scores are based on the frequency times the 3 Somewhat inportant rating value for values of 3 and 4 only, to show a Very inportant those factors considered of greatest inportance. c Inperative K 0- 1 2 3 4 045: How do enployees get information about training opportunities open to them for PFK? 046: How do trainees qualify to attend a training session? 042: What input do trainees have in what and how they learn? due to on—th8-. promoted throui informed of tr. leaders. Trai; sequence or by responsibilitil specific contel Attempt: paysfor-knowl ec information on aSpects of the information on WOl‘mation on the nature of 6 plans f°”0\vinc E valuaun Trai It Was C evaluate traine evaluatea train indivi'duus Or EXDEFTEH' 13. ”Dortant facto. UU Emu“ OFS e sur 1 nevaluatjng t r 115 due to on-the-job training, and use of new skills is most likely to be promoted through the PFK pay increases. Employees are most commonly informed of training opportunities through meetings and by team leaders. Trainees qualify for training by following a pre-determined sequence or by making choices within the limits of their job responsibilities. Trainees typically have little input into the specific content of their training or the methods for learning it. Evaluation Components Attempts were made to determine the nature of evaluation in the pay-for-knowledge training programs. Respondents were asked to provide information on how trainees were evaluated, as well as how various aspects of the training program were evaluated. Table 4-19 summarizes information on the people who evaluate trainees. Table 4-20 includes information on the nature of evaluation following external training, the nature of evaluation following in-house training, and contingency plans following poor evaluations for all 16 cases. Evaluating Trainees It was considered most important (048) for peer groups to evaluate trainees. Team leaders and supervisors also frequently evaluated trainees. In a sense, it can be said that evaluations are done most often by a committee, since in 12 of the 16 cases, two or more individuals or groups were involved in evaluating trainees. Experience in the skill or knowledge area was by far the most important factor which qualified someone to evaluate trainees (049). A position of authority was also an important qualification for evaluators. Surprisingly, an objective evaluation instrument was used in evaluating trainees in only 4 cases. Only two companies provide Tra I.” hho Evaluates lra Peer grogg Teal leader M Instructor/trail Ix £9; Self-avail uati on L\ OthIf' art “0’ ~\“k Union \\ Committee ”hat Qualifies a I \ ; Experience in s W se 0 9C v W T! n p? n ova tBenn \K T“. re$p0n51b1 Ta n n COa collIlseli 116 Table 4-19 Trainee Evaluators and Their Qualifications for Evaluating in Companies that Use PFK Companies 3' .l 5| "5"" Who Evaluates Trainees (048) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 1 1 1 161 Scores Peer group 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 41 Team leader 4 2 4 4 4 4 3 23 Supervisor 4 4 4 4 4 20 Instructor/trainer 4 4 3 3 3 17 Manager 4 3 4 4 15 Self-evaluation 4 4 3 2 11 Other expert worker 4 2 3 7 Union 4 4 Committee 3 3 What Qualifies a Person to Evaluate Trainees (049) erience in skill/ nowledge area 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 48 Position of authority 3 4 3 2 3 4 4 4 25 Use of objective evaTuation instrument 3 4 4 3 14 Content expert 4 4 8 Traini in evaluation techn goes 3 3 6 ‘ Team respgnsibility 3 3 re n ng n coac ng an counseling L O Key to Rating Scores 0 - Don't know Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Imperative the—I I I I ** Sum scores are based on the frequency times the rating value for values of 3 and 4 only, to show those factors which are considered of greatest importance. a pay increase? 049: What qualifies a person to evaluate trainees? 048: Who evaluates trainees after training to determine if they are qualified for training in ev- evaluations. in coaching or As note evaluating tra appraisal. Ev likely to be b reported that evaluating tra knowledge for techniques, I than relying c RESponc trainee FeceilI " at a later tram'"9~relai for inprovemer refresh” trai the caSES, Day would have to erg-7103,9215 pa e Only re the Entire con 117 training in evaluation techniques to those who would be doing evaluations. No company gave prospective evaluators specific training in coaching or counseling techniques. As noted in Table 4-20, the most important procedure for evaluating trainees after external training (029) was on-the-job appraisal. Evaluation of trainees after on-site training (047) was more likely to be based on pre-determined standards. Nine of the 16 cases reported that it was imperative to use pre-determined standards for evaluating trainees. Observation on the job and use of the new skill or knowledge for a set period of time were also important evaluation techniques. In the majority of cases, techniques were combined rather than relying on only one type of evaluation. Respondents were asked to indicate what would happen if a trainee received a poor evaluation, either initially following training, or at a later reevaluation period (054). The most important training-related contingency plan involved managers coaching employees for improvement. Employees could also get additional training, refresher training, or work under the guidance of an expert. In half of the cases, pay was affected by a poor evaluation. Either an employee would have to forfeit the skill and remain at the same pay level, or an employee's pay might drop until their rating improved. Evaluating the Training Pppgram Only four respondents indicated that they had a training plan for the entire company, and of those, only three did periodic evaluations of the entire training program. These data were not compiled into a table, since there were so few responses. However, the data show that trainees and a certification board evaluate the entire program more Method and Cam l l Evaluation Heth—o Onothe- ob aog 'Wfiofier for set eri firEfienSlve L l P tation of ' ‘Valuation e m Standards \ Cbservation on 56 new 3 1 M Oral 9x3. \‘ when exam \ 2118 Table 4-20 Methods of Evaluation Following External Training, On-Site Training, and Contingency Plans Following Poor Evaluations in Companies Using PFK Companies ‘ nSum valuation Methods After External Traini - Score On—the-job appraisal 4 3 7 On-the-Job performance for set period of time 4 4 Comprehensive certification test 4 4 Rgputation of Egggram 2 2 3 3 va ua on e s fter 0n-Site ra ning 47) Appraised on pro-determined standards 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 39 Observation on the job 4 3 3 4 2 3 4 4 4 29 Use new skilllknow1 e for set period of t me 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 29 Oral exgg, 4 3 3 4 g 3 17 Written exp! 3 3 g, 3 3 12 ‘ Instructor judgement 4 4 3 11 Unit completion alone qualifies for increase g 2 Contingency‘Plans‘FOTlowinglPoor va ua ions 4 Manager coaches trainee 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 22 Get additional training 3 3 2 3 3 4 * 3 19 Get refresher training 3 2 3 3 4 * 13 Work under guidince 0 expert worker 3 3 3 4 13 Forfeit skill/stay at same pay 2 4 3 * 3 10 ‘Teamslpeers coaéh fer improvement 4 4 8 R eat the same traini 3 4 * 7 Pay drops until evaluation mproves 3 2 3 6 Key to Rating Scores 0 - Don't know - Hot at all important Somewhat important Very important Imperative #WNH I I I ** Sum scores are based on the frequency times the rating value for values of 3 and 4 only, to show those factors which are considered of greatest importance. 029: What standards are used to evaluate trainees from off-site training? 047: What methods are used to evaluate trainees at the end of a skill unit? 054: What happens to employees who do not have satisfactory evaluations after training or on subsequent performance appraisals? than once a ye director and c trainers evalt number of res; informative. evaluating tea Thirtee evaluating wor smmarizes the individuals or d'illartment tra likely to eval trainers Were Year, while ma lear. Table 4 training Progr. (061), “We” 119 than once a year; managers, the training department, the PFK training director and operations personnel evaluate the program once a year; and trainers evaluate the program every 3 years. Because of the limited number of responses, these data are not particularly reliable nor informative. However, they tend to be consistent with the data on evaluating team or department level programs. Thirteen of sixteen cases responded to the questions on evaluating work team or department level training programs. Table 4-21 summarizes the findings from questions about how often various individuals or groups in the organization evaluated work team or department training (060). Trainees, managers and trainers were most likely to evaluate team or department training programs. Trainees and trainers were likely to evaluate the programs a little more than once a year, while managers evaluated programs slightly less than every other year. Table 4-22 summarizes the aspects of the team or department level training programs which were evaluated by various groups in the company (061). Eleven companies responded to these questions. The number in the Responses column indicates the total number of companies reporting that an employee group evaluates some aspect of the training. The number in each box in Program Factor columns A through F indicates the number of companies reporting that a group of people evaluates that aspect of training. Trainees, managers/supervisors, and trainers were most involved in program evaluation, and evaluated the greatest number of factors. The content of training and transferability to the job were most frequently evaluated by the greatest number of groups. Cost Evaluation 47—— Group fl Trainees Trainers Training deg PFK training Supervisors Managers Want manage WP- admin‘ OUtSldE COR! 7‘ (D ‘4: cc, 0 [ Eacl CDVGthNe-a n n w w u u w u r‘mmmoz rp<<<30 ‘0“?9992 120 Table 4-21 Evaluation of Team or Department Training Programs in PFK Companies: Frequency of Evaluation by Employee Groups Number of Mean Standard Group Responses Frequency Deviation Trainees 13 2.38 2.07 Trainers 11 2.55 2.21 Training department 7 3.28 2.36 PFK training director 7 3.71 2.75 Supervisors 8 3.89 2.62 Managers 12 4.33 2.90 Plant manager 9 5.22 2.91 Corp. administrators 9 5.78 3.11 Outside consultants 8 7.13 2.10 7‘ (I ‘< Once a year Every 3 years Every 5 years (humane-um:— Never Each time offered More than once a year Every other year Less than every 5 years to Values Used to Report Frequency 060: How often do the following groups of people evaluate individual skill unit training in the PFK program? Evaluatil , _— @lovee i Trainees Managers/E Trainers Training 1 m Mm ther * W t Other ll .71 (T? D ('70)) n u u u " " 121 Table 4-22 Evaluation of Team or Department Training Programs in PFK Companies: Program Factors Evaluated by Employee Groups Employee Group Responses Fro ram Factors Trainees 10 Managers/Supervisors Trainers Training department us no as as 01 )- mummmui PFK train. director Plant manager mwmwmb “UNUIU'IUIITI OOQN‘Nh Corporate Admin. Other * owueunmw‘n ONNNU'IU'TNO H H Outside consultants * Other includes teams, and operations personnel. Key to Factors in Each Column: Instructor quality Content of training Level of difficulty of training Timeliness of training Transferability to the job Cost effectiveness fiMUOG) IIIIII The numbers in the Responses column show how may indicated that each employee group evaluated one of the team or deparoment training program. The Program Factors columns show the distribution of across program factors. respondents or more aspects numbers in the responses following groups? 061: What aspects of each skill unit are evaluated by the effectiveness a aspects of tra The fin. related to mon monitoring and mloyee progr tracking, 3) 1 program revis Table 4-23 g1 maintenance C 0f the PFK p, hDW comDfinle: Dmgram, for I:E£E123_§333 The r co"lilonly han team), the 1 important "it (052) ls tea “Wotan“: Study. Ha W 122 effectiveness and timeliness of training were also frequently evaluated aspects of training. Monitoring and Renewal Components The final set of components in the PFK training process were related to monitoring and renewing the PFK training program. The monitoring and renewal components include: 1) a method for tracking employee progress on skills, 2) personnel with responsibility for skill tracking, 3) maintenance of skill competency, 4) factors leading to program revisions, and 5) methods for dealing with common problems. Table 4—23 gives information on how employee progress is tracked, maintenance of skill competency, and the factors that lead to revisions of the PFK program, for all 16 cases. Table 4-24 gives information on how companies deal with various problems which may arise in the PFK program, for all 16 cases. Tracking Employee Progress The responsibility for tracking employee progress (051) is most commonly handled by other employees (usually other members of a work team), the individual employees themselves, and supervisors. The most important method used for tracking employee progress in PFK skill units (052) is team or department records kept manually. Company-wide and computer-based tracking systems are not common among companies in this study. MaintainingSkill Competence Respondents were asked to indicate how employees maintained competence in all the skills in which they had been trained (053). Table 4-23 indicates that occasional random job rotations were the most common method for employees to maintain skill competence. Frequent, ReSpor Fa ‘Resoonslblllt * ' Other employee individufls tr ' uoerv.sors naoers a Trainin deoa' ' Comensationl ‘ eaa eaoer ralners ETSOH’le TREE 9" l ca Ten ' 0 0 VBCK seas ar the can" emit Wally-WT 0e Skllls lot We Skllls on] any menu Skills 0 Wain skills om ' CaSlona a Totati ons I“eti'oem Skil] 053. “hits- 059; 123 Table 4-23 Responsibility and Methods of Tracking Employee Skill Progress and Factors Leading to Program Revisions in Companies Using PFK Key to Rating Scores ** Sum scores are based on the frequency times 0 Don't the rating value for values of 3 and 4 only, - Not at all important to show those factors which are considered - Somewhat important of greatest importance. - Very important - Imperative WEgIhas pzimary responsibility for keeping track of each employee's progress in s on 5 What gecord-keeping techniques assist in tracking employee progress in skill un 3 How is mastery of multiple skills or knowledge maintained? What factors lead to revisions in the PFK training program? planned job r: cmpanies in many companie inorder that However, none tMs method fl Factors Leadir In all program to idr PFK training I “as monitoring as needed. 5. WOT ioo ta. problems 3550‘ content rathe: Pro \ Four al tODDlng OUt, i. Skills. TODp‘ skins in the program. Traf s bug ti PlaCBme skill, but no 124 planned job rotations and refresher training were also used by some companies in this study. The literature on PFK programs indicated that many companies would limit the number of skills an employee could learn in order that they could stay competent in a few selected skills. However, none of the companies in this study indicated that they used this method for maintaining competence. Factors Leading_to Revision of the PFK Prpgram In all but one case, companies in this study monitor the PFK program to identify factors which may indicate a need for revising the PFK training plan (059). The most important factor leading to revisions was monitoring of the program for problems and development of solutions as needed. Several companies also conducted an on-going needs analysis and/or job task analyses. In general, PFK program revisions deal with problems associated with changes in the company or changes in job content rather than with changes which might improve the training process or content. Provisions for PFK ProgramlProblems Four areas have commonly shown up as problems in PFK programs: topping out, training hold-ups, placements hold-ups, and obsolete skills. Topping out occurs when employees have learned all available skills in the PFK program, and have reached the top pay rate in the program. Training hold-ups occur when employees are ready to learn a new skill, but no new training opportunities are available at that time. Placement hold-ups occur when employees have been trained in a skill, but no job opening is available at the time for them to apply the new skill. Obsolete skills result when technology or other developments have made the skill unnecessary. In some cases, new 125 skills may not be needed to replace the obsolete ones, so employees lose a portion of their pay base. Respondents were asked to indicate how they dealt with these problems, both in terms of a training response and in terms of compensation. Topping out was the most common problem experienced by respondents in this study. Only 3 companies did not have problems with topping out. Table 4-24 (055) indicates that the most common result of topping out was for employees to stay in the same job, but to get some type of annual raise in place of PFK increases. The majority of solutions dealt with adjustments in compensation. Training-related responses to topping out were rare. Training hold-ups (056) occurred in about two-thirds of the responding companies. As with topping out, the primary response focused on compensation. Only two companies focused on a training response which put employees experiencing training hold-ups in a priority position for the next available training. Placement hold-ups (057) are less common. Five respondents reported that placement hold-ups had not occurred at their companies. Four other companies essentially did not have placement hold-ups since people only get training for jobs on their team or if a job opening exists. The idea behind PFK is that people get paid according to the set of skills they Egg use, even if they are not using a skill on a particular job. Surprisingly, only two respondents handled placement hold-ups by giving a full pay raise even though an employee was not using the new skill on the job. Even more surprising was that three respondents did not give a pay raise to employees who had been trained but were unable to apply the new skill at the time. The primary methods 126 of dealing with placement hold-ups focused on compensation. Open training for continued growth in both skill development and pay was not a common option for respondents in this study. The problem of obsolete skills (058) was the only major problem where training was a primary response for several companies. They addressed the problem by providing training in advance of expected changes, or by giving employees with obsolete skills first choice on training for new skills. However, in seven of the eleven companies where obsolete skills were a problem, it appears that compensation was the primary focus rather than providing training. In summary of the monitoring and renewal process, all 16 companies reported having a system for tracking employee progress in skill units. This was most likely to be a manual record-keeping system maintained by work team members, individual employees themselves, and supervisors. Fifteen companies also reported having a system for monitoring the PFK program to determine if and when revisions might be needed. Companies were most likely to monitor for problems and develop solutions as needed. They were also likely to conduct on-going needs analyses or job analyses. Topping out was the most common problem for companies in this study, and most of them dealt with the problem by adjusting the compensation rather than adjusting the training parameters. Training hold-ups appear to be a moderate problem for companies in this study. Solutions tended to be based on compensation adjustments rather than training adjustments. Placement hold-ups tended not to be a significant problem, since the idea of PFK is to continue paying employees for skills they are capable of using, whether or not they are 127 Table 4-24 Provisions for Problems in Companies Using PFK Topping Out (055: What policies are in place for employees who “top out”?) PFK raises 3 3 3 3 O 3 2 2 22 s non-PFK ob n PFK raises Training Hold-ups (056: What provisions are made for training 'hold-ups"?) Placement Hold-ups (057: What provisions are made for placement “hold-ups'?) Obsolete Skills (058: What happens when a skill becomes obsolete?) aced n new skills laced pay lace old ace lace old ey Bo Rgting Scores * Respondent did not rate this factor on now Not at all important ** Sum scores are based on the frequency times Somewhat important the rating value for values of 3 and 4 only, Very important to show those factors which are considered Imperative of greatest importance. K 0 1 2 3 4 128 placed in a position where they can actually apply a skill. In four companies, adjustments in training helped deal with obsolete skills. However, compensation adjustments were still the primary means of dealing with obsolete skills for six respondents. Evaluating the Effectiveness of the PFK Progggm An analysis of the components of the training process would not be very informative without a related estimate of the effectiveness of the PFK training program in helping to reach the intended goals of the company. This section will deal with factors related to the perceived effectiveness of the PFK program. Findings help to answer the third research question which is: How effective is training as perceived by the PFK training director? Respondents were asked to rate the overall effectiveness of their PFK program on a 5-point scale from not at all effective to highly effective. They were also asked what factors influenced their judgment of program effectiveness. Finally, through four open-ended questions, respondents were asked to list the primary PFK program difficulties and the primary PFK program successes related to both training and non-training factors. Overall Effectiveness of the PFK Program It was not possible in this study to separate the perceived effectiveness of training from the perceived effectiveness of the PFK program as a whole. Respondents were therefore asked to rate the overall effectiveness of the PFK plan in helping the company to 129 accomplish its intended goals. The following scale was used to rate the effectiveness of PFK programs: 1 - PFK has been completely ineffective 2 - PFK has been somewhat ineffective 3 - PFK has been somewhat effective 4 a PFK has been quite effective 5 . PFK has been highly effective. Table 4-25 shows the effectiveness ratings for all 16 cases. Table 4-25 Overall PFK Program Effectiveness as Rated by PFK Companies companies AVera e Effectiveness I 2 3 4 ‘5 6 7 '8 9 1 11 I Effec iveness gati s ggK Ratipg: vera Plan 5141 §LSIil3L SLazjfl alslal 3.7 062: Please rate the overall effectiveness of your PFK plan in helping your company accomplish its intended goals. Please take into consideration all factors in implementing PFK, not just training. Fourteen of the sixteen respondents rated the effectiveness of their PFK program. One program had not been implemented yet, so it could not be rated, and one company chose not to rate its program. The mean rating for the 14 reporting cases was 3.7, with a median rating of 4 and a mode of 3. Only one company rated its program as completely ineffective. Overall, most respondents were quite satisfied with their PFK program. 