Training Methods in Small and Medium Enterprises

Perhaps the clearest finding concerning training in small and medium firms is that it is primarily informal rather than formal. Small firms often report that they do no training of employees because they often do not consider informal training as “real” training (Ross, Reference Ross1993; Smith et al., Reference Smith, Boocock, Loan-Clarke and Whittaker2002), and they rarely carry out formal training needs analysis or use a systematic approach (Kotey & Folker, Reference Kotey and Folker2007). One study suggested that SMEs have 24% of employees untrained compared to 4% in large enterprises (Storey & Westhead, Reference Storey and Westhead1997). Indeed, because the literature on training typically takes a large firm view, which tends to focus more on formal training, there is very little research or knowledge focused on informal training in SMEs (Kotey & Folker, Reference Kotey and Folker2007). Yet, “the importance of informal training is difficult to over-state. Not only is informal in-house training important, but for many small firms it is their only form of training. For others, it is their preferred mode of training; external training is often regarded as second best in terms of their ability to meet their needs” (Curran et al., Reference Curran, Blackburn, Kitching, North, Ram, Deakins and Smallbone1997: 97)

Informal training is important to small firms as a method of skill and knowledge acquisition (Hill & Stewart, Reference Hill and Stewart2000; Jones, Morris, & Rockmore, Reference Jones, Morris and Rockmore1995; Kotey & Folker, Reference Kotey and Folker2007; Sirmon & Hitt, Reference Sirmon and Hitt1992), and may include socialization (which can include formal and informal elements), on-the-job training, and knowledge sharing (see Chapter 3 by Marand and Noe in this volume). SMEs are more willing to engage in informal training when there is a direct link between costs and benefits (Lange et al., Reference Lange, Ottens and Taylor2000). Small firms often train new employees by watching them work and correcting their performance as they go (Kotey & Slade, Reference Kotey and Slade2005), especially in micro-sized firms. As such, training in smaller firms tends to be ad hoc (Cassell et al., Reference Cassell, Nadin, Gray and Clegg2002; Marlow & Patton, Reference Marlow and Patton1993). In small firms, owners/managers typically take direct responsibility for employee training, and teach them the owners’ preferred method of doing things (Kotey & Slade, Reference Kotey and Slade2005; Timmons, Reference Timmons1999). Such informal training is not only less expensive, but can also be infused into daily operations of the firm, and is focused on not only employee-specific needs (Curran et al., Reference Curran, Blackburn, Kitching, North, Ram, Deakins and Smallbone1997; Hill & Stewart, Reference Hill and Stewart2000), but also firm-specific needs, which addresses the concerns with losses in productivity and control discussed in the preceding text. Informal training is also effective in small firms because employees learn on-site while their skills are being used and where their skills will need to be maintained (Lange et al., Reference Lange, Ottens and Taylor2000). This allows employees to learn how to solve problems as they arise, which creates a more multitalented labor force, which is highly suited to the SME environment (Kotey & Folker, Reference Kotey and Folker2007; Smith et al., Reference Smith, Boocock, Loan-Clarke and Whittaker2002). Informal human resources practices, including training, allow smaller firms to be more flexible in coping with environmental uncertainty, too (de Kok & Uhlaner, Reference De Kok and Uhlaner2001; Hill & Stewart, Reference Hill and Stewart2000). Because informal practices are not codified in formal, written policies, they can be more easily changed by owners with less resistance and complaint than if they had been written down, codified, and perceived by employees as a contract.

SMEs do conduct some formal training, such as orientation for new employees (Kotey & Slade, Reference Kotey and Slade2005). Yet the formal training that is provided to employees in these firms is likely to be reactive, occurring based on poor performance on the part of an employee (Banks et al., Reference Banks, Bures and Champion1987; Lange et al., Reference Lange, Ottens and Taylor2000) or if an external need is identified for it (Smith & Whittaker, Reference Smith and Whittaker1998). The focus of such training is typically on individual employee skill development for their current job, rather than more comprehensive or general training for future skills the employee might need (Lange et al., Reference Lange, Ottens and Taylor2000).

Some SMEs also provide “bite-size training” where employees get small focused lessons from specific formal courses tailored to the needs of a particular organization or job, rather than broader or more generalized training (Lange et al., Reference Lange, Ottens and Taylor2000), which may take more time. Some evidence also suggests that small firms tend to use trade associations, short college seminars (less than five days), and in-house personnel as the most common sources of training and development (Banks et al., Reference Banks, Bures and Champion1987) although training delivery methods have changed substantially since the time of that study and therefore such preferences may have also changed.

There is also heterogeneity within SMEs concerning the type and content of training they engage in, based on individual and organizational factors, such as company size, strategy, technology, culture, and environment (de Kok & Uhlaner, Reference De Kok and Uhlaner2001). Smith et al. (Reference Smith, Boocock, Loan-Clarke and Whittaker2002) developed a comprehensive model of individual and organizational factors, as well as aspects of formal training, that triggers SME adoption of a specific formal training program, and Kotey and Folker (Reference Kotey and Folker2007) examine the effect of size and whether the firm is family owned on adoption of informal and formal training programs in SMEs. We focus on differences in SME training based on the size of the firm, as well as based on whether it is a family firm, which appear to be two critical factors impacting SME training.

Training Content in Small and Medium Enterprises

The benefit of training to organizations is not just the person acquiring the skill and therefore being able to produce more output, but also the increase in the company’s ability to flexibly shift its focus between sectors and branches and to innovate in the marketplace, which is essential for both keeping labor and capital employed and for maintaining competitiveness of the business (Booth & Snower, Reference Booth and Snower1990; Lange et al., Reference Lange, Ottens and Taylor2000). Very small firms need flexibility and speedy response times to changing strategic priorities and environmental variables (Kotey & Slade, Reference Kotey and Slade2005). Therefore their training is often focused on generalized skill sets and jobs rather than more specialized ones (Bacon et al., Reference Bacon, Ackers, Storey and Coates1996; de Kok & Uhlaner, Reference De Kok and Uhlaner2001; Wagner, Reference Wagner1997).

