Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Salas, E. (1997). An organizational systems approach for the implementation and transfer of training. In J. K. Ford, S. W. J. Kozlowski, K. Kraiger, E. Salas, & M. Teachout (Eds.), Improving training effectiveness in work organizations (pp. 247-287). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Steve W. J. Kozlowski

Michigan State University

and

Eduardo Salas

Naval Training Systems Center

Training activities are embedded within the context of the organization as a dynamic multilevel system. Interestingly, training research has largely neglected the research and practical implications of this theoretical perspective. Indeed, one of the more consistent criticisms of the field has been its insular nature and the relative lack of emphasis on theory development (Campbell, 1971; Goldstein, 1980; Latham, 1988; Wexley, 1984). Training has generally been slow to integrate theoretical concepts from other research areas. In addition, the training literature is characterized by a micro orientation. Linkages between training activities, the organizational system, and its processes have received little emphasis in the literature.

There are several indications that this state of affairs is changing. Training research has begun to draw heavily upon theory from related research domains (Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992). For example, influences from cognitive and differential psychology are having a significant impact on training research. This relatively recent work is extending the conceptualization of learning and individual change beyond the prescriptions of classic principles of learning that have dominated training design for over three decades (e.g., Ackerman, Sternberg, & Glaser, 1989; Howell & Cooke, 1989; Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989). This integration is encouraging. It promises to revolutionize conceptualization of the process by which expertise develops. This work, however, continues to reflect the dominant individual level orientation of training.

We believe that training can also significantly benefit from an integration with concepts drawn from organizational theory. The training function is bound by the contextual constraints of the organizational system and its defining features. Recent theory has begun to consider the interface between the organizational system and training (Goldstein, 1991; London, 1989). Training is being conceptualized as integral to the strategic goals of the organization (Schuler & Walker, 1990), as a component of the human resource planning process (Jackson & Schuler, 1990), and as an activity that is constrained by organizational environment features (Baldwin & Ford, 1988). This broader perspective on training has theoretical implications for all phases of the training process, including needs analysis, instructional design, and transfer.

Our purpose in this chapter is to extend and more fully elaborate this evolving perspective. We develop a conceptual framework that integrates training with concepts drawn from organizational systems theory. Our model represents an effort to move beyond simple metaphorical references to the organization as a system; the goal is to derive conceptual themes that have substantive implications for training research and application. The model is used to make explicit several issues that must be addressed if training interventions are to yield tangible impacts on organizational effectiveness.

Training has typically been micro in its orientation, with a focus on individual learning, development, and change. This is true in spite of the fact that, at least at a conceptual level, training needs assessment (McGhee & Thayer, 1961), evaluation (Kirkpatrick, 1967) and instructional design models (Goldstein, 1992) assert that training should be designed to support and contribute to clearly articulated organizational goals. In practice, however, training activities are generally focused at the individual level, including needs analysis (Ostroff & Ford, 1990), delivery programs (Salas, Dickinson, Converse, & Tannenbaum, 1992), and evaluation criteria (Alliger & Janak, 1989). This can be attributed to the dominance of instructional theory in training, which is based on individual level models of change. An inherent assumption is that the individual level is the source of organizational level change.

Although it is axiomatic that psychological change is rooted in individuals, this narrow orientation neglects the constraining influence of contextual factors at higher levels of the organizational system. The need for change, the implementation of interventions, and the transfer of trained skills are embedded within the context of work team, subunit, and organizational levels (Roberts, Hulin, & Rousseau, 1978; Sundstrom, DeMeuse, & Futrell, 1990). These contextual features and processes ultimately facilitate or inhibit the expression of trained skills.

The neglect of the organizational system and its processes has implications for training effectiveness, particularly in those instances when training content or its level of delivery does not align well with contextual constraints. This chapter takes the position that the incorporation of a systems perspective identifies issues that must be addressed to ensure that training contributes to desired changes. Trained knowledge, skilled behaviors, attitudes, and other characteristics (KSAOs) at the individual level are embedded in team or unit level technology, coordination processes, and social system contexts, with broader contextual constraints originating at higher system levels. From this perspective, preparing individuals to accept training induced change, and encouraging them to express their new capabilities in the work environment, requires training that is delivered at the appropriate level and is congruent with contextual supports. When this perspective is brought to bear, it is clear that training shares themes with other research domains that also address the problem of organizational change. Yet, these themes have rarely been systematically applied to issues in training.