130 Respondents were also asked to indicate what factors influenced their judgment of the effectiveness of their PFK programs in helping to achieve company goals. Table 4-26 shows the importance of various factors which influenced effectiveness ratings for all 16 companies. Flexibility, productivity, quality, employee-management relations, and employee commitment are the top indicators of PFK effectiveness for companies in this study. These factors are consistent with the reasons for implementing PFK in the first place. The strongest disagreement was expressed for reduced labor costs and fewer layoffs as indicators of effectiveness of the PFK program. In comparing effectiveness ratings with indicators of effectiveness, it appears that PFK programs are succeeding in accomplishing the goals for which they were implemented. Causes of Success and of Difficulty Another way of estimating the effectiveness of a program is to look at the perceived causes for success and difficulty in the program. Four open-ended questions were used to determine the major factors bearing on the effectiveness of the program. Table 4-27 summarizes the responses to the four open-ended questions about the causes of success and the causes of difficulty with the PFK programs. The procedures for distributing individual responses to categories is presented in Appendix 0. Respondents were first asked to indicate the three major non- training causes for the success of their PFK program (064). The fact that employees could get higher pay through the PFK program than in conventional compensation plans was mentioned by the most companies as a major cause of success of the program. A management philosophy which Factors Identified b Ratings of Overal 131 Table 4-26 PFK Companies as Influencing PFK Program Effectiveness - Don't know Stro ly disagree - Somew at disagree - Somewhat agree Strongly agree hWNe-‘O times the rating values for ratings 06 3 and 4 only, to show those factors which are considered to have the greatest influence on judgements Companies 2 3 4 s 7 9 11 1mm * Sum Indicators of Effectiveness Scored Greater workforce flexibility 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 O 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 59 Increased productivity, 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 47 Higher quality output 4 3 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 45 mproved’employeel management relations 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 O 3 4 3 4 O 3 O 42 ”Greater employee commitment to the job 4 3 4 4 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 39 Improved employee] superviggr relations 3 4 4 3 3 3 O 3 3 4 O 3 O 33 Greater emplo ee satisfaction with the j 4 3 3 4 4 3 O 3 2 3 3 2 3 33 Reduced labor costs 4 3 2 2 4 O 4 3 0 4 4 3 3 1 32 Fewer employee grievances 4 4 3 O 4 3 O 4 3 3 O 28 Lower absenteeism 4 3 4 3 4 O 3 3 O 3 2 2 O 27 Lower voluntary turnover 4 3 4 3 3 4 3 0 3 2 O 27 Rewced OSHA injury rates 3 4 4 4 O 4 O O 2 3 O 22 Reduced tardiness rates 4 3 4 3 4 O O O O 3 2 2 O 21 Fewer lpypffs 1 3 4 3 O 3 O 3 1 O 16 Key to Ratings of Effectiveness Indicators: * Sum scores are based on the frequency of PFK program effectiveness. 063: What evidence do you use as indicators of the success of your PFK program? 132 encourages and supports employee participation in decision-making and problem solving was also considered an important factor in the success of PFK programs. The non-training cause of difficulty (065) mentioned by the most companies was topping out. This is consistent with the earlier question on how companies cope with topping out. Another problem area, implementation difficulties, included such factors as inequality in point allocations for time needed to learn and difficulty of skill units, business needs which restrict rotation to jobs for which a person has been trained, labor shortages, and using people in jobs for which they have not received PFK training. Five companies mentioned lack of a perfonmance component as a cause of difficulty. In these cases, the program was designed so that employees could get training in a skill, perform it for a period of time on the job, and then get certified for the next pay level without having to meet any performance requirements. The problem of not having a performance component was a factor in one of the site visits, and it was causing some morale problems. Originally there had not been a performance component explicitly stated in the PFK plan, but when production quotas were not being met, management began restricting pay increases until teams met their production quotas. Management felt that the perfonmance component had always been a part of the plan, but the employees did not have that understanding until after they had gotten used to getting raises without a specific reference to performance and productivity. Many employees felt that management was changing the rules in order to avoid giving pay raises. 133 Table 4-27 Causes of Success and Difficulty in PFK Programs Companies Non-Training Causes of Success (064) V3 OX with Non-Training Causes of Difficulty (065) c ior Training-Related Causes of Success (066) ibiliti c Training-Related Causes of Difficulty (067) resou ini eva eve abil t i i * Asterisks indicate the number of statements which fall into the given category, for each respondent. The final column, FREQUENCY, gives the total number of statements given by respondents for each category. 134 In both site visits, as well as in several questionnaire responses, employee manipulation of the system was a problem. People would get trained in a skill in order to get a pay raise, but would not rotate into that position again at a later time. Employees would also feel job ownership and would not want to rotate to other positions. This was especially true of the skilled trades teams in one of the sites visited. Another way of manipulating the system occurred where the program was designed for team members to certify trainees on their team in a skill a team member had taught. Team members would certify trainees even if the trainees were not capable of performing the skill without assistance, because certification of being trained was how pay raises were determined, and no perfonmance standards were included in the certification process. Since each team member was skilled in at least one area, peers could help each other get pay raises by certifying each other. Turning to training-related causes of success in the PFK program (066), the top rated factor was comprehensiveness of training. This included such factors as training in the "total picture" of the organization, hands-on training, and training in how to train and in team management skills, as well as specific job functions. In many cases, training was built into the job responsibilities of team members, which made them more conscientious about doing the training. Training-related causes of difficulties with the PFK program (067) were topped by lack of resources, including money, time, and facilities for training. This was closely followed by inconsistencies in the quality of training which resulted from each team training in its own way, and from instructors emphasizing what they viewed as 13S important rather than having a set training outline to follow. Many of the causes of difficulty, both training and non-training, appear to have potential solutions. These will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 5. However, the data on effectiveness seems to indicate that the more effective programs tend to have a more systematic structure for their PFK training. An attempt was made to determine if there were any relationships between reasons for implementing PFK, goals of the PFK training, various components of the training process, or effectiveness. The remainder of the findings are interpretive, based on an analysis of the data related to research questions one through three. Relationships were identified by examining the array of data across diverse tables of findings. Some broad relationships do appear to occur, but with so few cases and so many variables it is not possible to describe with certainty the nature of the relationships. The data do present evidence for further research. Configurations of PFK Training Components Patterns of relationships were analyzed from the data gathered in response to the fourth research question: What are the most common configurations of PFK training components? The intent behind this research question was to try to determine if there were any clear patterns in the design of PFK training. Two major configurations appear to predominate, one being quite informal and the other being fairly systematic. There were 20 criteria used to analyze the degree of structure of the PFK training programs. The criteria were drawn from the recommendations in the literature for a systematic training process. The criteria are presented in Appendix E. Using the criteria 136 to compare company data across the tables related to program components, nine companies were found to have highly systematic PFK training designs. Four companies had a moderately systematic design, and three companies had unsystematic training program structures. Looking first at the companies with an unsystematic training design, it was found that these companies tended to have a careful definition of skill units, skill sequence, length of skill performance before going to the next skill, and a careful assignment of pay rates to skill units, but there was not a concurrent definition of the training process. Training in this informal format occurred primarily on the job. The skills were usually easily observable and measurable production, assembly, or processing skills. Either trainees decided they needed to learn a new skill in order to complete a job responsibility, or the team members or team leader decided they needed to train a new member on a team skill. In some cases, the instructor was a designated experienced worker on the team. In other cases, the trainee could select to be trained by any other employee with experience in the skill area. In some cases, team members voted to indicate whether the trainee qualified for a pay increase. In other cases, trainees asked the trainer to certify that they had received the training and had used the skill on the job. In this informal pattern, there were typically no performance standards spelled out which an employee had to meet in order to qualify for PFK increases. Information on skill progress was usually kept only within the team, by team members or by the individual trainees. The focus was primarily on compensation issues related to the program rather than on training 1551185. 137 The second configuration of components was more systematic. The majority of PFK programs appeared to be moderately to highly systematic in their approach to the training program. Decisions about training needs were based on input from a variety of sources including, in some cases, needs analyses and job task analyses. Performance standards were established prior to training, and training was directed toward meeting the performance standards. Trainers received instruction in teaching techniques and theory, or they had guidelines to standardize instruction. Employees were evaluated according to pre-established standards by evaluators who had been trained in how to evaluate. The training program itself was periodically reviewed and revised as needed. A tracking system was used to keep track of employee progress, and in some companies, the system also included information about job openings and rotation schedules. While the primary focus was on compensation factors in the program, the process of training was also considered important. Relationships Between Reasons for Implementing PFK and Various Program Factors The fifth research question is: Is there a relationship between the reasons for implementing PFK and any of the following: a) intended goals of PFK training, b) various components of the training process, c) perceived effectiveness of the PFK program, and d) demographic factors including program age, implementation site, workforce size, program type, union status, and primary product or service. The idea behind this question was to determine if the reasons for implementing PFK WOUld SOIllEhOVI drive the design 0f the PFK training program. 138 Reasons for Implementing and Training Goals The intended goals of training focused on flexibility, competence, and employee satisfaction. These goals are consistent with the major reasons for implementing PFK which were flexibility; employee growth; improved performance; quality of work life; and employee satisfaction, commitment, motivation, and productivity. Reasons for Inplementing and Components of the Training Process Given that the primary reasons for implementing PFK dealt with developing flexibility, and improving performance, one would anticipate that training components would focus on methods to assure flexibility and performance. This appears to be the case. That is, many of the programs were systematically structured, and used performance objectives, evaluation standards, train-the-trainer, or similar techniques to help standardize the training process. Flexibility came from the range of skills and topics included in the PFK program. Reasons for Inplementing and Perceived Effectiveness of PFK Programs There did not appear to be any relationship between the reasons for implementing PFK and the perceived effectiveness of the PFK program. That is, companies with similar reasons for implementing PFK had divergent effectiveness ratings. Reasons for Implementing and Demographic Factors There did not appear to be any relationships between the reasons for implementing PFK and any of the demographic factors which included 139 program age, implementation site, workforce size, program type, union status, and primary product or service. Relationships Between Goals of PFK Trainingand Various Program Factors The idea behind the sixth research question was to determine if the goals of the PFK training program would affect the design of the training. 'The sixth question is: Is there a relationship between the goals of training and any of the following: a) various components of the training process, b) effectiveness of the PFK program, and c) demographic factors including program age, implementation site, workforce size, program type, union status, and primary product or service. Goals of Training and Program Components There were no clearcut relationships between the goals of training and any particular training program components. For example, some companies identified increased safety and quality as a goal of training. However, those companies were no more likely to include safety or quality in their instructional topics than companies that did not identify safety and quality as training goals. Goals of Training and Perceived Effectiveness of PFK Program There may be a relationship between the effectiveness of the PFK program and the goals of training. Those companies whose goals were directly related to training rated their programs as more effective than the companies whose goals tended to be management-related. In other words, companies who had a clear training focus seemed to be more 140 satisfied with the outcome than companies whose focus was on non- training issues. The company with the poorest effectiveness rating had only management goals; they did not list any training goals. Goals of Training and Demographic Factors The higher the ratio of PFK enployees was to total employees in a company, the higher was the effectiveness rating, and the more unique were the training goals, such as developing individualized learning plans for employees, developing skills to deal with new technologies, and developing self-managing skills. Size alone was not a factor. Small, medium and large companies had unique goals. Unionized companies did not include any unique training goals. Their focus was on variety, competence, quality of work life, and management issues. Food processing companies were most likely to include unique training goals, but food processors also represented the largest share of respondents (5 out of 16). Relationships Between Company Demographics, Effectiveness Ratings and PFK Program Components The final research question was an attempt to determine whether certain structural components of the training program were related to the type of company in which the program was implemented as well as to the overall effectiveness ratings. Research question seven is: Is there a relationship between program components and any of the following factors: a) demographic factors including program age, implementation site, workforce size, program type, union status, and primary product or service, and b) the effectiveness of the PFK program. 141 Program Conponents and Demographic Factors It was found that there were certain relationships between various demographic factors such as program age and implementation site and the percentage of PFK employees in a company. These demographic relationships will be described in addition to the relationships between demographics and program components. Program Age Age of the PFK program did seem to be related to certain other aspects of the program. Seven of the nine programs implemented in new sites were older than seven years old. All seven programs implemented in existing sites had been implemented within the last 0 to 7 years. Age also seemed to be related to the ratio of PFK employees to total employees in the company. The average percentage of PFK employees in programs seven years old or older was 82.6%, while the average percentage of PFK employees in programs less than seven years old was 40.9%. PFK programs seven years old or older were almost twice as likely to have a horizontal skill progression (7 of the 8 older programs had horizontal skill progression, while only 4 of the 8 younger programs had horizontal skill progression). However, age did not seem to be related to vertical or depth skill progression. PFK programs seven years old or older had average effectiveness ratings of 4. Four of the eight older programs were rated 5. PFK programs less than seven years old had average ratings of 3.4, and none of the younger programs were rated 5. Four of the six programs older than 10 years had a highly systematic structure of training components. Five of. the 10 remaining 142 'ograms, which were all less than eight years old, had a highly 'stematic structure of training components. Therefore, there are “oportionately more older programs than younger programs with a rstematic structure. ipl ementati on Site Nine programs were implemented in new sites. Six of these srograms had a highly systematic training design. Seven programs were implemented in existing sites. Only three of these had highly systematic training program designs. Workforce Size In addition to the relationship between program age and workforce size described above, it also appears that there is a relationship between workforce size and the structure of the program. Companies which have a higher percentage of their workforce included in the PFK program also have a more highly systematic training process. Of the nine companies which were found to have a highly systematic training design, the average percentage of employees in the PFK program was 73.51., while in the seven companies with a moderate to low systematic design, the average percentage of employees in the PFK program was 51.2%. Program Type (Horizontal, Vertical, Depth) Program type did not seem to be related to any other factors expect program age as explained above. Union Status Unionized companies were less likely to have multiple sources of input in various phases of the PFK program. Management predominated in the entire process, and employee input was limited. 143 _ Only two of the six unionized companies included vertical skill ‘ogression in their programs, while five of the programs had irizontal skill progression. The focus of PFK training goals in unionized companies was on ariety, competence, quality of work life, and management issues. ;Both companies listing management goals when asked for training goals were unionized.) El Primary Product or Service Three of the companies produced auto components. None of these had vertical skills, but two of the three had skill depth in addition b to horizontal skill progression. The focus seemed to be on learning more skills more completely, but without greater responsibility. Five of the 16 cases were food processing companies. All five of these cases had highly systematic training designs for their PFK programs. This means that five of the nine highly systematic programs were food processing companies. There did not appear to be any other relationships between the type of company and any other PFK program components. Effectiveness of the PFK Program Table 4-25 shows the effectiveness ratings for respondents. In comparing the effectiveness ratings with the various components of training programs, three components appear most often in companies which highly rate their program effectiveness (ratings of 4 or 5). These factors are: - a performance component where employees had to demonstrate skill competence before they could be certified for pay increases 144 - involvement of multiple groups in planning, implementation, and evaluation, especially if PFK employees are included in each phase . - a higher ratio of PFK employees to total enployees ny one company rated its program completely ineffective. This program as lacking the following components: - management made the majority of decisions about the program. There was little employee involvement at any phase of the program. - there was no systematic training done. Instead, employees were expected to learn job functions on their own. They would receive PFK increases when they could meet performance standards for the job. Five programs were rated as only somewhat effective. These programs differed from higher-rated programs in the following ways: - management predominated in decision-making. In higher rated programs, there was greater employee involvement. - three of the five were unionized. None of the unionized companies rated their PFK programs higher than 3. Sumnary In sumary, it appears that the majority of PFK training programs occur in-house, taught by experienced employees or supervisors on-the-job through demonstration and guided practice. Evaluation tends to be by observation on the job by peers and supervisors. Lack of a systematic performance component is considered a major source of problems in the effectiveness of the PFK program, as is the inconsistent quality of training. 0n the other hand, the fact that 145 training is comprehensive and is built into job responsibilities is considered a major reason for the success of PFK training. In Chapter 5, conclusions will be drawn from the findings presented here, and recomnendations will be made for further research in the area of PFK training. CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOIMENOATIONS Introduction As many companies search for ways to survive and prosper in today's globally competitive economy, some are trading old bureaucratic management models for newer philosophies which emphasize respect for individual worth, self-management, and human development. Years of social science research have led these companies to hope and expect that pay-for-knowledge and related innovations would help resolve plaguing problems such as poor product quality, low productivity, high absenteeism and poor worker morale. As a result, companies have restructured work to make it more meaningful in order that employees could take pride in their contributions to the conpany. Companies have involved employees in the decision-making process to give employees a greater sense of self-worth as important and respected members of the company. Managers have facilitated the work of enployee teams and provided leadership rather than using coercion and external controls to get work done. Companies have expected that by rewarding employees for developing and expanding their knowledge and skills, employees will be more flexible and better able to produce higher quality goods and services. The research reported in this study has helped identify some of the training practices which have a bearing on the expectations companies have for PFK. 146 147 The purpose in doing this research was to determine the practices and processes which make up pay-for-knowledge training programs, to determine which of the training practices recommended in the literature are actually being used in the field, and to determine the perceived importance to effective PFK training of identified practices. To address these issues, the research was designed to gather information using questionnaires and on-site interviews in companies which use PFK. The specific research questions addressed were: 1. What are the components of pay-for-knowledge training? 