For very small microfirms, training is typically only that which is required by law, such as health and safety legislation compliance (Smith & Whittaker, Reference Smith and Whittaker1998). In very small firms (10–50 employees), training might only occur in the form of annual team outings with employees (de Kok & Uhlaner, Reference De Kok and Uhlaner2001). Service-sector SMEs may also provide training emphasizing building and maintaining customer relationships (Loan-Clarke et al., Reference Loan-Clarke, Boocock, Smith and Whittaker1999; Wong et al., Reference Wong, Marshall, Alderman and Thwaites1997). Other training topics most needed include management skills, communication skills, leadership, problem solving, motivation, and decision making (Banks et al., Reference Banks, Bures and Champion1987) – soft skills that can be utilized regardless of how the firm strategy or size adapts. Skill development in SMEs has also been focused on problem solving and multitasking (Chittenden & Robertson, Reference Chittenden and Robertson1994; Smith et al., Reference Smith, Boocock, Loan-Clarke and Whittaker2002), both essential aspects of small firm operations. For somewhat larger SMEs, competitive pressures may lead to customer wanting higher quality or customized products or services, and quicker delivery times, which has led to a demand for improved individual competence with technical knowledge, flexibility, responsibility, and ability to cooperate with others and work in teams (Kock et al., Reference Kock, Gill and Ellström2008). Training on such areas related to work process and daily routines appears to be the dominant focus of SME training (Kock et al., Reference Kock, Gill and Ellström2008), whether informal or formal in nature.

Opportunities for Future Research on Training and Development in Small and Medium Enterprises

Based on our review of the literature discussed in the preceding text, we find several areas ripe for future research, including a strong need for more empirical research, greater emphasis in heterogeneity of human resources practices in SMEs, more comprehensive studies with multiple training and firm variables incorporated, better reflection of labor market conditions surrounding the SMEs, and stronger emphasis on SME owners as decision makers concerning training of employees in their firms. We expand on each in the following text.

First, we simply need more data on training in SMEs. There is a clear mismatch between, on the one hand, the prevalence of small firms in worldwide economies and the reality that effective management of human resources is one of the most important problems faced by SMEs, and, on the other hand, the acute shortage of research on practices used by such firms or their impact on the organization or its employees (Cassell et al., Reference Cassell, Nadin, Gray and Clegg2002; Chandler & McEvoy, Reference Chandler and McEvoy2000; Williamson, Reference Williamson2001). Despite this gap having been noted repeatedly and for many years, the review done in this chapter, more than 10 years after the calls for more research in this area began, found significantly more studies based outside of the United States rather than within it, and with primarily incremental insights offered into the specific training and development practices, motivations, or outcomes for firms that fall into the SME category. Many (but not all) of the conclusions drawn are based on small samples (12 or 16 firms, e.g.), and we simply need more data on what firms are really doing focused specifically on training of employees. Possibilities for pursuing such research include partnering with the Society for Human Resource Management to utilize their database of firms (including SMEs) and human resources practices, or creating a new large-scale database by partnering with entrepreneurship-focused organizations, such as the Small Business Administration, the Kauffman Foundation, or some other entrepreneurial institute or center.

Second, we note that in addition to heterogeneity of small firms, there is heterogeneity of HRM adoption in small firms (de Kok & Uhlaner, Reference De Kok and Uhlaner2001). We need to dig further into heterogeneity of SMEs, not just based on size or overall formalization of HRM, but also based on specific and nuanced practices and organizational leaders’ motivations for pursing them, and employee motivations for engaging in them, as well as the outcomes that result, both good and bad, for both the organization and the individual employee. For example, many existing studies of HRM in SMEs measure different aspects of HRM such as training investment, formalized incentive programs, and having written job descriptions, but they then merge these together into one overall measure of HRM formalization. We need a better understanding of why firms invest in some HRM initiatives and not others, and with what effect on employees and the organization. Interestingly, related work has been done in a sample of organizations of all sizes (5 to 6,000 employees) by Toh and colleagues (2008). They found five different bundles of human resources practices that typically go together, where two bundles do not include providing a variety of training methods or evaluating training effectiveness, and three bundles do. Not surprisingly, they found that the cost minimizer and contingent motivator human resources bundles are significantly negatively related to organizational size (meaning smaller organizations are more likely to fall into these categories), and these are the two categories that use human resources bundles that do not include using a variety of training methods/techniques or doing systematic training evaluations.

Third, within the area of training and development we need a deeper understanding of the choices SMEs are making. Just as we know that training outcomes can vary from understanding of material, enjoyment of the training, and ability to apply the material learned on the job, for example, we need to understand why firms choose informal versus formal training for different types of employees, what specific content they are providing in such training, and how employees are utilizing that training within the organization. While one study cannot cover all bases, we need more comprehensive studies that include training methods, content, provider, and impact, along with data on owner characteristics, firm characteristics, and employee characteristics so that rather than drawing conclusions for SMEs as a homogenous body, we can start to better understand the intricacies of the different approaches to training they have, much as the Cunningham and Rowley (Reference Cunningham and Rowley2007) study did for HRM in China. In addition to owner demographic characteristics, more sophisticated studies that examine owner goals, mind-set, beliefs, values, and emotions felt for the firm and/or employees, and how these guide choices concerning firm strategy and human resources practices would be novel.