This overview suggests an approach to integrate traditional training concerns with concepts derived from organizational theory. This approach must incorporate more explicit recognition of the individual, team/unit, and organizational levels inherent in the organization system. Extant models that do incorporate systems concepts tend to focus on the systems character of the training function (e.g., Goldstein, 1991; Camp, Blanchard, & Huszczo, 1982). These models focus on training as a self-contained activity, with only limited specification of its linkage to the context of the organizational system. Thus, our approach must also specify the process linkages among organizational levels in terms of their relevance to training activity. The general systems paradigm (Von Bertalanffy, 1975, 1980) provides principles relevant to differentiating levels of analysis (Rousseau, 1985) and can provide a conceptual foundation for specification of the process linkages that permeate the system.

To accomplish this integration, we must pull together common themes from research on organizational change and relate them to neglected problems in training. The different research domains have tended to be insular, not only because of disciplinary origin and evolution, but also because they have as their primary focus different levels of analysis and, to some extent, different content as well. For example, organizational development (OD), although it originally grew out of individual change efforts, takes as its focus the entire organizational system. OD efforts regard change as best leveraged at the organizational level, with a focus on changing the culture of the system (Beer & Walton, 1990). Sociotechnical systems theory (SST) takes as its primary focus the subunit, team, or group that comprise a technology system (Walton, 1977). Change is focused on aligning the technological system with the needs, expectations, and norms of its human resources. SST has served as a dominant model for implementing advanced manufacturing technologies (AMT; Majchzack, 1988) and other forms of innovation. Organizational training, in contrast, focuses on individual change in knowledge, behavioral skills, attitudes, and other characteristics (Goldstein, 1992). Each of these approaches recognizes that change must move across levels in the organizational system. However, each domain specifies change processes most completely at a particular level; linkages to other levels are not well specified. Thus, effects originating from other levels are often not made salient.

Three common themes unite these different approaches to individual and organizational change -- levels of analysis, content focus, and congruence. They comprise the conceptual dimensions for our integrative model. The levels of analysis theme provides the theoretical foundation for specifying the target level for training delivery and identifying the process linkages to other levels implicated in change. It provides the principles for articulating the linkages between the target level and levels above and below it. The content theme provides the rationale for specifying the training focus on technostructural vs. enabling processes factors. Technostructural factors implicate technical knowledge and skills, whereas enabling processes reference the human interactions, perceptions, and shared expectations that allow the technical knowledge to be usefully applied in work settings. Content is not only relevant to the training target, but also implicates related content at different levels in the organizational system. The congruence theme helps to specify requisite alignments across technostructural and enabling process content within levels. It also specifies alignments within each content domain from higher to lower levels of analysis; it provides a basis for identifying relevant features of the embedding context that must be consistent with training content for change to occur. We will further elaborate these issues with respect to training transfer once we have developed the foundation and rationale for our framework.

This framework will be used to identify organizational factors and processes that may bear on the implementation and transfer of training interventions. This will indicate the supports at the individual, team/unit, and organizational levels that must be properly aligned with the objectives underlying the training for the intervention to be effective. Thus, the framework will help make salient the organizational infrastructure that should be in place to support training. In addition, the framework will allow identification of those areas where the organizational literature provides little theoretical or empirical guidance; it will provide a basis to identify avenues for further conceptual development and directions for research and practice.

The remainder of this chapter develops the rationale for this integrative approach. First, we begin with an examination of training system linkages to the context defined by the organizational system. The purpose is to identify limitations in existing conceptualizations that our integrative model will address. Second, we derive, explain, and illustrate the three unifying themes from organizational research: levels of analysis, content focus, and congruence. Third, we develop a model to apply the integrating themes to training, with a particular emphasis on the identification of processes and factors at higher levels of analysis that are likely to set constraints on the effective implementation and transfer of training interventions. We make explicit the expanded perspective on transfer offered by our model. Finally, we demonstrate the theoretical utility of our approach by identifying research propositions. Because team based work systems are at the intersection of the individual and organizational levels, we use teams as a central focus of our presentation. This serves to illustrate the limitations of the strictly individual level perspective and to provide a vehicle for posing research questions.

END OF INTRODUCTION