2. How important are the various components in producing effective training as perceived by the PFK training director? 3. How effective is training as perceived by the PFK training director? 4. What is (are) the most common configuration(s) of PFK training components? 5. Is there a relationship between reasons for implementing PFK and any of the following: a. intended goals of PFK training b. the various components of training c. perceived effectiveness of the PFK program d. program age e. new or existing site f. workforce size . 9. program type (vertical, horizontal, depth) h. union status 1. type of company (primary service/product) 6. Is there a relationship between the goals of training and any of the following: a. the various components of training b. perceived effectiveness of the PFK program c. program age d. new or existing site e. workforce size f. program type (vertical, horizontal, depth) 9. union status h. type of company (primary service/product) 148 7. Is there a relationship between program components and any of the following: a. perceived effectiveness of the PFK program b. program age~ c. new or existing site d. workforce size e. program type (vertical, horizontal, depth) f. union status 9. type of company (primary service/product) The companies in the study sample were identified through an extensive literature review and through supplementary word-of-mputh identifications during telephone contacts with companies known to be using PFK. All companies which participated in the study were first contacted by telephone to explain the study and to gain their agreement to participate further. A review of literature on PFK training and on training in business and industry resulted in a list of recommendations which could be considered a model for a quality training program. These recommendations were developed into a questionnaire which was sent to each company participating in the study. A few of the companies which responded to the questionnaire also indicated a willingness to continue their participation in the study by agreeing to an on-site visit and interviews with selected individuals within the company. Information from the questionnaires and from the on-site visits was analyzed using the model in Figure 1 as a framework. The researcher developed this model from information in Sredl and Rothwell (1987) and from reconmendations in the literature. Information from the on-site visits and interviews was used to support, clarify and supplement the data from the questionnaires. 149 W A. Primary Functions 8. Support Functions 1. Planning and Design 1. Assess needs 1. Train managers 5 supervisors 2. Analyze jobs/tasks 2. Involve relevant employees 3. Develop objectives 4. Design program 11. Developing 1. Select content, develop course 1. Select instructors plans 2. Train instructors 2. Select delivery methods and 3. Involve relevant employees media 3. Arrange facilities 4. Market program to trainees 5. Prepare instructional materials III. Implementing 1. Offer instruction 1. Involve managers a 2. Insure transfer to job supervisors IV. Evaluating 1. Evaluate training 1. Identify and select a. Individuals evaluators b. Instructional modules 2. Train evaluators c. Total program V. Monitoring 1. Monitor and manage program 1. Select monitors 2. Train monitors Figure 1 - A Model Systematic Training Process 150 Analyzing and synthesizing the data from the questionnaires was a complex process because of the amount and wide range of data obtained. It was necessary to cross-analyze many small pieces of data in order to bring out the nuances suggested by the data. However, the result indicates that pay-for-knowledge has a great deal of potential in employee development training programs across a wide range of companies and occupations. The findings cannot be generalized to all users of PFK. This is due to certain limitations of the study. First, companies identified in the literature may be systematically different from anonymous companies written about in the literature. These may both be systematically different than companies which choose not to have their programs reported in the literature at all. The companies identified through the snowball process (word-of-mouth) may also be systematically different than any companies not otherwise identified. Second, companies agreeing to participate in the study may be systematically different than those who did not return the questionnaire, and those who chose not to participate at all. Third, companies agreeing to the on-site visit might be systematically different than those who chose not to authorize a visit. Finally, because companies were not selected on a random basis for the study, but rather were self-selected from a non-random list of companies identified as using PFK, the findings can best be used to suggest issues and patterns of interest to be explored in further research. 151 CONCLUSIONS AND OBSERVATIONS The survey instrument relied on self-reports about PFK training programs to gather data for the findings. Self-reports may have a tendency to reflect ideal practice rather than actual practice. Therefore, the site visits provided additional important information which allowed comparison of self-reported data with observed actual practice. While the number of cases is small, the site visits tended to support the findings from the survey. It was possible to be more confident of the survey instrument and the resulting findings because the site visits helped verify the instrument. Given the extensiveness of the information obtained in this study and the complex interactions of that information in relation to the research questions, conclusions and observations will not be presented for each separate research question. Rather, the conclusions and observations reflect the interplay between the research questions and the findings. Each topic in the conclusions section addresses the combined research questions relevant to the topic. Applicability of PFK PFK has broad applicability across occupations. The companies in this study represented three of the ten Standard Industrial' Classifications (manufacturing; finance, real estate, insurance; and retail trade) used by the Department of Labor to classify the economic activity of establishments in the United States, with the majority being in the manufacturing sector. Of the nine occupational categories used in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles to classify all jobs, all but two (Agriculture, and Personal Services such as barbers, waiters, or hotel porters) were represented by companies in this study. 152 However, since the manufacturing sector is the most heavily represented by respondents in this study, it is not surprising that production workers and skilled trades are the most prevalent employee groups included in the PFK programs in this study. The fact that PFK is so heavily concentrated in manufacturing reflects the fact that the manufacturing sector is facing some of the stiffest competition in the world market, and was the first sector to implement PFK. Expansion of PFK to other economic sectors may be limited primarily by a conception of it as a compensation plan for hourly production workers. However, with creative application, PFK could conceivably be used in other economic sectors including construction, services (such as health, legal, educational, personal, and business services), public administration, wholesale trade, and the combined transportation, communications, electric, gas, and sanitary services sector. It would be appropriate to use in any situation where continuing education and training would be necessary or helpful for employees to maintain high levels of knowledge and performance. ' Demographic Factors Size The size of the company in terms of the number of employees is unimportant in deciding whether to use PFK and in its effectiveness. PFK was effectively implemented in small as well as large companies in this study. Unionization Union factors are not important in deciding whether to use PFK. - Only about one-third of the responding companies were unionized, but none of the companies identified union factors as important 153 considerations which might limit or make special demands on a PFK program. However, none of the unionized companies rated their PFK programs higher than 3? Program Age Newer programs are being effectively implemented in existing 3153;. Older programs tended to be implemented in greenfield (newly developed) sites under carefully designed conditions where employees were selected who wanted to work in a PFK setting and had no previous history with the company to overcome. However, newer programs are being implemented in existing sites. This suggests that conclusions in earlier reports about PFK that it was best implemented in greenfield sites may no longer be valid. The lessons learned from earlier controlled implementations appear to be providing guidelines for implementing PFK just as effectively in existing sites. Older programs which had been implemented in new sites tend to have a higher percentage of the workforce in PFK. For sites at least seven years old, the average ratio of PFK to total employees was twice that for sites less than seven years old. This may indicate that as PFK programs age, and as companies assimilate them, additional employees may be included in the program. It nay also indicate that when PFK is implemented in a new site, more employees are included from the start, while programs implemented in existing sites may need to focus on smaller populations in order to make the transition from a traditional plan to PFK more feasible. Older programs are more highly rated. This is not surprising. They would have had time to work out the bugs and figure out what is necessary to meet their needs. Also, companies with older programs 154 have a lot invested in the PFK program at this point, so there is more inclination to see it as successful. Older programs are more likely to have company level training plans, while newer programs are more likely to have work group plans. This may be due in part to the fact that the older plans were implemented in greenfield sites, and the whole company plan was centralized. Newer programs, implemented in existing sites, tend to affect a smaller segment of the company such as only production workers. The plans would therefore more likely be developed only by the segment of the company which would be using PFK rather than developing the plan at the company level. Reasons for Implementigg PFK Human needs in the design of work and the workplace are a primary reason for adopting PFK. Human needs identified by companies as important reasons for choosing PFK include flexibility, employee growth and development, improving employee performance, and better quality of work life. Economic concerns, such as productivity and quality, were also important factors in adopting PFK. However, the economic reasons appeared to be tied to reasons which focused on employee needs, rather than the more traditional approach of stressing only economic factors. Goals of PFK Training The primary goals of PFK trainingprograms are developingand maintainingcompetence in performing job skills and developing_g variety of skills. Although a few respondents identified administrative issues, such as reducing labor costs and reducing the number of job classifications, as training goals, it was gratifying to 155 see that the majority of respondents were very clear about their training goals. The primary training goals of improved performance and flexibility were consistent with the primary reasons for adopting PFK. written Training Plans Few companies have formal written trainingfiplans. This may be due to the emphasis on PFK as a compensation plan rather than as a training plan. Typically, the specifics of the pay structure and its relationship to skill areas are spelled out in a formal written plan. Specifications for the compensation plans tended to include such details as pay levels from base pay to top rate; pay rates and increments for raises based on training; requirements in terms of time, number of skills or jobs, and/or accumulated points for moving from one level to another; and the list of skills related to each team or work group included in the PFK plan. The plans also tended to include the responsibilities for team members, team leaders, supervisors, committeemen in unionized settings, and quality review or compensation committees in some cases. However, the specific details of training, such as what to teach, how to teach it and how it will be evaluated are not spelled out in a written training plan of the same magnitude as the compensation portion of the plan. It is assumed that in companies which did not have any type of written plan specifically addressing training issues, there was either a tacit understanding of how training would occur, or else training issues were generally ignored in the process of planning the overall PFK program. Training decisions would then be left to team leaders or supervisors to contend with along with the press of other daily responsibilities. This impression tends to be supported by information 156 from on-site interviews. That is, there were generally no written guidelines for trainers to use to be sure they consistently covered all important aspects of training with all trainees no matter when the training occurred or who did it. This led to the difficulties noted such as I'lack of consistency in training between trainers,” and ”lack of consistent standards between work units." Techniques for Systematizingthe PFK Training Process Companies use a variety of techniques to systematize the training process. One of the purposes in doing this study was to determine how systematic the training process was. An analysis of any one program component would leave the impression that companies do not use a systematic process for PFK training. However, an analysis across all program components reveals that over half of the companies in this study used techniques to systematize the training process. The companies differed in what was systematic. Each company tended to have a different configuration of components which were dealt with systematically. For example, some companies did needs analyses or job analyses but did not use standardized evaluation criteria. Other companies trained prospective trainers but did not train prospective evaluators. Determining PFK TrainingNeeds Hork teams determine their own trainingneeds. All of the respondents in this study used work teams which generally were responsible for a complete product, process, or customer account. These work teams were most likely to determine their own training needs, based on opinions of employees in the work team. Managers and supervisors also helped determine training needs. However, a 157 systematic process to determine training needs, such as conducting a needs analysis or analyzing jobs and tasks, was used by only about one-third of the respondents. In those companies which reported doing needs assessments or job task analyses for identifying training needs, most used the information in determining skill unit content, but only about half used the information in developing the overall PFK plan. Development of PFK Instruction Instruction is developed by managers and employees more commonly than by the training department, skill unit trainers or training dlI‘ECtOI‘S. Three ObSBl‘thlOl‘lS are important 1" relation to this fact. First, respondents in this study generally did not think of PFK in terms of its training issues. Rather, they viewed it primarily as a compensation plan. Second, PFK is isolated from other training activities and the people who plan them. Third, PFK training is not developed by training specialists. To that extent, it may be less effective, especially if trainers are not given specific information on how to train. Involvement of Employee Groups During the TrainingCycle Managers and/or supervisors and employees are the two groups most commonly involved throughout the trainingcycle. Top administration, at the plant, office or corporate level were involved only in policy planning and occasionally in evaluation of training programs. Training directors were involved in policy planning, rarely in developing in-house training plans, and most commonly in evaluating trainees. They had some involvement in evaluating the training program as well. 158 Inpact of High Employee Involvement Throughout the Training_Process Programs where employees are highly involved in all phases of the trainingprocess are highly rated. Those programs with the highest ratings had high employee involvement with a balance of input from management and training personnel. Management dominated decision- making in programs that were rated only somewhat effective. In the ‘company which rated their program as being totally ineffective, employees were not involved in the decision-making process at all. In the unionized sites, management tended to dominate in the decision- making process. Sources of Training Most companies do not include college courses and college degree prggrams as a way to earn PFK increases. This tends to be consistent with the fact that in this study PFK mostly affected production, skilled trades, and clerical personnel who do not need college degrees for their jobs. However, if college were added to the PFK picture, it would expand the potential of the program to professional/technical and management positions. External training is more common in older PFK proggams. This may be due to an expansion of the PFK program as it ages so that not all skill areas can be covered by in-house personnel. The use of multiple training resources, including external training resources, contributes to more effective programs. Those who use external resources also use all in-house resources. It appears that those who use external resources are more open to all types of training resources rather than limiting their training to only work 159 team trainers. All highly rated programs used external as well as a variety of in-house resources and locations. Timing of Training Most training is done on an as-needed basis. The need in this study was usually expressed by an individual in order to handle their work responsibilities, or it was determined by the team in order to have flexibility in assignment of tasks. Skill Unit Content The primary content of PFK trainingis job-specific skills and knowledge to perform tasks, equipment operation, safety and quality control. PFK was not usually given for basic skills in reading and math, nor for training skills, leadership skills, communication skills, nor management skills. Consistency in Training Trainingis inconsistent in quality and outcomes. This was one of the most common problems identified by respondents in this study. This may result in part from the fact that in many cases, nothing was done to help prospective trainers prepare for training. Most trainers are experienced employees who have not had any special preparation for training. It was unlikely for trainers in this study to use a training outline, checklist, or other similar training aid to be sure they covered all the critical points of a job skill. Even though a person is an expert in their job, they may not know how to effectively show another person how to do it. Companies which specifically prepare instructors had higher effectiveness ratings than those companies which did not prepare instructors. 160 The lack of consistency may also come from not having a set of duties and tasks defined for a skill area. Many respondents indicated they did not use a job task analysis to identify training needs. It is not surprising that skill training is inconsistent when trainers do not have a clear and consistent definition of the job they are training. Instructional Methods On-the:job demonstrations and guidedpractice are the primary instructional methods used. In one sense, this is consistent with the nature of the jobs typically covered by PFK programs. PFK jobs tend to include discrete skills which can easily be described, quantified, observed, and measured. However, in another sense, the common practice represents a limited concept of how to improve performance. The observable skills do not occur in isolation but are part of a process and an environment. To the extent that training is not done on the background issues which surround PFK jobs, it limits the conceptual framework which might help employees perform job tasks with greater understanding of the impact on the total company output. In addition, productivity is limited when experienced employees train novice employees, because two people are not working at their peak output. Some skills might be as effectively taught through alternative instructional methods, such as self-paced materials, computer tutorials, and audio/video demonstrations. This would free experienced employees to continue working at their peak levels and would make little difference in work output of the inexperienced employee. Lack of Time for PFK Training Not enough training time is allotted for optimal employee .gevelopment. This was a common problem reported by respondents in this 161 study. If training needs cannot be met because of workload demands, the company is not effectively addressing the problem. In the case of one of the sites visited, employees expected to receive a certain amount of training based on the time allotments announced by management. However, when management also wanted productivity to meet high standards, they cut way back on training time. This prevented employees from learning the skills they needed to meet their production quotas. This Catch-22 seriously affected employee morale. It appears that companies need to establish a realistic balance between training time allotment and performance goals. Evaluation Evaluation of individual competence in a skill or knowledge area following training is summative rather than formative. That is, employees are evaluated at the end of a training period to determine if they should receive a pay increase. It is not surprising, therefore, that evaluators aren't trained in coaching and counseling techniques, since evaluations in general are not used to guide improvement of employee performance in a skill area. ' Objective standards are rarely used to evaluate trainees on skill competence. Hhen companies had pre-determined performance standards, they tended to apply them informally. Employees rarely had to perform a skill according to a predetermined standard in order to qualify for a pay increase. Instead, increases tended to be based on the fact that the employee had been trained and had actually used the skill on the job for a specified period of time. In only two cases were evaluators specifically trained in the evaluation process and how to use 162 . the evaluation standards. Very little was done in the way of evaluating the overall PFK training program. Tracking of Skill Progress Teams keep manual records of skill progression for team members. This information was passed on as needed to support pay increases. It tended "01: to be DESSBU between teams as a way Of (10109 broader planning for employee development or for optimal assignment of P‘ employees to jobs. A few companies had a company-wide computer system I which kept track of skill training, job rotations, job openings, and pay levels, but this cannot be considered typical. i Training-Related Solutions to PFK Inplementation Problems Training-related solutions are rare for problems caused by changing company needs and aglpg PFK programs. In most cases in this study, companies reacted to changes after they occurred, and provided training after the fact. There were very few contingency plans in place for dealing with problems such as topping out and obsolete skills, especially in the newer programs. The majority of contingency plans had to do with pay adjustments; training-related alternatives were rare. The focus on compensation seems to be a limiting factor in developing solutions which keep employees motivated. Evidence from on- site visits implied that employee morale drops when they feel their opportunities for training and pay increases are limited by constraints of the PFK program implementation design. The one respondent that allowed employees to continue getting training even if they could not immediately apply the new skills was generally more flexible in their approach to all problem areas. 