Fourth, there may also be important distinctions in training investment based on the labor markets in which the SME operates. For example, if needed skill sets are readily available in the local market and affordable, then small firms may do better to hire the skills they need, rather than train employees they already have. In contrast, if those skills are either scarce or unaffordable, then training is more important. Lepak and Snell (Reference Lepak and Snell1999) suggested that where required firm skills are valuable and unique (specialized in the firm), the firm should engage in internal development, including training and career development. Where skills are valuable but not unique, firm should pursue strategy of acquisition (hire the skills you need). Finally, where human resources are low in value, outsourcing the needs or allying with a partner may be the best approach (de Kok & Uhlaner, Reference De Kok and Uhlaner2001; Lepak & Snell, Reference Lepak and Snell1999). Despite these suggestions from prior research, further empirical examination of such relationships is clearly needed.

Fifth, we noted earlier in the chapter that one distinction between SMEs and larger firms when it comes to training is that in an SME the owner is the key decision maker concerning training, and is also often the provider of informal training. Because it is often the owner of the firm that makes training decisions in SMEs, and because they often do not want employees who know more about technologies and systems than they do, businesses that are owned by highly trained and educated people are much more likely to have employees with greater skill levels (Lange, Ottens, & Taylor, Reference Lange, Ottens and Taylor2000), either because they provide the training and role modeling of those skills themselves, or because they understanding the value of such training and offer employees more opportunities to receive formalized training external to the firm. Research is needed that examines characteristics of the owners of these firms and how these may impact training decisions.

Cautions for Future Research

We want to note three cautions concerning how research on training and development of employees in SMEs should be conducted. First, we need to be cognizant that not all small firms are simply new firms that are destined to grow, and because of this, we should maintain clear definitions of what we mean by small firms and what we mean by new firms. Scholars should be specific as to whether they are studying small firms that are small because they are in the process of becoming larger, and small firms that intend to and likely will remain small.

Second, our review of the literature points out the lack of clear agreement on what we mean by SMEs, which limits our ability to compare and generalize across studies. Not only do scholars not share the same definition of SME based on firms of 200, 250, or even 500 employees as the upper limit, our measurement of number of employees may also not be consistent, as some include full-time employees, and some include all employees regardless of full- or part-time status and temporary contract or permanent employees. We advocate for a greater focus on how many of which specific types of employees SMEs invest in for what types and content of training.

Third, we encourage research that expands the definition of training to include different types of informal training, such as socialization, informal learning, mentoring, coaching, and other forms of knowledge sharing, as discussed by Marand and Noe in Chapter 3 in this volume. Although the conclusion often drawn is that SMEs do not engage in training, because some business owners and scholars may not include informal training in their definitions, our conclusion is instead that SMEs are engaging in training but that it is primarily informal in nature. Small firms can support learning of employees in cost-effective ways through greater utilization of different forms of informal training, and more empirical work is needed to examine and evaluate such possibilities.

Linking Different Tactics to Different Outcomes

Regarding instructional interventions, more research is needed to gain a deeper understanding of how different team training techniques ultimately come to influence different kinds of team outcomes. Although the importance of such research has been recognized for some time (see Salas et al., Reference Salas, Nichols and Driskell2007, e.g.), the body of work in this area remains small. There are several intriguing and practical questions that can be examined. For instance, while we know that a variety of team training tactics are employed and are generally effective (Salas et al., Reference Salas, DiazGranados, Klein, Burke, Stagl, Goodwin and Halpin2008), there is insufficient research to reveal which tactics or instructional components are most or least effective across the different learning outcomes of team training (i.e., cognitive, behavioral, and affective outcomes). Some common team training components would appear to have obvious relevance for inculcating certain outcomes, such as critical thinking and team knowledge components facilitating cognitive outcomes like decision-making strategies and team cognition; however, other components or tactics do not seem to hold obvious connections, such as self-guided training, stress training, and communication training, which could impact multiple types of outcomes. Moreover, several other tactics and components have been suggested as potentially valuable for team learning, but have yet to be empirically examined. For example, process mapping has been proposed as a technique to foster shared mental models for problem-solving teams (see Fiore & Schooler, Reference Fiore and Schooler2004). This material is summarized in Table 17.3. Research that investigates the effectiveness of different components of team training, both in isolation and in combination, across different types of team training outcomes would be a welcome addition to the literature.

Uncovering the linkages between tactics and outcomes is paramount to team training effectiveness. It is axiomatic to state that theories from the team learning literature should directly inform team training. This literature has in fact provided many pertinent factors for understanding how teams function, such as team efficacy, shared mental models, and psychological safety, but at the same time empirical examinations of how to best train these key factorsremains largely unspecified. Empirical evidence that points to the relative effectiveness of specific tactics across different learning outcomes would hold substantial utility for team training practitioners too, as such data could directly inform instructional designs to allow for efficient design and delivery as well as increased instructional precision directed toward desired learning outcomes. Along these lines, future research must first seek to close the gap between theoretical and empirical scholarship in the broader team performance literature. Literally dozens of theoretical models of team functioning exist, yet few have been empirically tested (see Salas & Gorman, Reference Delise, Gorman, Brooks, Rentsch and Steele-Johnson2010). However well developed, these theoretical models often stop short of prescribing the kinds of methods one could use to actually influence the essential variables that are identified as key mechanisms in the proposed models. Not only does this create quite a quandary for those who wish to use such theories to inform team training research, it also substantially inhibits application to instructional designs in team training practice.

A salient question is where can future team training research best draw its instructional methods? Fortunately, several cumulative efforts of existing theory in the team literature have been conducted. One of the most recent efforts is by Bell, Kozlowski, and Blawath (Reference Bell, Kozlowski, Blawath and Kozlowski2012) who reviewed and integrated numerous theoretical models that describe team learning, adaptation, and performance. In doing so, these authors emphasized the importance of conceptualizing team learning as multilevel, dynamic, and emergent in nature, and go on to articulate the various factors that are thought to underlie team and individual learning in team settings. These factors include team learning processes (e.g., regulation), team emergent states (e.g., cohesion), and team knowledge representations (e.g., team mental models). The comprehensiveness of this theoretical integration makes Bell et al.’s work both a perfect and valuable departure point for future team training research. However, as we noted earlier, research must go beyond testing whether the proposed mechanisms of the models summarized by Bell and colleagues function as theoretically predicted, but also include tests of the kinds of instructional techniques that can ultimately affect these proposed factors. As an illustration, these authors note the need for research that examines the implications for collective knowledge on team performance. Here, even by adding the simple question of which techniques can be effectively brought to bear to inculcate collective knowledge during team training (or when examining any of the numerous recommendations offered by these authors) would represent a substantial move in the right direction for team training research.