163 The gap between reported data and actual practice is substantial. What was planned and what companies hoped to accomplish with the PFK program was often limited by conflicting demands, supply problems which slowed down the production process, and numerous other factors which impeded ideal functioning within the company. However, the findings from this study have identified several areas in which practice can be improved through careful attention to the training function. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE Systematize the TrainingProcess In general, the findings of this study indicate that the more systematic the PFK training process, the more effective the PFK training program is considered. Moderately to highly systematic training programs in this study were rated twice as high as programs which were not systematic. Therefore, this would imply that companies should try to incorporate systematic processes into their PFK training. Specific techniques to systematize training, which companies in this study identified as making their programs more effective, include: 1) job task analyses to clearly define the duties, tasks, and related knowledge required for a skill area; 2) specific preparation of prospective trainers in adult learning theory and appropriate instructional methods; 3) use of checklists or other aids to assure that all key areas of a job skill are consistently covered in training, no matter who does the training; 4) use of pre-determined performance standards which identify the level of performance acceptable for certification for PFK pay increases; and 5) training of evaluators in how to use performance standards to evaluate trainees following skill training. 164 Start-Up TrainingIs Critical Employees must be given the minimum skills necessary to complete their daily work responsibilities independently. It is inefficient for an employee to have to ask a fellow employee for assistance several times during the day. Neither employee can work efficiently and the resulting frustration may cause morale problems. This is not to say that on-the-job training or coaching is inappropriate but that it must be used judiciously as part of an on-going training plan. If teams will be self-managing, they must also be given the skills necessary to maintain team operations so that team members don't take advantage of the system, and so that someone is accountable for keeping the team on track. Once the initial training has been done, and PFK has been implemented, the company must determine the acceptable trade-off between productivity and training, and it must provide an adequate amount of time for training. This may mean adjusting production quotas down until training occurs or hiring additional staff temporarily until training is adequate to meet production quotas. Train Instructors and Evaluators Instructors and evaluators should be trained in specific theory and techniques to improve their competence and effectiveness. The findings of this study tend to support the recommendations in the literature for training trainers and evaluators. It would seem that companies could design or improve their PFK programs to be more affective by training instructors in specific instructional theory and techniques appropriate to workplace training, and by training evaluators in the skills needed for objective evaluation of employees and of “'61“an programs. Using performance standards Wlth trained evaluators 165 can help overcome problems of manipulation of the system and could result in more effective training and evaluation. Training could also be more consistent through the use of learning labs or other self-paced instructional materials for certain types of skills. Computer tutorials and audio or video demonstrations which are developed by educational professionals in conjunction with skill area experts may be effectively used to teach a variety of r5 skills. USE JOb Analyses and Training AldS t0 Standardize Instruction The results of this study suggest that careful job analysis i followed by specific training to meet all identified job components will result in PFK training that is more effective. Many companies may find this daunting. However, in several cases in this study, the jobs were already quite well analyzed. It would only be necessary to describe specific instructional procedures and prepare checklists or guidelines for standardizing instruction in order to make the training program more effective. Design and Implement the PFK Training_Plan as Carefully as the Compensation Plan PFK seems to be viewed primarily as a compensation plan by respondents in this study. One impression from the results of this study is that training related to PFK is considered so common sense that it can easily be done by anyone experienced in a particular skill area, and therefore it doesn't need to be spelled out. This lack of emphasis on the training aspects of PFK tends to isolate PFK training from the larger training functions of a company. Viewing PFK as a training plan as well as a compensation plan might help to alleviate 166 some of the problems expressed by respondents, such as inconsistency in the quality of training, and topping out. Expand the Focus of Potential Skills for the PFK Program It is possible that including a broader range of skills and skill progression types in the PFK training program could help alleviate topping out problems and could help to keep morale up among employees in the PFK program. It is more common, and may be easier for companies to train for horizontal and vertical skill progression than for depth progression. Companies may assume that depth of knowledge results from extensive experience in a skill area and is not something which can be specifically addressed in training. Companies may find it difficult, therefore, to attach a pay value to depth of knowledge. This also may be related to the lack of a performance factor in many programs. Presumably, the greater expertise one has (depth of knowledge), the better their performance would be. If companies don't train for depth of knowledge, and they don't have a performance component in their qualifications for a pay increase, they may not be getting the quality of performance they desire from their PFK training program. 1 Expand to a Continuum of Skills An analysis of the PFK training processes identified in this study leaves the impression that skills tend to be pigeon-holed. Training is done in discrete segments and pay is linked to each "box". An alternative format appears to be workable within the PFK concept. Training could be viewed on a continuum based on stages of competency within a skill as well as across skill areas. Hithin a skill area, training could focus on depth of skill knowledge progressing in 167 competency through basic, intermediate, advanced and expert levels. Training could be expanded to related skills in a horizontal skill progression where additional skills would be learned at approximately the same level of responsibility. Employees would progress through basic, intermediate, advanced and expert competency levels for each skill on this horizontal dimension. Training could also be expanded to skills on the vertical dimension. Employees could learn skills related to the main process or production operations required for a job, such as maintenance, management, and cost control which in more traditional settings are normally assigned to people at different levels on the hierarchy of responsibility. These vertical skills could also progress through degrees of competency from basic to expert. Such a broad continuum would extend pay classes so that people wouldn't top out as quickly and could have more options. The pay increment would need to be adjusted so that this continuum would not cause the pay scale to put the company at competitive risk, but would still be able to motivate employees over a long period of time to continue their skill development. Expand to Job-Support Skills PFK was not usually given for basic skills in reading and math, nor for training skills, leadership skills, communication skills, nor management skills. Incorporating these skill areas into the PFK program would be one way of dealing with topping out. That is, once an employee had learned all the job-specific skills, further PFK pay increases could be earned by learning skills which would improve their group-function skills, their ability to plan and solve problems, and their leadership skills. 168 Expand PFK to Technical, Managgrial, and Professional Occupations Because PFK was conceived of as a way of motivating primarily hourly, production-type workers, people in the field tend to have a limited conception of the potential scope of application of PFK. College degree programs and college courses represent only a small portion of all PFK training programs. In a sense, employees are placed in a box, and their potential for growth is limited to the confines of the box. The view is also limited by what is easily quantified for a pay scale. Performance which is physical and observable is easy to quantify. Most hourly jobs, whether manufacturing goods in industry or processing paper in clerical or financial fields, are made up of observable tasks. In contrast, management level and professional positions require more decision-making types of tasks which are mentally processed and are therefore not easily observable in and of themselves. Hhile it is possible to identify standards of performance for management jobs, it appears to be a much more difficult process. Therefore, for many people in the field, the perception is that management and professional jobs do not lend themselves well to the PFK concept. If careful job analyses were done, PFK could be used just as effectively with professional, technical and management positions as with production, skilled trades, and clerical employees. The mental processes would need to be clearly defined and stated in measurable terms. Include a Performance Component in PFK Evaluations One thing for companies to consider in relation to evaluation is to use it more directly in skill improvement. If evaluations are based on performance standards which in turn have been based on a detailed 169 job analysis, then evaluation could become part of the on-going training process and would help define the specific qualities of competence needed to qualify for pay increases. Perhaps there is too much separation between the concepts of pay-for-knowledge and pay-for-performance. Programs which grant pay increases to employees simply on the basis of their having been trained aren't really dealing with performance issues at all. Other programs in this study looked at performance only in terms of the length of time an employee perfonmed a skill on the job. If they performed the skill for the specified length of time, they could earn an increase. This type of program doesn't really deal with performance issues either. Neither of these types of programs deals with performance as an improvement in employee skill competence. In order for performance to be a useful concept in relation to PFK, it needs to be defined as competence, specifying how well an employee should be able to do the skills needed on a job. It appears that programs with performance components as part of the evaluation criteria are more effective than those that just have learning and time on job as requirements for increase. However, performance requirements need to be specified up front in order that employees know exactly what to expect and don't feel that management is trying to manipulate them when performance criteria affect their pay. Another type of program which focuses on pay-for-performance, tends to base individual pay on the productivity of an entire unit, such as a team, over a period of time in which the team is expected to meet a minimum production level. In essence, this is a bonus program. Employees make somewhat more when their team exceeds the minimum production level, and make only their basic wage 170 when the team is at or below the minimum production level. Although programs of this type were not included in this study, it is interesting to consider the potential impact of melding this concept with the pay-for-knowledge concept. Employees could get individual pay increases for demonstrating competence in newly learned skills. However, if topping out becomes a problem, teams made up of topped out employees could get pay increases by exceeding their production quotas. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH The implications for practice are based on impressions from a limited set of cases in an exploratory study. Much additional research needs to be done on PFK training, especially research which can collect hard data to support the preliminary findings of this research. The following specific topics would be appropriate and logical research areas to follow up on the findings from this study: - Pre-post studies of specific types of training activities. — Studies to determine which training practices make the greatest contribution to desired outcomes such as improved productivity, consistency in performance, quality of product or service, and cost effectiveness. - Studies done on a larger scale to determine the relationship between various components of the training program and indicators of success such as reduced cost, increased productivity, higher quality, and increased worker satisfaction. 171 Studies to look at providing specific training in instructional techniques for prospective trainers to determine the types and amounts of train-the-trainer preparation which result in more consistent and more effective instruction. Studies which do detailed job analyses to specify not only the tasks in each job but the skills which are associated with levels of expertise as well, and then base experimental training on these leveled analyses to determine if this results in a more effective performance outcome. Studies which use detailed specific performance standards to define not only what an employee should know and be able to do, but also how evaluators will know when they know it and how evaluators will be able to tell how well they know it. Studies which look at training evaluators in how to evaluate, such as what to look at, what to look for, and what questions to ask. Studies which look at the training that is done at start up to prepare employees for the shift to PFK. This would need to look at when to provide team building training, when to do self-managing training, when to do specific skill training and how much of a job each person on a team needs to know in order to be productive on a basic level. Studies which look at training interventions and alternatives for problems of topping out and obsolete skills. Studies which specifically compare systematic programs with informal programs. 172 Law The primary impetus for companies to adopt a PFK plan in the first place came from a desire to motivate employees to improve their job performance and to develop a wider range of job skills. The theory behind pay-for-knowledge is that tying pay increases to skill development will motivate employees to learn a range of skills which will make them more useful to the company. A systematic training program seems to be the most effective way of ensuring that employees learn skills appropriately and maintain competence. The problems observed in this study, such as lack of performance components, difficulty knowing what and how to evaluate, and inconsistency in training and evaluation could be resolved by taking the same care in designing the training component as is taken in addressing the compensation issues. The instrument used to gather data for this study can be a useful tool in helping companies design the training component of their PFK program. It can also be useful in evaluating existing programs to determine how they might be made more effective. The questions in the survey cover the relevant points which need to be considered in designing or evaluating a PFK training program. In general, those using the instrument as an aid in their own programs should try to incorporate as many of the response options in each question area as reasonable for their company. They should especially try to incorporate as many systematic techniques as possible, such as job analysis, performance standards, train-the-trainer, and standardized training materials. 173 Other researchers may also find the survey instrument useful, either for studies to replicate the study reported here or as a guide in investigating specific PFK training programs. Training is expensive when viewed short-term. However, over the long term, systematic training seems to be the most effective means of developing a competent, quality workforce which will reduce production costs and make companies more competitive. Therefore, companies must make a commitment to employees and employees must have a reason for being loyal to the company in order for a long-term relationship to develop. Rather than laying off workers whose skills have become obsolete or instead of going outside to find someone who already knows how to use new technology, companies need to anticipate skill obsolescence and new developments and provide training to meet evolving needs. PFK is well-suited to such a philosophy. It reflects a belief in career development and long-term growth potential. The issues identified in this study for further research are very difficult to tease out from the multitude of innovations which typically are implemented along with PFK. It is also difficult to tell how much of an effect can be attributed to pay as a motivator for improvement, how much to management style, how much to employee attitude, and how much to specific training functions. All these issues are intertwined, and must be carefully handled in order to gain a better understanding of the critical factors needed for American companies to experience the resurgence of economic health they so much desire. APPENDIX A EXPERT PANEL 174 APPENDIX A Expert Panel Nine experts were asked to review the survey questionnaire prior to its use for collecting research data. The expert panel consisted of six researchers or consultants with expertise in pay-for-knowledge, two field-based practitioners with experience in job analysis and job— related training, and one survey statistician with experience in the design and analysis of survey instruments. The panel included the fol- lowing people: Researchers/Consultants Dr. Douglas Jenkins, a principle researcher in the 1986 Department of Labor-sponsored study of pay-for-knowledge programs College of Business Administration University of Arkansas Fayetteville, Arkansas Dr. Gerald Ledford, a researcher and consultant in effective organizational design, including pay-for-knowledge School of Business Administration, Center for Effective Organizations University of Southern California Los Angeles, California Dr. Christopher Musselwhite, consultant on management issues, author of articles on pay-for-knowledge College of Business University of North Carolina Greensboro, North Carolina 175 Dr. Timothy Schweitzer, researcher in the 1966 Department of Labor-sponsored study of pay-for-knowledge programs, consultant in management and pay-for-knowledge Department of Economics and Business Luther College Decorah, Iowa Ms. Lisa Tosi, co-author of article on pay-for-knowledge Chief Executive Officer CITA (China International Trade Associates, Ltd.) Atlanta, Georgia Dr. Henry Tosi, management consultant, co-author of article on pay-for-knowledge College of Business University of Florida Gainsville, Florida Field Practitioners Survey Dr. Carol Culpepper, expert in job analysis and training, consultant in employee development Mayne County Community College Detroit, Michigan Mr. Jerry Schmidt, corporation expert in PFK training General Motors Flint, Michigan Statistician Dr. Irving Lehman College of Education Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan Additional assistance in designing the questionnaire was provided by Mr. David Gast and Mr. John Shamley at Steelcase in Grand Rapids, Michigan; Mr. Thomas Urbanick and Ms. Barbara Kogler at Haworth in Holland, Michigan; and Ms. Ann Armstrong on the Faculty of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. APPENDIX B SURVEY OF TRAINING PRACTICES IN PAY-FOR-KNONLEDGE COMPENSATION PLANS 176 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY counncweomumpu usinmuwo-wxnman-ouuauw innunumroruxexnmwunowmmnunow um:uxvnu1 Education and Training Programs 133-E Erickson Hall October 23, 1989 [First Name] [Last Name] [Germany] [Address 1] [Address 2] [City], [State] [Zip] Dear [Title] [Last Name]: This letter is a follow up to our recent telephone conversation about a study we are doing to identify training practices used in pay-for-knowledge (PFK) compensation plans. I appreciate your willingness to participate in this study. You may recall that the study will be done in two parts. Part one of the study is a survey of 30 to 40 managers of pay-for-knowledge training to find out the most common training practices included in PFK training plans. For part two, I will be visiting a few companies on site to talk with selected personnel about how PFK training is done. The second part of the study is intended to give life to the survey results, and make the abstract data more meaningful. The results of this study will be compiled into a comprehensive list of training practices used in PFK programs. For your assistance in this study, you will receive a summary of the findings, including the comprehensive list of training practices. In addition, I will prepare a special report for each participant comparing their responses with the combined responses from the study. Each participant will see only their own company's comparative results in these special reports. None of the special reports will be included in published findings of this study. This is to protect your anonymity and to assure that your responses remain confidential. I will also be willing to be a resource in the future for participants who would like additional information or assistance in pay-for-knowledge training. The enclosed questionnaire will take about 45 - 60 minutes to complete. It is not necessary to complete it all at one time. I am interested not only in what your current training practices are, but also in how important you view these practices in helping you achieve the goals your company intended by implementing a pay-for-knowledge compensation plan. At the end of the survey are some questions about your company. These will be used for coding purposes only, and will not be reported in the published findings. "51 u an .