Future research should extend investigations to other individual-level instructional methods for their potential application and integration in team training. For example, there is a wealth of evidence for the effectiveness of behavioral modeling on individual learning and the transfer of learning (Taylor, Russ-Eft, & Chan, Reference Taylor, Russ-Eft and Chan2005). The same can be said of error management training (Keith & Frese, Reference Keith and Frese2008). Both techniques seem particularly relevant to many of the competencies required for effective teamwork (e.g., cooperation, conflict management, mutual performance monitoring, and coordination) as well as instructionally congruent with tactics commonly used in team training to boost both teamwork and task work (e.g., CRM training, cross-training). Indeed, there is some evidence from the health care domain that suggests the effectiveness of including error management components within team training designs (Deering et al., Reference Munroe, Pocrnich, Laky and Napolitano2011; Morey et al., Reference Morey, Simon, Jay, Wears, Salisbury, Dukes and Berns2002). Thus, research that examines how best to integrate these techniques into team training designs, including the degree to which such designs focus on aspects of teamwork or task work or both influence training effectiveness, represents an important path to pursue.

In addition to behavior modeling and error management, incorporating self-regulation tactics seems particularly valuable to team training. The positive effects of self-regulation on individual-level learning are well documented (Beier & Kanfer, Reference Carter and Beier2010), as are the benefits of self-regulatory and metacognitive interventions (de Boer, Donker-Bergstra, & Kostons, Reference deBoer, Donker-Bergstra and Kostons2013; Sitzmann & Ely, Reference Sitzmann and Ely2011). Self-regulation is at least as, perhaps even more, pertinent during team training because individuals must not only monitor how the team is learning as a unit, but also how they are learning as individuals in team training (Ellington & Dierdorff, Reference Ellington and Dierdorff2014). This implies a dual-process requirement whereby individuals need to be aware of their own learning process, the team’s process, and how these processes might interrelate. On one hand, because the personal resources needed for self-regulation are finite or limited, team training contexts might further tax these resources and make self-regulation in team training somehow more difficult. On the other hand, team training could reflect a context that amplifies the positive effects of self-regulation on learning for the reasons noted in the preceding text. Research that addresses these kinds of issues could provide conceptual clarification and reveal the utility of self-regulation interventions in team training. Moreover, such research would be well served to examine more specific components that reflect self-regulated learning, including self-observation, practice behaviors, goal setting, and emotional reactions to goal progress (see Bell & Kozlowski, Reference Kozlowski, Chao and Jensen2010).

Related to the general notion of self-focused awareness and attention, scholarship has increased regarding the potential benefits of “mindfulness” – defined as present-centered attention and awareness (Brown & Ryan, Reference Brown and Ryan2003). In a recent literature review, Good and colleagues (Reference Good, Lyddy, Glomb, Bono, Brown, Duffy, Baer, Brewer and Lazar2016) suggested that mindfulness holds relevance in team-based contexts in general and team training in particular because mindfulness is thought to promote relational processes, which are aligned with the social processes that underlie all team functioning. Studies in health care, for example, have shown positive benefits of mindfulness interventions on teamwork processes in therapeutic treatment teams, such as active listening and collaboration (e.g., Singh et al., Reference Singh, Singh, Sabaawi, Myers and Wahler2006). Other research using student teams has found mindfulness inductions to increase cohesion and collective performance (Cleirigh & Greaney, Reference Cleirigh and Greaney2014). An additional implication for mindfulness in team training might be found in its potential to foster situational awareness among a team’s members. Because situational awareness has been proffered as important to team processes (Cooke, Stout, & Salas, Reference Cooke, Stout, Salas and McNeese2001), boosting situational awareness among team members might lead to increases in team training transfer due to enhanced performance monitoring and adjustment as well as coordination behaviors in a team.

Pertinent inquires along the lines of those discussed previously not only include whether tactics such as behavior modeling, error management, self-regulation, and mindfulness make team training more effective when they are embedded, but also how to best integrate these components with other instructional methods frequently used in team training. For instance, should such interventions emphasize more general teamwork components, more team-specific task work components, or both (see Cannon-Bowers et al., Reference Cannon-Bowers, Tannenbaum, Salas and Volpe1995)? Does the location or placement (early or late) of these interventions matter to effectiveness? What are the potential trade-offs of such individual-level interventions on overall team learning outcomes? How do these interventions align with other forms of team training (e.g., cross-training, communication)? Finally, given the evidence that teamwork processes more generally encompass transition, action, and interpersonal factors (LePine et al., Reference LePine, Piccolo, Jackson, Mathieu and Saul2008), linking specific tactics to these distinct teamwork processes should provide theoretical insight as well as diagnostic information to improve the design of team training.

It is important to note that any future research seeking to establish linkages between specific instructional methods and various learning outcomes of team training must strive to choose methods that are theoretically congruent with the targeted learning outcome. One obvious way to accomplish this consistency would be to consider whether the learning outcome is compilational (e.g., team transactive memory) or compositional (e.g., team mental models), as well as considering whether it is a process-oriented, emergent state, or performance-based outcome. The value here is that considering theoretical congruence will inform the kinds of methods to bring to bear (e.g., those more cognitive, emotional, or behavioral in nature), the levels at which one would expect results (e.g., individual learning, team learning, or both), as well as how to best implement the chosen methods within team training designs.

Moving Beyond the Intervention Environment

Perhaps one of the largest gaps in the extant repository of research relates to examinations of the transfer of team training. The scarcity of transfer studies is somewhat surprising when one considers the volume of training evaluation research that has accumulated for team training. The meta-analysis by Salas et al. (Reference Salas, DiazGranados, Klein, Burke, Stagl, Goodwin and Halpin2008), for example, did not examine transfer outcomes of team training, suggesting an insufficient number of available studies. A more recent meta-analysis by Delise et al. (Reference Delise, Gorman, Brooks, Rentsch and Steele-Johnson2010) was able to examine transfer outcomes, finding favorable overall effects for team training transfer (d = .68, k = 11). However, these authors also noted that only 26% of the studies in their sample included measures of transfer, representing only about 15% of the total cumulated effect sizes. A similar dearth of transfer examination occurs in the health care domain where team training research has grown to be quite prevalent. For instance, in their narrative review, Weaver et al. (Reference Weaver, Dy and Rosen2014) found that less than half of existing studies (42%) measured outcomes longer than six months posttraining.

Training without transfer beyond the intervention environment ultimately adds very little value to organizations. Thus, the need for additional research on the transfer of team training simply cannot be overstated. Primary questions remain to be addressed about the longevity of team training effects, methods to promote maintenance and application of acquired competencies (e.g., retraining, dedicated practice), as well as the transportability of team training to the multiple teams in which individuals eventually find themselves as members. Still further, a more expansive set of transfer metrics would be beneficial for future research to incorporate. For example, transfer studies using measures that are sensitive to “cycle time” have been recommended in the broader training literature (Aguinis & Kraiger, Reference Aguinis and Kraiger2009). In team training, these would include a measurement focus on capturing time-to-proficiency as well as longitudinal examinations of team performance trajectories within the transfer environment. This latter type of investigation would be especially valuable because it would allow empirical questions to move beyond – “does team training transfer” – to questions about the speed, decay, and sustainability of transfer, as well as allow for more precise isolation of factors that promote or attenuate team performance trajectories or “transfer curves.”

It is important to point out that integrating factors that might contribute to effective team training transfer is consistent with calls from the general training literature as well (e.g., Grossman & Salas, Reference Rentsch, Delise, Salas and Letsky2010). Findings from a meta-analysis of individual training transfer by Blume et al. (Reference Blume, Ford, Baldwin and Huang2010) suggest that factors such as pretraining self-efficacy, motivation, and the work environment (e.g., social support) would be key influences to examine, as each of these showed stronger relationships to transfer for “open skills” (where team training content would be relevant). Many of these variables have analogs at the team level, such as team efficacy, and others could be operationalized as compositional variables when investigating their influences on team training transfer, such as overall levels of motivation or social support in teams. Other chapters in the current handbook further point to potentially valuable factors to examine (e.g., see chapters by Huang, Ran, & Blume [Chapter 4] and Tews & Burke-Smalley [Chapter 9]).

Finally, because contemporary teams may be part of larger “multiteam systems” (Zaccaro, Marks, & DeChurch, Reference Zaccaro, Marks and DeChurch2011), external factors linked to these systems such as superordinate goals, between-team interdependence, shared expertise, and task redundancy could be particularly important in the transfer of team training. Related to suprateam factors, training scholars have also argued for the importance of moving beyond learning transfer to the performance context (i.e., horizontal transfer), but also considering the vertical transfer of training, which refers to the upward propagation of training consequences across levels of the organization (Kozlowski et al., Reference Kozlowski, Brown, Weissbein, Cannon-Bowers and Salas2000). Others have noted the potential role that social network ties between teams (“team networks”) might play in promoting vertical transfer across an organization (Kozlowski, Chao, & Jensen, Reference Kozlowski, Chao and Jensen2010). These concepts raise a host of interesting questions that can inform team training practice to increase effectiveness and efficiency. For example, when can we train one person and reap benefits that extend to the entire team? How well does team training generalize when some members move to other teams that have not received formal training? When must we train the entire intact team? How can we best train multiple teams during team training and how does this learning impact the broader multiteam system in an organization?

Meeting the New Reality of Teams

As we noted earlier, the nature of teams in today’s organizations has changed along several dimensions, including more fluid membership, greater use of technology, more geographic dispersion, and increased team member diversity. One implication of these shifts is the need to address how learning transfers “downward” to individuals participating in team training. That is, in addition to examining the vertical transfer of team training to broader multiteam systems discussed in the preceding text, a key question deals with what mechanisms influence the extent to which specific individuals acquire the competencies inculcated during team training. Another question is to what extent is team training transportable from team to team, as individuals will inevitably be members of multiple teams during their work careers (Tannenbaum et al., Reference Salas, Tannenbaum, Kraiger and Smith-Jentsch2012). At first blush, these may seem like rhetorical questions; however, it is important to recognize three key points. First, the vast majority of team training is centrally focused on fostering and assessing team-level outcomes. This makes sense because improving team-level processes and outcomes is the sine qua non of team training. Second, effectively performing teams require effectively performing individuals in those teams (Ellis et al., Reference Ellis, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, Porter, West and Moon2003). In other words, team functioning begins with individuals but ends with team-level consequences. Third, team training need not be restricted only to intact teams. In fact, individuals often receive training on teamwork competencies while in temporary teams, such as those formed during leadership development programs or those used in action learning settings. The important ramification is that it would seem paramount that each individual acquires the teamwork competence and subsequently transfer it back to his or her own team, or transport it to a new team. Yet at the same time, other research has indicted that particular members can hold more influence on team functioning and performance than other team members (Humphrey, Morgeson, & Mannor, Reference Humphrey, Morgeson and Mannor2009; Raver, Ehrhart, & Chadwick, Reference Raver, Ehrhart and Chadwick2012). This finding suggests that training certain central members of a team (e.g., team leaders) or those occupying certain roles in a team (e.g., “strategic core”; Humphrey et al., Reference Humphrey, Morgeson and Mannor2009) might be particularly effective.