{l/imuuv Adana Equal Opportunity Insulate». 177 At a later date, I will be visiting a few companies to gather additional information. I will spend about one day at each company, interviewing selected personnel affected by the pay-for-knowledge program. These might include the PFK training manager, people who do PFK training, PFK employees, managers or supervisors in PFK departments, union representatives, or other individuals as appropriate to your company. The purpose of the interviews is to see first-hand and in greater depth how PFK training is done. If you would be willing to have me visit your company, please complete the enclosed Company Visit Authorization form, and return it with the completed survey. Finally, it would be extremely helpful if you could please return the completed materials to me in the enclosed return envelope by November 6, 1989. Please understand that your participation in this project is completely voluntary. You are free to discontinue participation at any time if you choose to do so, and you may elect not to answer certain questions. Your participation is also completely confidential. I will not disclose your name, the company name or location, nor the names of participants in the on-site visits. If you would like further information about this study or if you have any questions or concerns, please call me at (517) 655-4895. If there is no answer at this number, please call (517) 353-4397 and leave a message for me. I will return your call as soon as possible. Thank you so much for your time and your assistance in this project. Yours truly, Marilyn Servais Project Director 178 COMPANY VISIT AUTHORIZATION COMPANY NAME: ADDRESS: The study of training practices in pay-for-knowledge programs has been explained to us, and we understand the nature and purpose of our participation. He (would) (would not) be willing to have Marilyn Servais arrange an on-site visit with us to interview selected personnel from our pay-for-knowledge program. The person to contact to arrange a time and other details of the visit is: Name: Address: Phone:( ) Authorized by: Name (please print) __________ Address Phone:( ) Signature:_ — - -------------------- Date: _______ PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM ALONG WITH THE COMPLETED CUESTIONNAIRE TO: Marilyn Servais Education and Training Programs 133-E Erickson Hall Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1034 179 Education and Training Programs I33E Erickson Hall Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1034 [Date] Dear [training director] In early October, we spoke on the phone about a survey of training practices used in pay—for-knowledge type compensation plans. Perhaps you did not receive the questionnaire I sent or perhaps you have mislaid it. I'm sure you understand how important it is for me to get all the questionnaires back. Please take a few minutes to complete the questionnaire and return it to me by November 8, 1989. If you do not have a questionnaire, please call me at (517)655-4895, and I will mail you one. Thank you for your help in this project. Very truly yours, Marilyn Servais Project Director 180 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY commence/mow mm-mw-mim wmmmmmmmw ammonium. Education and Training Programs 133-E Erickson Hall January 25, 1990 [First Name] [Last Name] [Address 1] [Address 2] [City], [State] [Zip] Dear [Title] [Last Name]: Perhaps you recall that in October I sent you a questionnaire asking for information about the training you do in your pay-for- knowledge or skill-based pay program. I have not received a reply from you. I know you are a busy person, and that in the pressure of daily responsibilities, outside requests can be overlooked. However, in order for my research to be based on the most accurate information, it is important that I receive responses from as many companies as possible. I have enclosed another questionnaire in case you do not have the original, and I would appreciate it very much if you could take some time to respond to the survey. To refresh your information about the study, we are trying to identify training practices used in pay-for-knowledge (PFK) compensation plans. The study will be done in two parts. Part one of the study is a survey of 3D to 4D managers of pay-for-knowledge training to find out the most conlnon training practices included in PFK training plans. For part two, I will be visiting a few companies on site to talk with selected personnel about how PFK training is done. The second part of the study is intended to give life to the survey results, and make the abstract data more meaningful. The results of this study will be compiled into a comprehensive list of training practices used in PFK programs. You may remember that for your assistance in this study, you will receive a sunrnary of the findings, including the conprehensive list of training practices. In addition, I will prepare a special report for each participant comparing their responses with the combined responses from the study. Each participant will see only their own company's comparative results in these special reports. None of the special reports will be included in published findings of this study. This is to protect your anonymity and to assure that NSC a a Alfie-luau Arm. Equal Oman-«y Issue-um- 181 your responses remain confidential. I am also willing to be a resource in the future for participants who would like additional information or assistance in pay-for-knowledge training. The enclosed questionnaire will take about 45 - 60 minutes to complete.. It is not necessary to complete it all at one time. I am interested not only in what your current training practices are, but also in how important you view these practices in helping you achieve the goals your company intended by implementing a pay-for- knowledge compensation plan. At the end of the survey are some questions about your company. These will be used for coding purposes only, and will not be reported in the published findings. At a later date, I will be visiting a few companies to gather additional information. I will spend about one day at each company, interviewing selected personnel affected by the pay-for-knowledge program. These might include the PFK training manager, people who do PFK training, PFK employees, managers or supervisors in PFK departments, union representatives, or other individuals as appropriate to your company. The purpose of the interviews is to see first-hand and in greater depth how PFK training is done. If you would be willing to have me visit your company, please complete the enclosed Company Visit Authorization form, and return it with the completed survey. Finally, it would be extremely helpful if you could please return the completed materials to me in the enclosed return envelope by February 15, 1990. If you need further information about this study or if you have any questions or concerns, please call me at (517) 655-4895, or (517) 335-1653. Thank you so much for your time and your assistance in this project. Very truly yours, 2 ,I . Marilyn Servais Project Director 182 Education and Training Programs 1336 Erickson Hall Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1034 SURVEY OF TRAINING PRACTICES IN PAY-FOR-KNOWLEDGE COMPENSATION PLANS Thepumoseddibwweybtodawmhewhattmkungpmcdcuywmmhghcawwcflmwhha pay-for-lmowledge compensation plan hisalsodesignedtoiindouthouyou. asedirectorof pay-for-knowiedge training. rate the importance of identified training practices. Please do not be intimidated by the number of questions No one will answer all questions. You wll skip questions based on responses to certain questions. Some pointsneedto beclarified. First. manytennsareusedforthelypeofcompensation plan referred to in this study. such as skill-based pay. multiskilled compensation. knowledge-based pay. ski-based compensation. and pay-for-knowiedge. To simplify questions. this survey uses pay-for-knowledge (or PFK) to stand for whatever term your company may use for this type of compensation plan. Secondly. although there can be many areas of importance related to training. this survey is designed to focus on the importance of identified training practices in helping your company reach the goals intended by implementing the PFK plan. Third. when you seethe term skillunitin this survey. I nieerisnneuniidllllnlm (such as a course oran on-the-lobtraining module) ine sklmkmareamlchqoullesansmoyeeforone increment of additionfl pay. lNST‘RUCTlONs: 1. Please keep in mind all parts of your company which use a pay-lor-knowledge (PFK) plan as you respond to the following questions. 2. For each multiple choice question, please place an 'X" on the line to the left of ugh practice you currently use. unless directed amends: for a cannula: guestlon. 3. For rating the importance of practices, please use the following key: 0 a Don't know (you don't have enough information on which to base an answer) 1 a Not at all Important 2 8 Somewhat important 3 I Very important 4 :- Imperative EXAMPLE: What education or training qualifies an employee to be paid for additional skill or knowledge? (Please “X” all that apply. and then rate the importance of the contribution of each one marked in helping you reach the goals of your PFK program.) Don't Not at al Somewhat Vary lines W mm mm mm- a. College courses . O i 2 1.4 4 b. Technical school courses ........................ o i 2 e 4 X 0. Vendor training . O i (g) 1.! 4 d. ln-house classroom training ..... O i 2 s 4 x e. informal on-tho-iob training 0 i g2) ............... a ............. 4 f. Formal on-the-job training 0 i a (4) o Other (please specify) . O i 2 a 4 you currently use vendor training, informal on-the-job if you feel vendor training is somewhat training and fonnal on-the-lob training to qualify employees important. you would circle 2 in line c. if you forPFK pay increases. youwould niarkan‘X'onlinesce. thinkinlormalOJTissomewhat important. and f. as in the example above. circle 2 in line e. If formal OJT is imperative to reaching your goals. circle 4 in line i. 183 1. When was pay-for-knowledge (PFK) implemented In this company (month and year oi actual implementation)? 2. Was PFK implemented in a new plant/attics start-up or an existing plant/office? New Existing 3. How many employees are covered by your PFK program? it How many employees (both PFK and non-PFK) work at this company location? 9' Why was pay-for-knowiedge (PFK) implemented in this company? (Pleasewanthatapplyandthenrateeachofywrreasonsastoksirnportancaincontributingtothe decision to use PFK.) Don‘t Net at al N Very linen mm luau-n ligand mm a. To reduce absenteeism 3 1 2 4 b. To reduce tardiness 9 1 2 3 4 c. inordertohavesmailerworkforcesize 3 i 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 d. To improve employee motivation 3 1 2 3 4 e. To gain improved employee perlormance 3 1 2 ........... .3 ............. 4 i. To increase pay rates for employees 3 1 2 3 4 g. To reduce layoi'ls n 1 2 3 4 h. Forbetterquaiityofworklile 3 1 ........ ...2 3 4 i. To compiywith corporate policiesof . . using innovative management techniques 3 1 2 3 4 I. To gain higher employee commitment n 1 2... .......... 3 ............. 4 k. To save dollars 0 1 2 3 4 i. For flexibility in placing employees 3 1 2 3 4 m. To reduce external marketablity of the work force 3 1 2 3 4 n. To improve labor-management relationships 3 1 2 3 4 0. To be consistent with other management systems in the facl‘ay 3 1 2 3 4 p. To increase productivity 3 1 2 3 4 q To reduce voluntary turnover 3 1 2 3 4 r. To comply with corporate policies abet! using PFK 3 1 2 - 4 s. To compiywith corporate directivesto use PFK 3 1 2 3 4 t Becauseolpressurefromorgsnizedlabor 3 1 2--- 3 4 u. To pay employees competitive wages 0 1 2 3 4 v.Topromoteemployeegrowthanddevelopmem ..... 0 1 2 3 4 w. To reduce union influence 3 i 2 3 4 it. To promote greaterempioyeesatisiaction 3 1 2-- 3 4 y. To keep company non-unionized 3 1 2 -- 3 4 2. Other (please describe) 3 f 2 3 4 3 1 2 - 3 4 184 6. What are the intended goals of training for the PFK program? (Pleaseiistas manyasapproprlate. andthenrunbarthemhorderofhpomnce.) 7. Which statement(s) below most accurately represents your PFK plan(s). (Please'X'althatapply. lyouhavedllerenttypesofplanafordllerentgotpsofemployees.) a. Employees learn multiple skins or knowledge which are al at approximately the same level of responsibility (such as a production worker learning skills for several work teams.) b. Employees learn multiple skills or knowledge which range from lower to higher levels oi responsibility (such as a production worker leamlng team management skills. or a manager learning typing skills). 0. Employees learn greater depth of skill or knowledge (such as a skilled tradesworkertaking on newlob responsibilitiesasheorshebecomes more expert in a specialty.) 8. How do you establish training needs tor your PFK program? (Please'X'allthatyouuse.andthenratethelmportancehhalphgtomeetthegodsofyouPFK programofeachonayouuse.) Don't hora-I am Very m m hull mums. a. Manageroplnion n 1 2 3 4 b. Supervisoroplnlon O i 2 3 4 c. internailob-expert'sopinion 3 1 2 3 4 d. Enemallob-expert'sopinlon n 1 2 ............. .3 ....... ......4 e. Employees’oplnlons n 1 2 3 4 f. Needs amiysis by in-house committee 0 1 2 .............. 3 ............. 4 g.Job/taskanalyslsbyln-house lndlvidualorgroup n 1 2 3 4 h. Sellomanagedteamsdeterrnineown trainingneeds O 1 2 3 4 I. Olheflpleaselist) O i 2 3 4 n 1 2 3 4 9. Do you have a training policy manual for your entire PFK program? No (Go to question 19) Yes (Go toquestion 10) 10. Was your training policy manual developed as a centralized or decentralized function? a. Centralized lunction with input from PFK departments b. Decentralized. compiled from plans developed within each PFK unit c. Other (Please describe) 185 11. What is included in the training policy manual for your PFK program? wmrwflmlmlwmwMthamwmdPFKM) Don't Nelda! WV” mums-mm mama. a6eneri(non-tralning)organuational goalsandobiectlves 3 .1 2 3 4 b. Generainmwuoralltypes . oltrainhg.reiatthFKtoothers 3 1 2 3 4 c. Broadb'ainktggoelsforPFK 3 1 2 3 4 d. Descriptionsolailtrainingoptlons avalabie to ernpioyees to quality for PFKlncreasea 3 1 2 a 4 e. Trainingreqtiementsandprocedures iorempioyeestoqualiiyforPFK kicreases 3 1 2 3 4 f. Specificoblecthresforeachsklil lmovwledgemk O 1 2 3 4 g. Personneipolicles(suchasreqtkements forbecoming instructorsorpolicieson tracking employee skill unit progress) 3 l 2 3 4 h. Evaluation policies (such as performance standardsorevaluatlonprocedures) 3 1 2 3 4 L Other(pleasedescribe) 3 1 2 3 4 3 1 2 3 4 3 1 ‘2 3 4 12. Do PFK employees get a copy oi training policies which are pertinent to them? No (Gotoquestlon 15) Yes (Gotoquestion 13) 13. Does the employee training handbook include the following? a. SpeclicskillswhichmustbelearnedineachsklorknoMedgeunlt? Yes No b. Standudsofmeastxemerflorquaiflyhgheachskliorimowledgemk? Yes No c. Requirementslor progressing through skill unhs (such as minimum and Yes No maximum number of skills. or minimum skill performance periods)? 14. Please rate how important it is to meeting the goals of PFK for employees to have their own copy of the training policies which are pertinent to them. WWWWM o i 2 3 4 186 4 15. Who developed the written training policy? (Please'X‘all who participated.Then ratetheimportanceotthecontribuionofeachtothefind PFK training policy.) Don't Not at al Oomewhat Very ism Imam mm mm mm. a. Training director 0 1 2 3 4 b. PFKtraining director(lnota) 3 1 2 3 a 4 c. Training department 3 1 2 3 4 d. Managers/supervisors 3 1 2 .............. 3 .......... 4 e. Employees 3 1 3 4 f. Plant manager 3 1 2 3 4 g. Corporate adrninistrator(s) 3 1 2 ............. .3 ..... . .....4 it. Work team(s) 3 1 2 ............. .3 .............4 L Department cornmlttee(s) 3 1 2 3 4 1. Other (please list) 3 1 2 .............. 3 ............. 4 D f 2 a a 16. Do you have a procedure for periodically evaluating the entire PFK training program? No (go to question 19) Yes (go to question 17) 17. How often do the following groups of people evaluate the complete PFK training program? (Please make an 'X' In the ONE column which mm film applies to each group listed. For example. ltraineesare involved in aforrnal evaluation ofthe complete program once each year. makean’X'at the intersection of row a. Trainees and column 3. Once per year. If you invite outside consumts in occasionally. but less than every 5 years. to assess you PFK training program. make an 'X' at the lntersectionofrowl. Outsideconsultantsand column7. LessthanevaySyears.) Morethan Every Leeethan Onoeper Oneeper over M3 Everys Every: Never Year Yea Yea Yeas Yeas Yeas a. Trainees b instructors/trainers c. Training department d. PFK training director I e. Managers f. Supervisors g Plant supervisor h. Corporate administrators l. Outsideconsuitants |. Other (please list) 187 18. What aspects of the complete PFK training program are evaluated by each at the following groups? (Please make an 'X' in each column which applies to ugh group listed. For mmpie. ll trainees evaluate howweil theyfeeithecurrent PFKtrainingprogramcan meetfuturecompanyneeds. and [they also evaluatehowwellthecomplete PFKtrainlngprogram meetstheirpersonai needs. youwoud make an“X”attheirrtersectlonsolrowa.Trainsss.endoolum2. Floftoplcswlthfutuscompanyneeds, and columns. Fltoltoplcswlth individual needs. Fltetteplse melteplse Rertsplse Comps. mm mm. “Muld- hassle.- eompanyneeds oempanynee. «inset hose is; I“: i a. Trainees b. Instructors! trainers c. Training department d. PFK training director e. Managers f. Supervisors g. Plant supervisor h. Corporate administrators l. Outside constltants ]. Other (please list) 19. Does each of the PFK subgroups in your company (such as departments or work teams) have a written training plan for the training done in their own subgroup? No (Gotoquestion25) Yes (Gotoquestlon20) 188 20. What is included in each subgroup’ s written training plan? (lfeachplanisdllferent. pleasethhkofthecombinedMandTaIthatapply. Thenratethslr importance in clarifyhg implementation of PFK training.) Don't uereres Somewhat Very Km. mm mm a.General(non-training)organizatlonal goals and oblectlves 3 1 2..............3 .............4 b. Genet-d mind goals for all types of training. relating PFK to others a 1 2 a 4 ' c. Broad training goals ior PFK n 1 2 a 4 d. Descrlnions of all training options available to employees to qualify for PFK increases 3 1 2 3 4 a. Training requirements and procedures for employees to qualify for PFK increases 3 1 2 3 4 1. Specific owectives for each skill! knowledge unit in this subgroup only 3 1 2 3 4 g. Personnel policies (like requirements for becoming instructors or policies on tracking employee skill unit progress) 3 1 2 3 4 h. Evaluation policies (like performance standards. evaluation procedures. etc.) 3 1 2 3 4 l. Other (please describe) ................... o ......... 1 2 3 4 3 1 2 ............. 3 ............. 4 3 1 2 3 4 21. Do PFK employees get a copy of department or work team training policies which are pertinent to them? No (Go to question 24) Yes (Go to question 22) 22. Does the department or work team employee training handbook include the following? a, Specificskllswhichmustbeleamedineachskliorknowledgeunl? Yes No b. Standards of measurement for qualifying in each ski or knowledge unit? Yes No c. Requirements for progressing through skill units (such as minimum and Yes No maximum number of sklls. or minimum skil performance periods)? 23. Please rate how important it is to meeting the goals of PFK for employees to have their own copy of the department or work team training policies which are pertinent to them. WWWWM o 1 2 a 4 189 24. Who developed the written training plan for each department or work team? (PIeass'X'ainho participated. Thenratethslmportanceoftl'rscontributionofeachtothefinal PFK til WM) Don't News. Somewhat Very mun-um mm a. Trahlng director a 1 2 - 4 b. PFK training director (I not a.) o 1 2 3 4 c. Training departrners 0 1 2 3 4 d. Departrnsnt managa o 1 2 3 4 e. Team leader 0 1 2 a 4 f. Work team members 0 1 2 3 4 g. Work team trainsr(s) o 1 2 ............. .3 ............ 4 h. Plant manager 0 1 2 .............. 3 ........... 4 l. Corporate administrator(s) o 1 2 3 4 ). Department committee(s) o 1 2 3 4 k. Other (please list) a 1 2 3 4 o 1 2 ............. 3 .......... 4 25. What types of education or training offered otf-sits can qualify an employee to be paid for additional skill or knowledge? (Please maksan'X‘toths lehofsachonsyouuseJhenratsmsknponaicsofthecorannofeach inhelpingyoureachthegoalsoiywrPFKprogam.) Don‘t Nelle! seem Very lulu marina madam Imam mm a. None (Go to question 30) b. College courses c. College degree program d. Technical school courses e. Technical school certification f. Vendor training g Workshops. seminars h. Otlur (please list) lDDlDDlDlDD ‘d‘r‘d‘d‘ NNNMNNNN lDlhD DID ”(D1919 bbfifibfibb illllllll out what percentage of your overall PFK training is conducted off-site? 27. What criteria are used to determine whether an external course should be used to qualify an employee for a PFK pay increase? (Pleass'X‘sach criterion you use. andthen ratetheimpomncsofeachcrlterion in helpingtoseiect courseswhich helpyoureachyourPFK programgoais) Don't Net er es We! Very Kill mm mm mm a. Course description must match company objectives for a skill! knowledge area 3 1 2 3 4 b. Company representative visits course/instructor to determine the “fit" between the course and company objectives a 1 2 3 4 c. Trainees select courses on the basis of personal needs and goals 3 1 2 3 4 d. Trainees/supervisors select courses based on mutually developed plan of personal and company needs and goals 3 1 2 3 4 e. Committee reviews courses for suitability for training needs it 1 2 3 4 f. Other (please describe) .. lb .4 N O A 190 28. Who has final approval over whether an external course can qualify an employee for a PFK pay increase? (PisasschoossoniyONE.andmenratshowknportamllslamanagingthePFKtrakwigprogramthat thbmpasonagmuplaveflwflndsathhbhenundmcanqmliymemployeu.) Don't Notatal SomewhatVay wwwmm a. Training director 1 2 3 4 b. Training department personnel 3 1 2 3 4 c. Top management 3 1 2 3 ........ 4 d. Supervisors 3 1 2 3 4 e. Committee of trainers. managers. and supervisors 3 1 2.... ....... ..3 ............ 4 f. Team leader 3 1 2 3 4 g. Work team members 3 1 2.... ... 3 ....4 h. Committee of PFK employees 3 1 2 3 4 l. Trainees select their own external courses without company approvd but must pass onothe-job performance evaluation after finishing the course 3 1 2.... .....3 ............. 4 1. Other (please describe) 3 1 2 3 4 3 1 2 4. 