Recognizing these points reveals several valuable areas to examine in future research. For example, multilevel investigations of team training are much needed, where the effects of team-level factors on individual-level acquisition of team training content are the focus of study. Likewise, examinations are needed that study the effects of how training a single individual might influence team-level outcomes, such as training team leaders who likely have more power to prompt learning monitoring and regulation in teams (Kozlowski et al., Reference Kozlowski, Chao and Jensen2010). In this regard, Mathieu and Tesluk (Reference Mathieu and Tesluk2010) suggest that multilevel training research would benefit by applying a “bracketing” framework (Hackman, Reference Hackman2003) whereby variables either a level above or below the focal variable are incorporated into research designs. Indeed, higher-level influences from team composition variables on individual learning in team training have already found support (e.g., average goal orientations in teams; Dierdorff & Ellington, Reference Dierdorff and Ellington2012), suggesting value for future research efforts. Potentially useful composition variables would also include those that relate to dynamic team composition, such as the rapidity or proportion of membership turnover, turnover of specific roles (e.g., team leaders), changes in membership diversity, role clarity, and so forth. Compilation variables are also pertinent for future research and could include team-level factors such as cohesion, team identity, conflict, group potency, and team efficacy. These compilation variables are recognized as important to overall team functioning and are likely to shape the nature of intrateam interpersonal interactions that can facilitate or inhibit the flow of information and collaborative learning. The central point here is that, whereas we know a great deal about individual learning, we know far less about how individuals learn while in team training and the effects of this individual-level learning on team-level outcomes and vice versa.

In addition to multilevel examinations in formal team training settings, the fluidity of team membership further implicates the value of investigating informal mechanisms by which teams collectively, and team members individually, acquire knowledge and skills related to teamwork. Teams are known to create salient contexts that exert top-down influences on learning and behavior (Klimoski, Reference Klimoski2012; Porter, Reference Porter, Sessa and London2008). This suggests that team-level factors are very likely to shape how, when, and how much informal learning occurs as well as its effectiveness. For example, the recognition of learning opportunities, social support and encouragement from peers and supervisors, feedback orientation, and levels of self-awareness have been suggested as important variables in the informal learning process (Tannenbaum et al., Reference Tannenbaum, Beard, McNall and Salas2010). Previous research has found tools such as after-action reviews promote team learning (Smith-Jentsch et al., Reference Smith-Jentsch, Cannon-Bowers, Tannenbaum and Salas2008), suggesting that performance monitoring and adjustment processes could be key ways that teams engage in informal learning. Others have noted the need for research that investigates the emergence of informal learning in teams and how individual and team regulation shapes this emergence (Kozlowski et al., Reference Kozlowski, Chao and Jensen2010). We would further add that future studies are needed to test the effectiveness of formal team training interventions specifically designed to facilitate informal learning processes in teams (i.e., teaching teams to engage informal learning). Moreover, research that investigates how informal learning shapes individual learning and how this individual-level learning can be transported to other teams would be important as well.

Finally, the use of geographically dispersed or virtual teams by contemporary organizations is well documented, and some training research has begun to examine learning and performance in these teams (e.g., Rentsch et al., Reference Rentsch, Delise, Mello and Staniewicz2014). Put bluntly, however, we need substantially more empirical focus in this area if the team training literature is to keep pace with the increasing prevalence of these team structures. Future research is needed even on primary questions such as the effectiveness of delivering team training within virtual environments in general (as is a likely occurrence with such teams), as well as empirical evaluations of different team training tactics to inculcate teamwork competencies of these teams in particular. For example, common challenges facing geographically dispersed or virtual teams include issues of interpersonal trust and high-quality communication (Martins, Gilson, & Maynard, Reference Martins, Gilson and Maynard2004). In addition, research has found that the capacities to build transactive memory systems and engage in preparation activities are associated with the effectiveness of virtual teams (Maynard et al., Reference Maynard, Mathieu, Gilson and Rapp2012). The relevance for team training is that these kinds of factors are among the outcomes that frequently fall under the purview of team training; yet, what is needed is research that examines the utility of using team training to instruct these types of outcomes in distributed teams.

Geographically dispersed or virtual teams also heavily rely on communication and collaborative technologies. Thus, future research along the lines of research by Kirkman and colleagues (Kirkman et al., Reference Kirkman, Rosen, Tesluk and Gibson2006) that examines the use of these technologies as a part of team training, as well as the instructional focus of team training would be especially valuable. Because competencies such as cooperation and coordination are common to team training in general, studies that investigate how these competencies relate to and are impacted by communication technology seem especially pertinent. For example, are the knowledge and skills that reflect cooperation and coordination substantially different in face-to-face team training as compared to team training infusing these technologies? If yes, how are these best trained? What aspects can collaborative technology effectively replace when compared to more face-to-face and interpersonally oriented team training? Moreover, research has found factors such as psychological safety and empowerment can boost the positive effects of communication technology on team functioning (Kirkman et al., Reference Kirkman, Rosen, Tesluk and Gibson2004; Kirkman et al., Reference Kirkman, Cordery, Mathieu, Rosen and Kukenberger2013). In this sense, future team training research on how to effectively train the use of the technology in teams and the factors that facilitate the benefits of this technology hold significant practical value, especially, considering that most existing research on dispersed or virtual teams tends to treat technology use as a predictor or moderator of team performance as opposed to an outcome of an instructional intervention like team training.

Conceptualizing Cultural Intelligence

CQ has been conceptualized as a malleable set of intercultural capabilities that reflect the degree to which an individual is able to function effectively in intercultural contexts (Ang & Van Dyne, Reference Ang, Van Dyne, Ang and Van Dyne2008; Earley & Ang, Reference Earley and Ang2003). It is a multidimensional construct consisting of four interrelated capabilities, each with subdimensions (Van Dyne et al., Reference Van Dyne, Ang, Ng, Rockstuhl, Tan and Koh2012). First, motivational CQ is the ability to direct and sustain effort toward functioning in intercultural situations. It is based upon the expectancy-value theory of motivation (Eccles & Wigfield, Reference Eccles and Wigfield2002) and includes the subdimensions of self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, and extrinsic motivation. When sojourners have high motivational CQ, they have confidence in their ability to function effectively in diverse settings. Second, cognitive CQ is knowledge about cultures and cultural differences, including both culture-general and culture-specific knowledge such as awareness of norms, practices, and social systems in different cultures. Third, metacognitive CQ, sometimes referred to as “thinking about thinking,” is the ability to acquire, assess, and understand cultural knowledge. It is the capability to plan for cultural interactions, maintain awareness of cultural differences as they occur, and check/revise assumptions about different cultures. Metacognitive CQ allows individuals to have some degree of control over their own thought processes about cultural differences. Finally, behavioral CQ is the ability to exhibit flexibility in verbal behaviors, nonverbal behaviors, and speech acts when adapting to other cultural contexts.

Overall, CQ is represented by these four capabilities and their subdimensions. Empirical data, however, shows that the antecedents and consequences of CQ often differ across the four dimensions (Ang et al., Reference Ang, Van Dyne, Rockstuhl, Gelfand, Chiu and Hong2015). As a consequence, we highlight the need for additional research and training on the four capabilities because this should provide more insights than research on the overall construct.

Although research on CQ is relatively new, it has expanded rapidly over the last decade and has become the most prominent framework for studying intercultural competence. Gelfand, Imai, and Fehr (Reference Gelfand, Imai, Fehr, Ang and Van Dyne2008) summarized reasons for this growth and prominence. First, CQ offers a parsimonious approach because it focuses on four dimensions that represent the relevant elements of competence at a higher, more abstract level, rather than at a more specific level. Second, it offers theoretical synthesis because it captures the multifaceted nature of intercultural competence in a cohesive manner that allows incorporation of findings from earlier models of intercultural capabilities. Third, it offers theoretical precision because it differentiates motivation, cognition, metacognition, and behavior and it excludes factors that are not capabilities (e.g., personality, values). As a result, CQ has been useful for “construct clean-up.”

Additionally, Matsumoto and Hwang’s (Reference Matsumoto and Hwang2013) rigorous review of measures of cross-cultural competence concluded that many scales lack validity and have unstable factor structures. In contrast, they concluded that CQ has a stable factor structure and there is “considerable evidence for the concurrent and predictive ecological validity” of CQ with samples from multiple cultures.

CQ also has relevance at different levels of analysis. Research has begun to go beyond the individual level (Ang et al., Reference Ang, Van Dyne, Koh, Ng, Templer, Tay and Chandrasekar2007) and consider CQ in groups and teams (e.g., additive CQ and leader’s CQ; Adair, Hideg, & Spence, Reference Adair, Hideg and Spence2013; Chen & Lin, Reference Chen and Lin2013; Erez et al., Reference Erez, Lisak, Harush, Glikson, Nouri and Shokef2013; Moynihan, Peterson, & Earley, Reference Moynihan, Peterson, Earley, Mannix, Neale and Chen2006; Rockstuhl & Ng, Reference Ang and Inkpen2008; Shokef & Erez, Reference Shokef, Erez, Ang and Dyne2008), at the organizational level (e.g., processes for cultural knowledge integration; Ang & Inkpen, Reference Ang and Inkpen2008; Moon, Reference Moon2010), and even in interorganizational social networks (e.g., network heterophily; Gjertsen et al., Reference Gjertsen, Torp, Tan and Koh2010). CQ is also useful in multilevel and cross-level research (Chen, Liu, & Portnoy, Reference Chen, Liu and Portnoy2012; Groves & Feyerherm, Reference Groves and Feyerherm2011).

Nomological Network of Cultural Intelligence

The theoretical framework offered by CQ has reinvigorated intercultural competence research, as evidenced by dozens of studies that have documented positive outcomes of CQ. A full review of the CQ research literature is outside the scope of this chapter, and so we encourage interested readers to see Ang et al. (Reference Ang, Van Dyne, Rockstuhl, Gelfand, Chiu and Hong2015); Ng, Van Dyne, and Ang (Reference Ng, Van Dyne, Ang, Ryan, Leong and Oswald2012); or Leung et al. (Reference Leung, Ang and Tan2014). For our purposes, it is important to note that the 20-item CQS initially developed and validated by Ang and colleagues (Reference Ang, Van Dyne, Koh, Ng, Templer, Tay and Chandrasekar2007) has been extensively cross-validated in additional contexts, with results supporting the four-factor structure and demonstrating high reliability and predictive validity across multinational samples (e.g., Shannon & Begley, Reference Shannon, Begley, Ang and Dyne2008; Shokef & Erez, Reference Shokef, Erez, Ang and Dyne2008) in addition to country-specific studies (e.g., Imai & Gelfand, Reference Imai and Gelfand2010; Moon, Reference Moon2010; Sahin et al., Reference Sahin, Gurbuz, Kokswal and Ercan2013).

Research consistently supports the importance of CQ as an intercultural capability that fosters personal and professional effectiveness in culturally diverse contexts. For example, CQ is positively related to intercultural adjustment (Malek & Budwar, Reference Malek and Budhwar2013), psychological well-being (Ward, Wilson, & Fischer, Reference Ward, Wilson and Fischer2011), intercultural cooperation (Mor, Morris, & Joh, Reference Mor, Morris and Joh2013), and performance (e.g., Chen et al., Reference Chen, Kirkman, Kim, Farh and Tangirala2010; Chen et al., Reference Chen, Liu and Portnoy2012). CQ uniquely predicts trust development in intercultural contexts, even after controlling for cognitive ability, personality, international experience, and demographics (Chua, Morris, & Mor, Reference Chua, Morris and Mor2012; Rockstuhl et al., Reference Rockstuhl, Ng, Ang and Van Dyne2010). CQ also predicts leadership effectiveness in cross-border contexts, after accounting for general mental ability and emotional intelligence (Rockstuhl et al., Reference Rockstuhl, Seiler, Ang, Van Dyne and Annen2011).