4 29. What standards If. used to evaluate II'OII'IO“ from Ofl-SIIO training? (PIeass'X'allthatapply,andthenrateeachoneyouuseonlslmportancelndetemiinlngwhetheran employee is qualified for a pay increase.) Don‘t Not at al Corliewhat Very linen mm mm linen-It mm a Repmation of program is accepted as enough qualification 3 1 2 3 4 b. Employee must demonstrate new skill/knowledge in on-slte perfor- mance appraisal 3 1 2 3 4 c. Employee must perform satisfactoriy newskll/knowledgeonthelobfora \ specified period of time 3 1 2 3 4 d. Other (please list) 3 1 2 3 4 3 1 2 3 4 30. What types of education or training designed by external resources but delivered on-slte can qualify an employee to be paid for additional skill or knowledge? (Please make an 'X' to the left of each one you use, and then rats the importance of the contribution of each in helping you reach the goals of your PFK program.) Don't Notatal Somewhat Very and: ham lam mm a. None (Go to question 34) b. Customized college courses c. Customized technical school courses d. Non-customized college courses e. Non-customized technical courses f. Vendor training ‘ g. Workshops. seminars h. Other (please list) Dibble? DlDDIDlDDlDlD ‘d‘d‘dd‘ hthsNNNNMN assesses iridium-twirl 191 31 .About what percentage of your PFK training occurs through externally-designed courses given on-site? 32. How do extemally-deslgned courses become part of your ln-house PFK training? (Phau'X'uchahahnyouusqatddwnrusmsknpaumsduchakabnhhdphgtosdea courses which help you reach your PFK program gods.) Don't trusses sores-fret Very lull mama m hash. a. Coursedescriptlonmustmatch companyobiectivesforaskll knowledgearea n 1 2 a 4 b. Company representative(s) meets with easemalresourcetodesigncourss to “fit” company objectives 3 1 2..............3 .............4 c. Traineesselectcoursesonthsbasis of personal needs and goals 3 1 2 3 4 d. Trainees/supervisors select courses based on mutually developed plan of personal and company needs and goals 3 1 2 3 4 a. Committee reviews courses for suitability for training needs 3 1 2.. .......... .3 ............ 4 f. Other (please descrbe) 3 1 2.. .......... .3 ............ 4 33. Who has final approval over whether sxtemally-deslgned courses delivered lnohouse can qualify an employee for a PFK pay increase? (PleasechooseonlyONE.andthenmtehowimportamkbfamanagmganFKuakwigprogram mmismepenmagrwpmuwfindsathhlchcumcanqmilyPFKanpioyses) . Don't Netaal MM sum-mm mun-rm aTrairiingdirector 3 1 2 3 4 b. Training department personnel 3 1 2 3 4 c. Top managemerl 3 1 2 3 4 d Supervisors 3 1 2 3 4 e. Committee of trainers. managers. and supervisors 3 1 2 3 4 f. Team leader 3 1 2 3 4 g. Work team members 3 1 2 3 4 h. Committee of PFK employees 3 1 2 3 4 I. Trainees select their ovm ceases 3 1 2 3 4 1. Other (please dacrlbe) 3 1 2 3 4 3 1 2 3 4 192 10 34. What types of education or training designed and delivered ln-house can qualify an employee to be paid for additional skill or knowledge? (Pleasemakean'X'tothsleftofeachoneyou use.andthenratethslrnportancsofthecorsributlonof eachinhslplngyoureachthegoalsofyourPFKprogram) a. in-houssciassroomtrainlng a 1 ......... 2 4 b. Iriorrhdomthe-lobtrakting n 1 2 3 4 __c. Formdon-the-iobtralnlng o 1 ....... 2 ........ 3 ...... 4 __d. www.mm n 1 ......... 2 ........ s ........... 4 _0. minions-list) n 1 ....... 2 ...... .s ............ 4 3 1 2.... ...... .3 ......... 4 35. Who develops specific plans for each skill unit In the ln-house PFK training program? (Please Note: as used in this survey. a skill unit is one unit of training which qualifies an employee for one increment of additional pay.) (Please'X'alithatapply.andthenratethelmportancstoreachhgyoukxatdedPFKgoalsofhavlng eachpersonorgroupinvolvedindsveloplngsklltutkplans.) Don‘t Natal WV” “mm momma. a. Training director 3 1 2 3 4 b. Training department 3 1 2 3 4 c. instructor/trainer 3 1 2 3 4 d. Managers and/or supervisors 3 1 2 3 4 a. Committee of PFK employees 3 1 2 3 4 1. Other (please list) 3 1 2 ......... 3 ............. 4 3 1 2 ........... .3 ........... 4 36. Who can qualify to be an instructor for ln-house PFK training? (Pleass'X'allthatapply.andthenrateeachswrceofhstructorsastothslrknportancsinyouPFK trainineproeraml Don't Netatal Comm Very m mu m mm a. Employeewlthexpertstatusin skill/knowledge area 3 1 2 3 4 b. Manager with experience in skill/ knowledge area 3 1 2 3 4 c. Supervisor with experience in skill knowledge area 3 1 2 3 4 d. Extemal training specialist with experience in skill/knowledge area 3 1 2 3 4 e. lntemai training specialist with experience in skill/knowledge area 3 1 2 3 4 1. Other (please list) 3 1 2 .......... .3 ............ 4 193 11 37. What training do instructors get in order to be qualified to conduct in—house PFK training? (Pleass'X'allthatappiy.andthenratesachtypsoflnstructoruainingyouuseastoitsimponancsh helpingtoreachthegoalsofyouPFKWm) Don't trusses sereeeeer Very In! had-I lulu hart-I m. a. Nons(Gotoquestlon36) b. Instnrctorsstudyontheirown information and materials related to conducting PFK training 3 1 2 3 4 c. General instnrctor orientation 3 ......f .............2 ........... .3 .......... ...4 d. Specific training on instructionfl theory and techniques 3 1 2 3 4 e. Specific training and practice in coaching and counseling 3 1 2 3 4 f. Other (please list) 3 1 2 3 4 3 1 2 3 4 38. How is specific skill unit content decided upon? (Pleass'X'ail that apply. and then rateeachselectlonrnsthod astoltslrmortancsincontributhgto decisions about the PFK training program.) Don‘t Netatal W Very linen mam nan-ll ham maths. aTr-einersdetermlnecontentbased on their own expertise 3 1 2 3 4 b. Content determined by commktee of training specialists. lob experts. and managers/supervisors 3 1 2 3 4 c. Content basedonoutcomesofneeds . . analyses 3 1 2 3 4 d. Content based on lob/task andyses 3 1 2 3 4 e. Content agreed on between trainer and trainee based on combination of individual and company need 3 1 2 - 4 f. Content fixed by pre-packeged training materials 3 1 2 3 4 g. Other (please list) 3 1 2 3 4 3 1 2 3 4 194 12 39. What are the most common instructional methods used in your PFK training? (PIeass'X'allthatapply. andttwnrateeachktstmcdondnwmodyouussastotheknportatcsofks contribution k1 helping to reach you PFK program gods) a.Ciassroomlecturs b. Gessroorndemonstratlon cClassroornsImUation d.Guidedpractlcelntheclassroom e. On-the—lobdemonstratlon f. Guldedpractlceonthelob g Cornputerlzedtutorials h. Selfopeced instructional materials (labial-lid I. Role-pIayhg ].Crlticalincidentmethod kCasestudles l. Behavior modeling mVIdeo/flms ......OOOOC... sesame“... n. Other(please list) DDlDlDDDlDDlDDDDDlDDD dflddddddddd“‘d‘ DDDDGIDDO 40. Where does ln-house PFK training occur? (Pleass'X'allthataPplvrandthenrateeechln-housetrainingiocatlonastothsirnportancsoflts contributiontothsoverallPFKtralningprogram.) Don't Net‘s! SomewhatVery mmm mama 3 a.Onthe)ob o 1 2 4 b.lnaspeciailn-housstraining facility 3 1 2 .............. 3 ............ 4 clnacafeterla.conferenceroom.or othermultipurpoeeroorn 3 1 2 3 4 d.lnacommonareanearthswork station 3 1 2 ............ 3.....-......4 e.Other(pleasslist) 3 1 2 3 4 3 1 2 3 4 41. What Is the typical size of an ln-house training group? (PleasschooseonlyONEofthefoilovlng) a.Ons b.SmaIgroup(2toB) cMediumgroup(9to15) d.l.argegroup(16to30) e.Morethan30 195 1a 42. What input do trainees have in what and how they learn? (Pleass'X'allthatapply.andttnnratetheknponafceofanployeshpmktdetemunlngtrainingcontem andprocess.) Don't iterates Iornewhd Very llaaw mm mm mm mm a. Nons(gotoquestlon43) . b. Contentandrnethodsareprs-sstby expertdeslgn. Traineesdetermins degreeofprogressbyamountof effort they put into unit requirements 3 1 2 3 4 cTraineesandinstructorsdiscussand agreeonspeciliccontentand methodofleamlngk 3 1 2 d. General content (outcome objectives) arepre-set.buttraineesselect preferredmethodofleaming e. Other(pleasedescrlbe) its? ‘ DlDD .e N Bib?“ . 43. Pleasefillinthstablebelow. Forexample.lskiiledtradesareor1eofthegroupscoveredbyyour PFKpIan.listthatincolumnone. ifyourskilledtradssPFKtralnlngplanlncludesatotalof25sklls.v«lts ‘25'incolumntwo. lfsklllsaregroupedlnsuchawaythatanyonssklledtradeworkercanleamonlya maximumof15 skills. write '15'incolumn three. lfyourjob placement needs require that each skiled tradeworkerieamsaminlmumof3skllis.wrlts'3‘lncolumnfou. lfyoufeslthattheaverageskilledtrade wonracanstaycompetattinoriy4skiisatatime.wrke'4'hcoksmflve. Pleaseleffhe Foreachcategery. Foreachefigery. Foreaehsategery. Foreaehcetegery, oategerleeefwerkere summer Iisttheme Inseam! istthelofskllle oeveredbyyourPPK efsklllunlts efsklilsawsrhsr efskleaworkar youfeelaworkerean plan(e) lneludedhlhe lealewedb raustlaan stayeompetentkt PPKplan. lean withwtpertermenes M3203. ”5K; 1ch +31ch .15‘ /'5’ 3 41 196 14 44. What topics are included in your PFK training? (PIeass'X'alithatapply.andutsnratedtsknponancsofsachtoplchhslplngtomsstthsgoalsofyour PFKprogram.) Don‘t Netatal Somewhat Very In: mutant ham Insert-I harm aProceduresllauvledgeforpsrformlng job tasks . 3 1 2 3 4 b. Equipment operation for performhg job tasks 3 1 2 3 4 c. Flow of work from beginning to and beyond skill being trained 3 1 2 ......... ....3 ...... ..4 it Work planning. setting priortles 3 f 2 3 ........ ..... 4 e. Troubleshooting. unusual circunstancas. adjusting routine 3 1 2 3 4 f. Decision-making. problem solvhg 3 f 2 3 4 g. Team-building. or group process sklls 3 1 2.... ......3 ............4 h. Health and safety 3 1 2.... ......3 ............4 l. Quality control 3 1 2 .............. 3 ...... ..4 j. Basic reading sklls 3 1 2.... .....3 ....... ..4 k. Basic math skills 3 1 2 3 4 l. Record keeping 3 1 2 3 4 m Time management 3 1 2 3 4 n. Cost control 3 1 2 3 4 0. Leadership sklls 3 1 2.. ........... .3 ............. 4 p. Other (please list) ..................0 1 2 3 4 ................o 1 2 ............. .3 ............. 4 45. How do employees get information about training opportunities open to them for PFK? (Pleass'X'allthatapplvrandthenrateeachoneyouussonksknportancslorinformlngemployess abouttralning.) a. Word of rnotxh 3 1 2 ............ .3 .......... 4 b. Team. department. or unit meethgs 3 1 2 .............. 3 ........... 4 c. Flyers. bulletins. catalogs. etc. 3 1 2 3 4 d. General announcements 3 1 2 3 4 e. individual ernpioyeelsupervlsor planning sessions 3 1 2 .............. 3 ......... ..4 f. Union representatives 3 1 2 .............. 3 ............ 4 g. Department representative 3 1 2 3 4 It. Team leader 3 1 2 3 4 l. Trainer 3 1 2 3 4 j. Other (please list) 3 1 2 3 4 3 i 2 3 4 46. How do employees qualify to attend a training session? (Please'X'allthatepplvrandthenrateeachoneyouussforltslmportancelnqualilylngemploysesior Whine) Don‘t Netatal Ionsevvhat Very lanthanum?“ - 1 a. Recommendation of supervisor 2 - _4 b. Employees choose within limks 3 1 2 3 4 c. Employees choose with uglimlts 3 1 2.... .. .3 ............. 4 d. Peer group recommendation 3 1 2 3 4 e. Follow a pro-determined sequence for their job path 1. Other (please descrbe) d lDlDlD ... ”MN lla’la’l” fi 197 15 47. What methods are used to evaluate trainees at the end of a skill unit? (Pleass'X'alIthstapply.andthsnratseachmethodforlshtportancsinhelplngtodeterminshow wellanemployselsabletoperformthenewskill/knowledgs.) Don‘t Netaal Wat Very m “I Imam mm Marin aNoevaluatlonlsdons(gotoquealon50) biUnhcornpletlonalonsqudlissfor paylncrease 3 1 2 3 4 cTrakissnxisthaveperfomtancsappraisal basedonpre-detemtinedperformance standards 3 1 2 3 4 d.TrainsemustpsrfonnnewskIl/apuynew imoMedgeonthejobforaspecifisd periodoftlme 3 1 2 3 4 e.erttenexamlnatlon 3 1 2 ............. .3 ............. 4 f. Oralexamination 3 1 2 3 4 gObsavationonthejob 3 1 2 3 4 hlnstructorjudgment 3 1 2 3 4 l. Other(pleaselist) 3 1 2 3 4 3 1 2 ............. 3 ............. 4 48. Who evaluates trainees after training to determine if they are qualified for a pay increase? (Pleass‘X'allthatapply.anddienratethsimporuncsofthecorsrbutlonofeachevaluatorin determlnhganernployee’s qualUicatlons) Dent Natal M Very line! Inert-I um mammals: a. lnstnrctor/trainer 3 1 2 3 4 b.Peergrom(suchasworktaam) 3 1 2 3 4 c. Supervisor 3 1 2 3 4 d. Manager 3 1 2 3 4 a. Team leader 3 1 2 3 4 f. Self-evaluation 3 1 2 3 4 g Other expert worker in same skill] lmowledge area 3 1 2 3 4 h. Committee 3 1 2 3 4 l. Other (please list) 3 1 2 3 4 3 1 2 3 4 49. What qualities a person to evaluate trainees? (Please 'X' all that apply. and then rate the importance of each factor in qualifying an evaluator for your PFK program.) Don't use at es serum Very linen mm mm meanest lrnaaralin a. Training in evduation techniques 3 1 2 3 4 b. Trahing in coachinglcounsellng techniques 3 1 2 3 4 c. Experience in the appropriate skill knowledge area 3 1 2 3 4 d. Position of authority 3 1 2 3 4 e. Use of an objective evaluation instrument such as detailed written performance standards 3 1 2 3 4 f. Other (please list) 3 1 2 3 4 3 f 2 3 4 198 16 50. What methods are used to promote transfer of training to the job? (Pleass'X‘all that apply. and then ratethe importanceofeachoneyou use in hdping employees apply training on the job.) Don‘t Nelle! SemewhatVery “mm mm a.Nothlnglsdone(gotoqueM51) bMariagasandsupervisorsgettralning tosupportlmplementatlonofPFK 3 1 2 3 4 cPayktcreasealonerewardsnewperforrnancs onthejoh 3 1 2 ............. .3 ........... ..4 dflswardsystem (Inaddltlontopayincrease) It place for supporthg new parlorn'rancs..............o .........1.......... 2..............3 ..........4 e.Tralnlngisasclosetorealjobsettlng as possible a 1 2 a 4 f. Transfer is autornatlc due to on-the-job trailing n 1 2 a 4 g. Other (please list) a 1 2 s 4 3 1 2 3 4 51. Who has primary responsibility for keeping track of each employee's progress in skill units? (PIease'X'allthatappIy.andthen ratetheimportancstonnmgingthePFKprogramofeachone rmrked. ) Den't Not at al Somewhat Very line mm Imam M Inaaratin aNorecordsarekepHgotoquastlon52) b. Individual employees themselves 3 1 2 3 4 c. Other employees (such as one's work team) 3 1 2 3 4 d. Supervisors 3 1 2 .............. 3 .......... ..4 e. Managers 3 1 2 3 4 f. Trainers/instructors 3 1 2 3 4 g. Training departmera 3 1 2 3 4 h. Compensation department 3 1 2 3 4 I. Other (please list) 3 1 2 3 4 3 1 2 3 4 52. What record-keeping techniques assist in tracking employee progress in skill units? (Please '3!" all that apply, and then rate the importance of their contribution to managing the PFK program) Don‘t Not at al weer Very m headset Inaanant Imaanaat mm a. Company-wide cunning: system for tracking employee skills. job openings. job rotations. etc. 3 1 2 3 4 b. Company-wide gamma: system for tracking only skill units 3 1 2 3 - 4 c. Company-wide manual system for tracking employee skills. job openings. job rotations. etc. 3 1 2 3 4 d. Company-wide menial system for tracking only skill units 3 1 2 - 4 e. Work teams or departments keep their own computer records - 3 1 2 4 f. Work teams or departments keeptheir own manual records 3 1 2 3 4 g Other (please list) 3 1 2 3 4 3 1 2 3 4 199 53. Howls mastery of multiple skills or knowledge maintained? 17 (Pleasefit'anthatapplyandutsnmtemsknpatancsdeachoneyoutnektheiphgtorneetthe sodsofyowPFKproenmi Don't iterates W Very lines Imam mm Inert-I muslin aOccasionaland/orrandomjobrotations 3 1 2 3 4 b.Refreshertralningasneeded 3 1 2 3 4 cFrequeMplamtedjobrotations 3 1 2 ............ .3 mmmmm 4 d.Llrnltrxrmberofskli/knowledgeunitsan employee can acquire 3 1 2.... .....3 ...........4 e.Q/clicaltralnlng (i.e.topicsrepeated . onaplannedcycle) 3 1 2 3 4 f. Employeesgothrougharecertification procm 3 1 2 3 4 g. Other (please list) a 1 2 3 m...“4 3 1 2 3 ........ 4 54. What happens to employees who do not have satisfactory evaluations after training or on subsequent performance appraisals? (Please ")3 all that apply. and then ratsthe importancsofeachoneyou useas it corxribtaesto maintaining a wet-qualified work force.) a. Repeat the same training 1:. Get additional training c. Sat refresher training d. Manager/supervisor/team leader coaches for improvement e. Work under guidance of expert worker for Improvement f. Forfeit the skill and stay at the same pay level until a different training opportunity opens up Don'tNetetaIMVery “WWW DlDD (D (D g. Pay drops until ratings improve 1 1 1 1 a. N MN” '0 3 3 3 3 I.) lnaatalln. 4 4 4 h.Other(pleaselist) (D (D lD 1D did ”MN” In) (In! (D (is) ..b‘ 55. What policies are in place for employees who 'top out“ (I.e. reach the top pay level available to them at that plant or office)? (Please 'X' all that apply. and then rate the importance of the contribution of each one you use in helping to maintain employee motivation in the PFK program.) aCanbeassignedtoanotherplantor Don't NotetaISemewhetVery mmmmm office 3 -I 2 3 4 b. Can apply for education assistance for training in a new area (outside PFK) 3 1 2 3 4 c. Can move into management 3 1 2 3 4 d. Can get 'depth“ training to become more expert (and continue pay raises) 3 1 2 3 4 a Stayinsameworkarea. andgetgenerall annual raises. but no more PFK raises 3 1 2 3 4 f. Participate in a profit sharing plan 3 I 2 3 4 g. Shift to another type of compensation 3 1 2 3 4 h. Other (please list) 3 1 2 s 4 200 1a 56. What provisions are made ior training 'hold-ups' (employee is ready for training in next skill unit, but no training opportunity is currently available)? (Please'X‘alitltatapP'Y.altdtl'ienratethelmportanceoleachfactorindelaylngemployeegrowth andadvancementopportunitlea) oerr'r ureter-a sore-rarer Very It. ham lull-It mm mm a. Shrationhasnotoccuredatthis. cornpany(gotoquestion57) b. Empioyeeispuonaprlorltylistior nodavalabletralnlngOpenlng 3 1 2 3 4 c. Employeegetspanialpayralse.withtfle reacomingonsatletactorycompletiond nextavalabletrainlngopportmlty o 1 2 a A ' 4 d. Employeegetsageneral/amudraisel therewllbeanextendeddelaymtla Whoopponunltvopmw 1.1 1 2 a 4 e. Employeeremainsatthasamepaylevel unilatrainlngopportunltyarisesmo matterhawlongthedeiaymaybe o f 2 3 4 f. Other(pleasedescribe) 3 1 2 3 4 57. What provisions are made for placement 'hold-ups' (employee has completed training In a skill unit, but no job opening is currently available to apply the new skill/knowledge)? (Please'X'allthatapply.andthenratetl'leimportanceofeachlactorindelayingemployee growthand advanument opportmitles) Don't lietetel 3am Very m mm mm hand“ man aStayatddlobuntlanewpositlon opens up. bin get iuil pay ram 3 f 2..............3 .............4 b. Stayatoldlob. and gate portlonofthe pay raise untl new position opens up 3 f 2 3 4 c. Stayatoldlob. butnopayralseuntl new position opens up 3 1 2 3 4 d. Other (please list) 3 1 2 3 4 3 l 2 .............. 3 ............. 4 58. What happens when a skill becomes obsolete (tor example, because it has been displaced by technology, or it Is no longer performed at the facility)? (Please "X" all that apply, and then rate the Importance of each Iactor in balancing usable skills with equitable pay rates.) Dea't rrer at ea 8m Very In! mutant hm mm mm a. Training ior future job requirements can be taken in advance oi anticipated changes to replace skills becoming obsolete 0 1 2 .............. 3 ............. 4 b. Portion of normal pay increase is credited whenanewsklireplacesanobsoleteone o 1 2 ............ 3 ............. 4 c. Afull pay-step increase is credited when a new skill replaces an obsolete one 3 1 2 ........... .3 ............ 4 d. Employees with obsolete skills get first ‘ choice on training for new sklls 3 1 2 3 4 e. Employeesare‘redcircled' (theystayat same pay level untl all obsolete skills are replaced) 3 1 2 3 4 I. Payleveldropsmtilobsoieteskiilsare made up 3 1 2 .............. 3 ............. 4 g. Other (please describe) a 1 2 3 4 59. 201 19 What factors lead to revisions in the PFK training program? (Please'X'allthatapply,andthanratethe Impomncaofrnlngeachfactorlndecidlngwhatrevislons to make.) Don't Normal WV” mun-ram mm a. Regdar monitoring oftrainlngtodetect problems and develop solutionsasneeded 3 1 2 .............. 3 ........... 4 b. On-gohgneedanalysisand/orjobtask analysistodetectchangeslncompany needs 3 1 2 3 4 c. Input from research and developrnera k1 training to Incorporate newtralning techniques. materials. etc. 3 .......1 2 3 .... ....... 4 d. Changes made at the trainer's discretion ...... .........o 1 2 3 .... ......4 e. Changes made at request of union 3 1 2 3 4 f. Changesbasedontralnees'suggewons 3 1 2 .......... .3 .. .. ...4 g Other (please list) 3 1 2 3 4 3 1 2 3 4 60. How often do the following groups of people evaluate Individual skill unit training in the PFK program? (Please make an 'X' In the ONE column which most closely applies to each group listed. For example. If trainees evaluate a skill unit each time I is offered. make an 'X' in the intersection of ma. trainees, and column 2. each time it is offered. lithe plant manageris Involved in evaluating Individual skl unit lnstructionaboutonceayear. makean'X'attheiaersectionofrowg. plantmanager. and column 4. once per year.) ”are" eneeayac ”noted timeeflend i" 113 if! H “'3' girl Trainees Instructors/trainers Training department PFK training director Managers Supervisors Plant manager h. Corporate administrators 1. Outside consultants Other (please list) 202 61. What aspects of each skill unit are evaluated by the following groups? (Please make an'X'lneach column which appliestoeach group listed. For example.atthaend of traininglnaslrllunlt.lftralneesareaskedtoevaluatehouweiltheinstructordid.howweilthetraining preparadthemtoperformtheskll. andhowhardlwastolesmtheskli. youwoudmakaan‘X'attha Nersectionofrowatralneesandcolunnf- --Instn.rctorquallly.coiunr12 -content,and columns levei.ofdlfflculty) Other Level (please Muster OI- let) ill-ll! m if ii; iii a. Trainees b. Instnrctorsitrainers c. Training department d. PFK training director e. Managers f. Supervisors 3 Plant meet it Corporate administrators I. Outsideconsuunts ).Other(pleaseilst) 203 21 As you know, there are many factors which contribute to the success of the parlor-knowledge plan in your company. Training is only one of those factors. Please help us better understand pay-for-knowledge at your company by answering the following questions on the effectiveness of your PFK program. 62. Please rate the overall effectiveness of your. PFK plan in helping your P?3:—F—.—:—?"P 99.39.01- company accomplish its intended goals. (PleasetakekuoconsidemtbnaulactorsinvnpiemxthFKnothaHng ClrcletheONE statement which mostaccurately describestheeffectivenassofyouPFKplan.) 1 ~ PFK has been completely ineffective 2 - PFK has been somewhat ineffective 3 - PFK has been somewhat effective 4 - PFK has been quite effective 5 - PFK has been highly effective . What evidence do you use as Indicators of the success of your PFK program? (Pleaseclrclethenumberwhlchmostcloselyrepresentsthedegrsetowhichyouagreethatthe following factors are evidence of success in your PFK pregam.) Please rate ALL factors increased productivity Higher quality output Employees display greater commitment to job.. Employees express greater satisfaction with job Reduced tardiness rates Lower absenteeism ooooooo E? e3 Lower voluntary turnover- - - Fewer layoffs Greater work force flexiblity Reduced labor costs Fewer employee grievances Reduced OSHA injury rates Improved employeemanagement relationships Improved supervisor-employee relationships Other (please list) OOOOOOOO DlDlDli-Ilb)DlDlDlDlDIDlDlDlDID E: fib‘bbbbbb&&bbbb E5 204 22 64. Pluufluwlntyoucunidutobetheunemiormmuueufathesucceuofm pay-for-lmowledge plan in your company. 65. PhauluwhatyoucomflutobemeWumiammcausuodewkhm pay-for-ltnowledgephnlnyourcompany. 66 Please listwhat you considerto bethethree malornmmcausesforauccesa in your pay-for-knowledge program. 67. Pluuudwhnywcomldambemethreemiunmcausesofdmhyou pay-for-knowledge Wm. 68. Please make any additional comments or clarifications you wish to which can help us better understand your PFK training program. 205 Thefollowlngquestlonswllbeusedforstatisticalprrpoeesonly. Youandyourcompanywiilnot be ldentifledintheresultsofthissurvey. Data Corporation Name Local Company Name (Ifdlffersntl Local Address g! Cky State Local Phone ( ) Title of Person Completing Survey PrimaryProduct/Service INSTRUCTIONS for completing the table below: Columnl- LookumeunployummmaddmdwfllmyJommw rapresentyoucompany. Column2- Wrue'yu'afin‘heachboxtohdicuewhedw-dfdmunuoyeegrupsbuflonhed. Columna- WrtehdummbdeFKandeFKemployeeahudidassflcadonhmconwly. Unionized? NumberofEmployees Status Yes i Employee or PFK Non-PFK Classifications No Managemera Professional/Tectvfical Sklled Trades Cleric! Production Other(pleaselist) APPENDIX C ON-SITE INTERVIEWS 1. Actual a. b. C. d. f. 206 APPENDIX C ON-SITE INTERVIEWS ISSUES FOR ON-SITE INTERVIEWS practice of PFK training program in the company: planning - who, what's included, when, where - whose idea, why, how design - components, policies, rules and regulations, standards, preparation for instruction, preparation for evaluation delivery - who does it, who gets it, what topics, when, where, why - i.e. need, plan, etc., how delivered (fonmal, informal) evaluation - trainees, trainers, program monitoring - keeping track of how it's working, keeping track of skill progress, noting need for change renewal - revising program - back to who, what, when, where, why and how. 2. PEFCEIVEd effectiveness in PEBChIflQ company 90315: a. b. 3. Impact a. b. c. do Would PFK be effective for management and higher levels, if, for example, ways could be devised to assess knowledge gained from external work (college, conference, seminar) and applied on the Job? How much is a training factor and how much is due to other factors such as motivation for higher pay, or the management structure? on employees: Ability to do Job (pre/post PFK) Satisfaction with Job Integration into company (affiliation, commihment) Status image, self-worth 4. Hard evidence of effectiveness - numbers, documents, etc. 207 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION EAST LANSING ‘ modem 0 4.044034 DEPARTMENT OI EDUCATIONAL ADHINISTIATION MN HALL Education and Training Programs 133-E Erickson Hall April 12. 1990 [Name] [Title] [Germany] [Address] [City], [State] [Zip] Dear [Name]: . Thank you for your willingness to continue to participate in the study of training used with pay-for-knowledge (PFK) compensation plans. I am looking forward to visiting [ ] and to learning more about your PFK program. As I mentioned in our telephone conversation, I would like to meet with several small groups of people from your company. The groups and approximate time needed per group are as follows: Group Time 1) the person responsible for 30 minutes coordinating or managing PFK training 2) 3 to 5 people who have ‘ 45-60 minutes conducted training in at least 2 different skills or knowledge areas 3) 3 to 5 people (different 45-60 minutes than in #2 above) who have received training in at least 2 different skills or knowledge areas 4) 1 or more managers or 30 minutes supervisors of PFK employees MSL' r’s .rrr Airman" Arrears/Equal Opporrerurs- Irrm’rerr'oe 208 If possible, I would like to meet with these people in a small conference room or other area where we will be away from distractions. I would like to tape-record the interviews if there is no problem with this in your company policy and no objections from company administrators. The purpose for tape-recording is to expedite questioning and note-taking during the interviews. I am the only person who will hear the tape after the interview, and tapes will be erased as soon as the information has been coded for the study. However, if there are any objections from administrators or from participants themselves, I will not use the tape recorder. The topics that will be covered in the interviews include: - how training is worked into daily work responsibilities - employee perceptions of how well training helps meet personal as well as company objectives - employee perceptions of how effective the training process is in helping them do their jobs - indicators of effectiveness of training Thank you for your assistance in recommending lodging for me. I will be arriving in . and I will be staying at the . I expect to arrive at about 8:30 a.m. on -‘ This will give me time to get oriented and set up prior to the start of interviews. My schedule will allow me to be at your company all day, if that should be necessary in order to facilitate scheduling of interviews. However, I want to keep my disruptions of your operations at a minimum, so I will work within whatever schedule is best for you. Thank you for your assistance in scheduling interviews. I will call you on finalize plans. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please call me at (517) 335-1853 on Monday, Wednesday, or Friday, or at (517) 655-4895 on Tuesday or Thursday. Very truly yours, . Marilyn L. Servais 3. 209 QUESTIONS FOR MANAGERS AND/0R SUPERVISORS Tell me about this company - major responsibilities, how long at this location, length of PFK use, recent changes. Tell me about your job here - major responsibilities, how long you've worked here, how long you've worked with PFK. Describe the PFK program for me - when developed, who developed, input from which groups in company, how it works in general, I of skills, decision-makers, who manages it. Now let's turn to training per se: 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. What role, if any, do you have in the training that is done? How much input do you have in what gets trained, how, and when? Can you tell me about the training you got to help you implement PFK? How has PFK changed your role? Have you worked in a system other than PFK? How do employees compare - competence, confidence, independence, ability to problem-solve, make decisions, troubleshoot, etc. Has there a need analysis or job task analysis done to get basis for training ? How important do you feel it is to have - employee input on training - evaluation standards - written training objectives Has performance appraisal changed since PFK? How do you handle performance appraisals? Do you know of anyone who would benefit from training/help in reading/math? How important are reading/math on the job. Is any reading/math help given? Is it part of PFK plan? Should it be? What topics are included in PFK? What topics should be but aren't in PFK? How do you evaluate trainees after training? Who else evaluates them; at what point after training? 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 210 Describe any problems and solutions you may have with: - topping out placement hold-ups training hold-ups obsolete skills Tell me about record-keeping for PFK - what records are kept, for what purpose, who is responsible? What are the major benefits of PFK for you? Major drawbacks? If you could change the training in any way, what would you like to do differently and why? What hard data do you have on the effectiveness of PFK? Do you have figures on production changes, dollar savings. How do you measure things like motivation, commitment, satisfaction, and OWL? Do you have numbers that show improved employee performance? How does PFK contribute to a better quality of working life? Is PFK the wave of the future? What is its future in this company? Does it have potential application for upper level and professional employees? What is its potential for other companies? 1. 2. 5. 8. 211 QUESTIONS FOR THE PFK TRAINING DIRECTOR Have you worked in a system other than PFK? How do employees compare - competence, confidence, independence, ability to problem-solve, make decisions, troubleshoot, etc. Have you worked in other companies which use PFK. How does this compare with other company? What would you say are the critical factors which must be determined by each company as they design a PFK program? - i.e. what differentiates each company from another? Has performance appraisal changed since PFK? How do you handle performance appraisals? Could I see samples of the records that are kept on the training that is done? What hard data do you have on the effectiveness of PFK? Do you have figures on production changes, dollar savings. How do you measure things like motivation, conmitment, satisfaction, and QWL? Do you have numbers that show improved employee performance? Is PFK the wave of the future? What is its future in this company? Does it have potential application for upper level and professional employees? What is its potential for other companies? 4. 212 QUESTIONS FOR TRAINEES Tell me about this company - major responsibilities, how long at this location, length of PFK use, recent changes. Tell me about your job here - major responsibilities, how long you've worked here, how long you've worked with PFK. Describe the PFK program for me - when developed, who developed, input from which groups in company, how it works in general, # of skills, decision-makers, who manages it. How do you like PFK compared with other systems you have worked in? Now let's look at the training you get. 5. 6. 10. 11. 12. 13. How much training have you had since you have worked in the PFK system? Do you get any other training that isn't PFK training? How does it fit with PFK training (support, conflict, no bearing)? Describe how you learn a new job skill - what types of explanations, modeling, demonstrations, etc. do you get? What preparation do you get to “set the stage" for learning: - context of task in larger picture purpose - terms, definitions find out what trainee already knows materials that are used How much practice do you get - what is trainers role in practice - when, how often, type of feedback on your performance during practice How frequently do you meet with trainers on skill/knowledge instruction. If more than once per skill, what goes on in between training sessions on a particular task. Where does training occur: - free from distractions - conducive to learning - allow for privacy (lack of embarrassment) - How large a group Do you know the training objectives before training starts? Does the training follow the objectives? 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 213 Does it meet the objectives? Is it appropriate to time available? Can you apply it immediately on job? Is it clear? Easy to remember? Is it paced for easy learning - not too fast or slow, too hard or too easy? How much input do you have in the design/contentlprocess of training: - too little, too much, just right? - did you feel your input was used? - who has most input - is this appropriate? How important do you feel it is to have: - employee input on training - evaluation standards - written training objectives Do you know of anyone who would benefit from training/help in reading/math? How important are reading/math on the job? Is any reading/math help given? Is it part of PFK plan? Should it be? What topics are included in PFK? What topics should be but aren't in PFK? Describe how you are evaluated, both after training, and later, as in a perfonmance appraisal: who does evaluation, what is evaluated, how do you feel about the process? How do you learn about the training that is available to you? What is your relationship to other in your team, your supervisor, other areas of the company. What happens to your work when it leaves you. How would you describe your role in the company. How do you feel about that role - its importance, impact, your own job satisfaction? Have you had any problems with topping out, placement hold- ups, training hold-ups, obsolete skills? If so, how were these handled. How would you have handled them? Tell me about record-keeping for PFK - what records are kept, for what purpose, who is responsible? 29. 30. 31. 214 What are the major benefits of PFK for you? Major drawbacks? If you could change the training in any way, what would you like to be different and why? How does PFK contribute to a better quality of working life? 215 QUESTIONS FOR TRAINERS Tell me about this company - major responsibilities, how long at this location, length of PFK use, recent changes. Tell me about your job here - major responsibilities, how long you've worked here, how long you've worked with PFK. Describe the PFK program for me - when developed, who developed, input from which groups in company, how it works in general, 3 of skills, decision-makers, who manages it. Now let's turn to training per se and your role as a trainer. 4. 5. 6. 7. 10. 11. 12. 13. How long have you been a trainer? How frequently do you train? What topics do you train? Describe how you teach a new job skill - what types of explanations, modeling, demonstrations, etc. do you do (use a typical skill - what do you do first, next, etc.) How large is your usual training group; is this a good size? How do you prepare trainees to learn: - context of task in larger picture purpose terms, definitions find out what trainee already knows what materials do you use Describe how trainees practice new skill - what is trainers role in practice - when, how often, type of feedback on trainee performance during practice How frequently do you meet with trainees on skill/knowledge instruction. If more than once per skill, what goes on in between training sessions on a particular task. What type of preparation did you get for training? - how do you feel about that - would/does specific instruction in how to train make your job as a trainer easier Where does training occur: - free from distractions - conducive to learning - allow for privacy (lack of embarrassment) 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 216 How much input do you have in the design/contentlprocess of training: - too little, too much, just right - did you feel your input was used - who has most input - is this appropriate Was there a need analysis or job task analysis done to get basis for training? How important do you feel it is to have - employee input on training - evaluation standards - written training objectives [‘ Do you know of anyone who would benefit from training/help in reading/math? How important are reading/math on the job? Is any reading/math help given? Is it part of PFK plan? Should it be? What topics are included in PFK? E What topics should be but aren't in PFK? 'How do you evaluate trainees after training? Who else eval- uates them; at what point after training? Have you worked in a system other than PFK? How do employees compare - competence, confidence, independence, ability to problem-solve, make decisions, troubleshoot? Describe any problems and solutions you may have with: topping out placement hold-ups training hold-ups obsolete skills Tell me about record-keeping for PFK - what records are kept, for what purpose, who is responsible? What are the major benefits of PFK for you? Major drawbacks? If you could change the training in any way, what would you like to do differently and why? How does PFK contribute to a better quality of working life? APPENDIX D CODING 0F OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS ‘ 217 APPENDIX D CODING 0F OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS Criterion l: The statement must be related to training for questions 6 (goals of training), 66 (training-related causes for success of the PFK program), and 67 (training- related causes for difficulties with the PFK program), and the statement must not be related to training for questions 64 (non-training causes for success of the PFK program), and 65 (non-training causes for difficulty with the PFK program). Criterion 2: Statements that use the same or synonymous terms are grouped together. Criterion 3: Statements that have a cause/effect relationship are grouped together. Criterion 4: Statements that are outcomes of the PFK program rather than goals (question 6), or results of success or difficulty (questions 64 through 67) are not included in the final analysis of responses. 218 There were five open-ended questions included in the questionnaire. The following information is given for each of them: 1) The question is listed as it appeared in the questionnaire. 2) The final coding categories used for analyzing responses are listed. 3) The responses obtained from the questionnaires are listed under the appropriate categories. 4) The number in parentheses after each response statement indicates which criterion was used to place the statement in the category. 219 Question 6: What are the intended goals of training for the PFK program? (Please list as many as appropriate, and then number them in order of importance.) Category: To develop a variety of skills for flexibility Sub-category: Flexibility (3) More flexible workforce (2) Increase employee flexibility (2) Flexibility in work assignment (2) Create flexible workforce (2) Flexibility (2) Flexible work assignments for team members (2) Sub-category: Variety (3) Each person can learn each available skill (2) Incentive to learn other jobs (2) Assure additional proficiency levels (2) Quality employees on various jobs (2) Expand knowledge and skills (2) Provide job enrichment (2) Category: To develop and maintain competence in performance to increase safety, quality, and productivity. Sub-category: Competence (3) Assure competence prior to rotation (2) Give employees basic skills needed to perform jobs competently (2) Refresh employees on jobs (2) Provide team members with skills required to accomplish assignments (2) Better employee performance (2) Each person can become 100% on all jobs (2) Highly skilled workforce (2) Teach employees how to do jobs effectively (2) Sub-category: Productivity (3) Increased productivity (2) Increase productivity (2) Improve productivity (2) Encourage productivity (2) Productivity (2) Process improvements (3) Sub-category: Quality (3) Increase employee authority to improve quality of service to customers (2) Improve quality (2) Quality (2) Quality employees on all jobs (2) Sub-category: Safety (3) Safety 220 Category: To give employees skills and knowledge needed for quality of work life, conmitment, stability, and satisfaction Sub-category: Commitment (3) More comnitment (2) Employee commitment (2) Sub-category: Stability (3) More stable workforce Sub-category: Quality of work life (3) Improve quality of work life Sub-category: Satisfaction (3) Reduce job dissatisfaction (2) Avoid stagnation (3) Category: To provide a basis for determining equity Equal opportunity for advancement (2) Administer equitable pay structure (2) Recognize and pay people for more highly skilled jobs (3) Category: To develop knowledge and skills needed to use new technologies Educate employees on new technology (2) Learning new technology (2) Category: To give knowledge and skills to be self-regulating Category: Individualized education and learning plans Category: Management-related (not training) (1) Reduce classifications Reduce labor costs and manpower Written job management policy 221 Question 64: Please list what you consider to be the three major non- training causes for the success of the pay-for-knowledge plan in your company. Category: Higher Pay Higher average pay per employee (2) Opportunity to expand skills and pay without moving to a new Job (2) Employees can earn more money, good compensation plan, more scheduled hours (2) Opportunity for more money (2) People's motivation to succeed financially (2) Opportunity for financial advancement (2) Category: Job variety/challenge Job enrichment (2) Employees get greater work variety (2) Opportunity for more job diversity (2) Opportunity for change of pace (2) Challenging technical process system (2) Category: Flexibility Employees advance at own pace (2) Increased flexibility of employees and teams (2) Better utilization of the workforce (2) Flexible assignments (2) Category: Self-managing teams Self-managing team concept with PFK part of total package (2) Self-management (2) Team environment in highly matrixed organization (2) Category: Management philosophy and structure Natural part of participative management system (2) Integration into management structure (2) Explicit statement of "Basic Beliefs about People“ and Business Charter (2) Involvement of employees in writing requirements for achieving higher pay level (3) Greater employee involvement & overall knowledge (3) Participation (3) Category: Support of key groups Top management support (2) Union support (2) Employee commitment to the job (3) 222 Category: Procedures implemented with PFK Equality of opportunity (3) Better communications (3) Provides job classification structure (3) Assessment center selects successful employees (3) Dropped from question 64 analysis based on criterion 4: Increased quality Moved to be analyzed with question 66 based on criterion 1: Teams see payback in quality of learning 223 Question 65: Please list what you consider to be the three major non- training causes of difficulties with the pay-for-knowledge plan in your company. Category: Topping out Topping out (2) Employees concerned about maxing out (2) Lack of "at risk" pay component for people who top out (2) People feeling topped out (2) Maturity of process - all employees topped out (2) Employees top out (2) Insufficient number of new opportunities (3) Category: Lack of perfonmance component Employees feel PFK doesn't reward good attendance and outstanding perfonmance (2) Some employees don't want to continue to learn, would prefer merit system (2) Not related to job performance (2) People being paid top rate but not actually performing at that rate (2) Difficult to know whether person really knows job given present system (3) Category: Lack of trust Lack of trust in motives of company (2) Lack of trust in management intentions (2) Category: Difficult to administer Complicated administration process (2) Difficult to administer (2) Keeping accurate records (3) Category: More complicated jobs Complicated tasks (2) Job enlargement, more tasks (2) Category: Manipulate system Political manipulation of system to receive higher pay level (2) Learning in order to meet skill requirements but avoiding rotation into this job again (2) Lack of honesty with skill levels (2) Job ownership - don't want to rotate (3) Employees want tap rate as soon as possible (3) Category: Insufficient preparation prior to implementation Lack of understanding by those not directly involved (3) PFK not universally accepted by those who must implement (3) 224 Category: Implementation difficulties Lack of mutual decision-making (3) Can't rotate due to business needs (3) Inequity in point allocation for time and difficulty (3) Difficulty getting busy people to use PFK skills (3) Using people in areas where they have not received PFK (3) Labor shortage - high employee turnover (3) Lack of definition of top end of career path system (from question 67) (3) Moved to question 67 because they were training- related, based on criterion 1: Employees learn at different pace Teams need to get payback for training effort Lack of resource to allow people to train on other jobs 225 Question 66: Please list what you consider to be the three major training-related causes for success in your pay-for-knowledge program. Category: Comprehensive training Better understanding of total picture (2) Complete, comprehensive training program (2) Training more thorough (2) All employees trained in how to train (3) Hands-on training (3) Problem-solving training (3) Team duty training (3) Help new employees assimilate culture (3) Category: Better-trained employees Higher-skilled workforce (2) Depth of skill in workforce (2) Better-skilled, more accountable employees (2) Excellent, intelligent workforce that gets continual training and is used to it (2) Gives employees confidence in meeting responsibilities (3) Employees become more flexible and learn new skills/ technologies faster (3) "Up or out" philosophy requires continual growth (from question 64) (3) Category: Training built into job responsibilities Training is part of day-to-day job (2) Greater investment of employees in their co-workers because they are responsible for training each other (2) Interdependence of team members on production team fosters need to do best job possible when training a co-worker (2) Team maturity - i. e. teams take responsibility for develooment of their members (2) Teams see payback in quality of training (from question 64) (3) Category: Objectivity Everyone has same qualifications to meet, not subjective (2) Knowledge required is laid out and given to trainees at the start (2) Good structure up front with task analysis (2) Programs easy to administer (3) Category: Employee input/support Opportunity for input from trainees themselves (2) Teams write own PFK procedures and requirements (2) Gives employees personal mentor/support Category: Quality standards Link to quality standards (2) Greater quality emphasis (2) 226 Category: Periodic review of training Quarterly review of training (2) Continual review of training programs (2) 227 Question 67: Please list what you consider to be the three major training-related causes of difficulties in your pay-for-knowledge program. Category: Lack of resources for training Not enough dollars for training available (2) Sometimes can't complete training in given time period due to work schedule demands (2) Finding time to train (2) Lack of training resources (2) Difficult to find time to train while carrying on daily work load (2) Lack of resources to allow people to train on other jobs (from question 65) (2) Difficult to make massive increases in employment levels in timely manner (3) Trainees must usually adapt to trainer's schedule (3) Unable to provide classroom-type training (3) Category: Inconsistent quality of training Teams choose trainers so there is varying quality of instruction (2) Lack of consistency in training (2) Inconsistencies - not everyone does the function exactly the same (2) Minimal use of formal training materials (3) Too much reliance on self-instruction programs (3) Lack of uniform materials in unit to unit OJT (3) Frequent rotation of instructors (3) Lack of skills as trainer of some persons doing OJT (3) Category: Inconsistent evaluation Lack of regular evaluation system (2) Maintaining strong standard in qualifications across team boundaries (2) No formal testing procedures to establish proficiency (2) Category: Skill/knowledge maintenance Maintenance of knowledge after qualifications are met, especially skills learned years ago (2) Some employees don't get to use PFK skills enough and lose skill ability (2) Teams need to get payback for training effort (from question 65) (3) Category: Differing levels of employee ability Lack of ability of some to learn new skills (2) Employees learn at different pace (from question 65) (2) Lack of formal training for non-OJT skills such as reading and math (3) 228 Category: Lack of local commibment to training Moved to be analyzed with question 65 based on criterion 1: Lack of definition of top end of career path system APPENDIX E CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING DEGREE 0F SYSTEMIZATION 0F PFK PROGRAMS 229 APPENDIX E CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING DEGREE 0F SYSTEMIZATION 0F PFK PROGRAMS Skill progression is not limited, but has multiple options. Programs with only one type of skill progression, especially if that progression is horizontal, are considered limited. Two types of skill progression in a program are considered better, and three types are considered best. Training needs identified in the planning process are based on input from multiple sources. To be considered systematic, the training needs must be based on needs analysis or job task analysis at a minimum, and would preferably include input from multiple other sources in the company as well. There are written training plans which show the overall team or company plan at a minimum, and preferably show interrelationships between team plans as well as between PFK training plans and broader training programs within the company. There are many groups of people involved in the planning process, including employees who will be part of the PFK plan. If off-site training or externally-developed in-house training is used, there is a criterion-based system for selection of qualifying training and post-training evaluation. In-house training should at least be formal on-the-job training. It is even more desireable for programs to include classroom training and other methods as well. There are many groups of people involved in developing instructional plans for each specific skill unit, including employees who may be conducting the training. Potential instuctors receive training in appropriate instructional theory and techniques, in addition to having experience in the skill area. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 230 Skill unit content is based on job analysis at a minimum, plus a needs analysis and expert input as well for an even more systematic approach. Multiple instructional methods are used, especially methods which go beyond on-the-job demonstration and practice alone. The company has designated training facilites, such as a training room or all purpose room, in addition to the job site, which can be used for PFK training. Trainees have some input in what they learn and how they learn it. There are multiple topics covered by PFK training that go beyond the equipment and processes of perfonming a specific job task. These might include such additional topics as troubleshooting, quality control, health and safety, and other topics needed to support job skill perfonmance. Evaluation of trainees is based at a minimum on a performance appraisal using specific standards of performance as the basis for determining competence. Evaluators are trained in how to evaluate competent perfonmance. Managers and supervisors are trained in methods for supporting use of new skills on the job. There is a system of record keeping which tracks employee skill development across teams at a minimum, and preferably links PFK to job openings, rotations, and skill maintenance procedures. Skill maintenance procedures are intentional, such as planned rotations, refresher training, and recertification. There are specific training-related contingency plans for assisting employees who receive poor performance ratings both immediately after training and after later reevaluation if performance has dropped off. There is a systematic pulse-taking and revision process which looks ahead and anticipates changing needs rather than reacting only to problems after they occur. 231 Process for Evaluating Systematic Structure of PFK Training Programs Data in all tables related to the above criteria were evaluated for each company. Companies which met the minimum level of a criterion received a plus (+), and companies which exceeded the minimum level of a criterion received a star (*). Plusses and stars were totaled for each company. Those companies which had 10 or more combined plusses and stars were rated as having highly systematic programs. Those companies with 7 to 9 combined plusses and stars were rated as having moderately systematic programs, and those with less than 7 combined plusses and stars were rated as having an unsystematic program. There were 9 programs rated highly systematic, 4 rated moderately systematic, and 3 rated unsystematic. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Apcar, L.M. (1985, April 16). Work-rule programs spread to union plants. The Wall Street Journal, pg. 6. Barnard, C. (1938). The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UniversityPress. Belson, W.A. (1981). The Design and Understanding of Survey Questions. Aldershot, Hants., England: over. Bernstein, P. (1976). Workplace Democratization: Its Internal Dynamics. KentT'Ohio: Kent State—UniversityPress. Broadwell, M.M. (1986) The Supervisor and On-the-Job Training (Third Edition).'_Reading,Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Bureau of National Affairs. (1988a). Changing Pay Practices: New Developments in Employee Compensa ion. Washington, D:C.:TBureau offNational Affairs. Bureau of National Affairs. (1988b). Pay for Knowledge: A BNA Plus Re ort. Washington, DC: ureau o a onal Affairs. Caplan, L. (1983, April) Knowled e and Skills for American Workers. Paper prepared for The Roosevelf:CEntér for American Policy Studies. - Cherry, R.L. (1982) The development of General Motors' team- based plants. In R. Zager and M.P. Rosow (Eds.), The Innovative Organization (pp. 125-148). New York: Pergamon. Connor, J.J. (1983). On-the-Job Training. Boston: International Human Resource§_0evelopment Corporation. 232 233 Converse, J.M. (1986). Survey Questions: Handcraftin the Standardized Que§tionnaire. Beverly Hills, a ornia: Sage. Corporate Technology Information Services. (1989). Corporate Technolo Director . Woburn, Mass.: Corpora e Technology Information Services, Inc. Craig, R.L. (Ed.). (1987) Trainin and Development Handbook: A Guide to Human Resource Development (Third Edition). New York:*MCGraw-Hill. Cummings, T.G., Molloy, E.S. and Glen, R. (1977). A methodological critique of fifty-eight selected work experiments. Human Relations, 39, 675-708. Cummings. T.G. and Srivastva, S. (1977). Mana ement of Work: A Socio-Technical S stems Approach. Ken , 0hi6: *Kent State University ress. Davis, R.H., Alexander, L.T. and Yelon, S.L. (1974). Learning System Desig_. New York: McGraw-Hill. Directory of Corporate Affiliations. (1989). Wilmette, Ill.: National Register Publishing Company. Doeringer, P.B. (Ed.). (1981). Workplace Perspectives on Education and Training (Volume I). iBoston: Martinus NijhoffPublishing. Drucker, P. (1954). The Practice of Management. New York: Harper and Row. Elias, J. and Merriam, S. (1980). Philosophical Foundations of Adult Education. Malabar, Florida: RoBert E. Krieger Publishing Co. Espo, J.B. (1985, February 14). Knowledge pay part of accord at Buick City. Flint Journal, pg. A3. Feingold, S.N. and Miller, N.R. (1983). Emer in Careers: New Occupations for the Year 2000 and Beyond. Garrett FEFk, Md.: Garrett Park Press. Feuer, D. (1987, May). Paying for knowledge. Training, 24(6), 57'66 e Franklin, J. (1988). For technical professionals: Pay for skills and pay for performance. Personnel, 65, pg. 20. Galagan, P.A. (Ed.). (1988). Gaining the Competitive Edge. Alexandria, Va.: American Society for Training and Development. 234 Gardner, J.E. (1981). Trainin Interventions in Job Skill Development. Rea ng, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. Gold, L. (1981). Job instruction: Four steps to success. Training and Development Journal, 35, 28-32. Goodman, L.A. (1961). Snowball sampling. In The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 32, 148-170. . Gupta, N., and Jenkins, 6.0., Jr. (1986). Exploratory Investi ations of Pay-for-Knowled e S Stems. BLMR 108. U.S. figpartment of Labor. Washington, 0.6.: Government Printing Office. Gupta, N., Jenkins, G.D.,Jr., and Currington, W.P. (1986). Paying for knowledge: Myths and realities. National Productivity Review, 5(2), 107-123. Gupta, N., Schweizer, T.P. and Jenkins, 6.0., Jr. (1987). Pay- for-knowledge compensation plans: hypotheses and survey results. Monthly Labor Review, 110(10), 40-43. Gyllenhammer, P.G. (1977). People at Work. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. Gysbers, N.C. (Ed.). (1984). Designing Careers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hackman, J.R. (1978). The design of work in the 1980's. Organizational Dynamics, [(1), 1-17. Hallow, R.Z. (1990, September 19). Ex-defense chief calls for caution. The Washington Times, Nation, Part A, pg. A5. Herrick, N.Q. and Maccoby, M. (1975). Humanizing work: A priority goal of the 1970's. In L.E. Davis and A.B. Cherns (Eds.). The Quality of Workin Life (Vol. 1), (pp. 63-77). New York: Free Press. Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the Nature of Man. Cleveland: World Publishing. Holusha, J. (1989, July 16). Beating Japan at its own game. Igg New York Times, Business, Section 3, pg.1, 8. Inman, S.C. (1975). The development of participation by semiautonomous work teams: The case of Donnelly Mirrors. In L.E. Davis and A.B. Cherns (Eds.). The Quality of gorkingLife (Vol. II), (pp. 216-231). *New York: Free ress. Jackson, L. (1989a, January 16). Pay-for-knowledge project aims to forge a factory team. Detroit Free Press, Metro Final, 1C. 235 Jackson, L. (1989b, October 2). World-class improvements: manufacturers get down to brass tacks to boost competition. Detroit Free Press, 10. Jacobs, R.L. and McGiffin, T.D. (1987) A human performance system using a structured on-the-job training approach. Performance and Instruction, 26(5), 8-11. Jenkins, G.D., Jr. and Gupta, M. (1985). The payoffs of paying for knowledge. National Productivity Review, 6(2), 121 " 130e Katz, 0. and Kahn, R.L. (1966). The Social Psycholo of Qgganizations. New York: John Wiley and ons. Ketchum, L.D. (1975). A case study of diffusion. In L.E. Davis and A.B. Cherns (Eds.). The Qualityof Working Life (Vol. II), (pp. 138-163). New York: ree ress. Kish, L. (1965). Survey Sampling. New York: J. Wiley. Knowles, M. (1977). The Adult Education Movement in the United States (RevisedEdition). Malabar, Florida: Robert E. Erieger Publishing Co. Labaw, P. (1980). Advanced Questionnaire Desig_. Cambridge, Mass.: Abt BBORs. Laird, D. (1985). A proaches to Training and Development (Second Edition). eading,Mass.: Addison-Wesley. Landen, D.L. and Carlson, H.C. Strategies for diffusing, evolving, and institutionalizing quality of work life at General Motors. In R. Zager, and M.P. Rosow (Eds.), The Innovative Organization: Productivity Prggrams in Action. ‘Néw'Yor : ergamon ress. Lawler, E.E., III. (1981). Pay and Organization Development. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. Lawler, E.E., III. (1978). The new plant revolution. Qgganizational Dynamics, 6(3), 2-12. Lawler, E.E., III. (1973). Motivation in Work Organizations. Monterey, Cal.: Brooks/Cole. Lawler, E.E., III. and Bullock, R.J. (1978). Pay and organizational change. Personnel Administrator, 26(5), 32-36e Lawler, E.E., 111., Hackman, J.R., and Kaufman, 5.5. (1973). Effects of job redesign: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 6, 49-62. 236 Lawler, E.E., 111., Jenkins, G.D., and Herline, G.E. (1977). Initial data feedback to General Foods Topeka per food plant: Selected surve items. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Institute for Social esearch. Lawler, E.E., 111., and Ledford, G.E., Jr. (1984). Skill-Based 66y (Working Paper No. 18). Los Angeles: University of outhern California, Center for Effective Organizations. Lawler, E.E., 111., and Ledford, G.E., Jr. (1985). Skill-based pay: A concept that's catching on. Personnel, 66(9), 30 - 37. Lawler, E.E., 111., and Olsen, R.N. (1977). Designing reward systems for new organizations. Personnel, 66(5), 48-60 a LeBlanc, P.V. (1990). Fast Forward (Working Paper No. 12). Los Angeles: University of Southern California, Center for Effective Organizations. Ledford, G.E., Jr. (1990). The Effectiveness of Skill-Based ng S stems (Working Paper No. 1). Los Angeles: University of Southern California, Center for Effective Organizations. Ledford, G.E., Jr. (1989). The Desi n of Skill-Based Pay Plans (Working Paper No. 15). Cos Angeles: University of” Southern California, Center for Effective Organizations. Ledford, G.E., Jr. and Bergel, G. (1990). Pa in for Skills in Two Food Processin Plants (Working Paper No. 13). [as Angeles: iUnivers y of Southern California, Center for Effective Organizations. Ledford, G.E., Jr., Tyler, W.R., and Dixey, W.B. (1990). The Evolution of Skill-Based Pay in an Amnunition AsserTIETy Plant (WorkingPaper No. 14). Los Angeles: University of Southern California, Center.for Effective Organizations. Lee, C. (1987). Training Magazine's Industry Report 1987. Training, 26(10), 33-35+. Leedy, P.D. (1985). Practical Research Planning and Desigg (Third Edition). New York: Macmillan. Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory and Social Science. New York: Harper and Row. Likert, R. (1967). The Human Organization: Its Management and Value. New York: McGraw-Hilli Likert, R. (1961). New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill. 237 Lusterman, S. (1977). Education in Industry. New York: Conference Board; Lusterman, S. (1985). Trends in Cor orate Education and Igglglgg. New York: Conference Board. Luthans, F. and Fox, M.L. (1989). Update on skill-based pay. Personnel, 66(3), 26-31. Lytle, W.O., Jr. (1975). A smart camel may refuse that last straw: A case study of obstacles to job and organization design in a new manufacturing operation. In L.E. Davis and A.B. Cherns, (Eds.). The Quality of Working Life (Vol. II), (pp. 110-137). *New York: FreetPress. Majchrzak, A. (1988). The Human Side of Factory Automation. San Francisco: Josey:Bass. Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row. Mayo, E. (1933). The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization. Boston: HarvardUniversity. McCord, A.B. (1987). Job training. In R.L. Craig (Ed.), Trainin and Development Handbook (Third Edition). New YorE: McGraw-Hill. McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill. McNeil, J.D. (1976). Designing Curriculum. Boston: Little, Brown and Co. Million Dollar Directory: America's Leadin Public and Private Companies. (1989). Murray Hill: .J.: Bbh's Marketing Seriices, Inc. Mueller, D.J. (1986). Measuring Social Attitudes: A Handbook for Researchers an ractitioners. *New York: Teachers College Press. Musselwhite, H.C. (1988). Knowledge, pay and performance. Training and Development Journal, 62(1), 62 - 65. Naisbitt, J. (1982). figgatrends: Ten New Directions TransformingOur Lives. New York: Warner Communications. Northrup, B. (1974, October 25). Working happy: More Swedish firms attempt to enrich production line jobs. Wall Street Journal, pg. 1. 238 Occupational Projections and Training Data. (1984). Bulletin ##2206. Supplement to 19 - ccupational Outlook Handbook. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. O'Dell, C. and McAdams, J. (1986). People, Performance and Ppy. Houston Texas: American ProductivityGenter. Oppenheim, A.N. (1966). Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement. New YorE: Basic Books, Inc. Payne, S.L. (1951). The Art of Askin Questions. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University ress. Perrow, C. (1979). Complex Organizations (Second Edition). Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman and Company. Poza, E.J. and Markus, M.L. (1980). Success story: The team approach to work restructuring. Organizational Dynamics, 6(3), 3-25. Pulich, M.A. (1984). The basics of on-the-job training and development. Supgrvisory Management, 26(1), 7-11. Roomkin, M. and Somers, G.G. (1974). The wage benefits of alternative sources of skill development. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 2Z,(2), 228 - 241. Roethlisberger, F.J. and Dickson, W.J. (1939). Management and the Worker. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University PFEss. Schrank, R. (1974). On ending worker alienation: The Gaines pet food plant. In R.P. Fairfield (Ed.), Humanizin the Workplace (pp. 119-140). Buffalo, NY: Prometheus 800 s. Schrank, R. (1978). Schmoozing makes the difference. IRE Wharton Magazine, 22(2), 46-48. Stanton, M. (1989). Workers who train workers. Occupational Outlook guarterly, 30, (4), 2+. Washington, D.C.: Information Access ompany, U.ST Government Printing Office. Stoffel, J. (1988, October 16). An improved outlook for manufacturing: Corporate slimming and dollar's decline halt job slide, at least temporarily. The New York Times, F25, F27. Sweizer, T.P. (1986). Pay-for-knowledge systems: An alternative approach to compensation. Proceedin s of the Southwest Academy of Management, pp. 159 - 163. 239 Simon, W.A. (1976). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Makin PFocesses in AdministratiVe 0r anizations (Third Editioni. New York: The Free Press. Sredl, W.J. and Rothwell, W.J. (1987). The ASTD Reference Guide to Professional Training Roles andCompetencies (Vol I). AfiherSt, Mass.: ress, Inc. Sredl, W.J. and Rothwell, W.J. (1987) The ASTD Reference Guide to Professional Training Roles and Competencies (VolII). Amherst, Mass.: ress, Inc. Standard and Poor's Re ister of Corporations. (1989). New York, 7N.Y.: Standar and Poor's Corporation. Sullivan, R.F. and Miklas, D.C. (1985). On-the-job training that works. Training and Development Journal, 66(5), 118-120. Sum, A., Amico, L., and Harrington, P. (1986). Cracking the Labor Market for Human Resource Plannin . as ng on, D.C.: National Governors' Association, enter for Policy Research and Analysis. Susman, G.I. (1975). Technological prerequisites for delegation of decision making to work groups. In L.E. Davis and A.B. Cherns (Eds.), The Quality of WorkingLife (Vol. II), (pp. 242-255). New York: Free ress. Talley, J. (1986, August 31). Wanted: Do-it-all employees; skilled-based salaries slowly gain favor. Washington Post, H4. Taylor, F.W. (1911). The Principles of Scientific Managemen . New York: Harper and Brothers. Tosi, H. and Tosi L. (1986). What managers need to know about knowledge-based pay. nganizational Dynamics, 66(3), 52 ' 64a Vroom, v. (1960). Some Personality Determinants of the Effects of Participation. EnglewoodCliffs, N.J.: Prentice- Hall. Wagel, W.H. (1989) At Sola Ophthalmics, paying for skills pays offl Personnel, 66(3), 20-24. Walters, R.N. (1982). The Citibank project: Improving productivity through work redesign. In R. Zager and M.P. Rosow (Eds.), The Innovative Organization (pp. 109-124). New York: Pergamon. Walton, R.E. (1975). Criteria for quality of working life. In L.E. Davis and A.B. Cherns (Eds.), The Quality of Working Life (Vol. 1), (pp. 91-104). New York: iFree Press. 240 Walton, R.E. (1978a). The Topeka story: Teaching an old dog food new tricks. The Wharton Mpgazine, 62(2), 38-48. Walton, R.E. (1978b). The Topeka story: Part II. - What's the bottom line? The Wharton Magazin , 62(3), 36-41. Walton, R.E. (1979). Work innovations in the United States. Harvard Business Review, 62(4), 88-98. Walton, R.E. (1982). The Topeka work system: Optimistic visions, pessimistic hypotheses, and reality. In R.E. Walton (Ed.), The Innovative Or anization: Productivigy Pro rams in Action, (pp. 260-2B7). New York: ergamon. Walton, R.E. and Schlesinger, L.A. (1979). Do supervisors thrive in participative work systems? Organizational Dynamics, 2(3), 24-38. Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Or anization. Tr. by A.N. Henderson and T. Parsons. New York: Oiford University Press. Weisbord, M.R. (1985). Participative work design: A personal odyssey. Organizational Dynamics, 66(4), 4-20. Wenig, R.E. (1985). Social, economic, and technical influences on employer-sponsored skill training. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 22(2), 59-68. Work in America Institute. (1985). Work in America Institute PolicyStudyz Interim Report: Trainin for new téthnology: Part II - Toward continuous earn ng. Work in America Institute, Inc. Work in America Institute. (1987). Work in America Institute Polipy Study,lInterim Report: Training for new technology: Part IV - The continuous learnin [employment security connection. Work in America Institu e, Inc. Worldscope Industrial Company Profiles. (1989). Bridgeport, CT.: Wright Investor's Service. Ziskin, I.v. (1986). Knowledge-based pay: A strategic analysis. ILR Report, 26(1), 16-22. MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES lli1|inIVWIWWIIINHIIHWIIHIIIHHIWll 31293009031794 r—‘n'n'u'-"-"—"-"--'_-_-_-.