To date, most CQ research has focused on consequences of CQ, with less attention to predictors of CQ and how it may be developed. Nevertheless, there is some conceptualization and research on antecedents. Ang and Van Dyne (Reference Ang, Van Dyne, Ang and Van Dyne2008) advanced a CQ nomological network wherein CQ is predicted by individual characteristics (e.g., personality, values) and activities (e.g., cross-cultural experience) and predicts intercultural effectiveness (see also Leung et al., Reference Leung, Ang and Tan2014). Research is beginning to validate components of this model. For example, CQ mediates the effects of the personality characteristic of openness to experience on adaptive performance of exchange students (Oolders, Chernyshenko, & Stark, Reference Oolders, Chernyshenko, Stark, Ang and Van Dyne2008) and on job performance of expatriates (Sri Ramalu, Shamsudin, & Subramaniam, Reference Sri Ramalu, Shamsudin and Subramaniam2012). Moreover, prior intercultural contact predicts international leadership potential through its mediated effects on observer-rated CQ (Kim & Van Dyne, Reference Kim and Van Dyne2012). Although personality and prior intercultural experience act as antecedents to CQ, they are not the only ways to develop CQ. Next we consider the intercultural training literature as an important approach for systematically increasing CQ based on developmental interventions.

Intercultural Training Theory and Methods

While challenges related to intercultural adaptation and effectiveness have existed since antiquity, the modern field of intercultural training began as a result of the ethnocentric atrocities that occurred during World War II. In the subsequent decades, governmental programs emphasized intercultural contact (e.g., Peace Corps), and this increased public and academic interest in the challenges of intercultural adjustment and intercultural understanding (Bhawuk & Brislin, Reference Bhawuk and Brislin2000; Furnham & Bochner, Reference Furnham and Bochner1986). In the 1950s and 1960s, attention focused on understanding the processes of intercultural adjustment and the implications for development of training programs.

Oberg’s (Reference Oberg1960) notion of culture shock, which refers to the distress – including anxiety and psychosomatic symptoms – experienced by sojourners when their familiar symbols and patterns of interaction are removed (Furnham & Bochner, Reference Furnham and Bochner1986), was an important advancement in this area. There is substantial theory and evidence documenting the stress that sojourners may experience as they attempt to acculturate to a new context (e.g., Berry, Reference Berry and Brown1989; Berry & Sam, Reference Berry, Sam, Berry, Poortinga and Pandey1997; Furnham & Bochner, Reference Furnham and Bochner1986). Another development in the early literature was the U-curve of adjustment (Church, Reference Church1982; see also Bhawuk & Brislin, Reference Bhawuk and Brislin2000). According to this model, sojourners start with a high level of excitement, but their enthusiasm abates as they experience feelings of displacement and unmet expectations (i.e., culture shock). After a period of time, sojourners recover and begin to adjust successfully to the culture. Although empirical tests of this model have not fully corroborated its validity (Dinges & Baldwin, Reference Dinges, Baldwin, Landis and Bhagat1996), the U-curve model is a useful heuristic that can help sojourners anticipate some of the challenges and stages of adjustment. Culture shock and the U-curve of adjustment became the foundation of training programs aimed at reducing the period that sojourners experienced culture shock and increasing their potential for successful adaptation; they are still taught in intercultural training programs today (Littrell et al., Reference Littrell, Salas, Hess, Paley and Riedel2006).

Training methods and content evolved through the 1980s and 1990s, when organizational and academic interest in intercultural training increased dramatically due to the increased frequency of international business travel. Early training methods provided didactic, classroom-based, training (i.e., factual information about the target country). Didactic training remains an important component of many intercultural training programs, but it has inherent limitations (Brislin & Horvath, Reference Brislin, Horvath, Berry, Poortinga and Pandey1997) including the difficulties of recalling information presented in an abstract manner with little direct application to behavior (Furnham & Bochner, Reference Furnham and Bochner1986).

During this period, researchers and practitioners also sought to develop training methods that would be more directly applicable. One advancement was the recognition that sojourners integrate into a new culture more effectively if they understand why people behave the way they do. Attribution training was developed to teach trainees how to make attributions for others’ behaviors that are consistent with explanations provided by members of the target culture. This consistency of attributions is termed isomorphic attributions (Fiedler, Mitchell, & Triandis, Reference Fiedler, Mitchell and Triandis1971). Training programs on isomorphic attributions typically use a technique called the culture assimilator, in which trainees are presented with critical incidents and must choose the best explanation for an actor’s behavior in a specific culture (Cushner & Brislin, Reference Cushner and Brislin1996; see also Bhawuk, Reference Bhawuk1998). Attribution training with the culture assimilator method provides benefits for sojourner’s intercultural competencies but more so for cognitive outcomes than for affective or behavioral outcomes (Albert, Reference Albert, Landis and Brislin1983; Harrison, Reference Harrison1993). Another method that developed in the 1980s and is still popular today is cultural awareness training. In this approach, trainees gain an awareness of their own cultural assumptions and are trained to question their own assumptions. As a result, they become sensitized to cultural differences (Gudykunst, Buzley, & Hammer, Reference Gudykunst, Buzley, Hammer, Landis and Bhagat1996).

Although each of the preceding intercultural training methods is still used, scholars today emphasize the value of experiential training, consistent with broader trends in the organizational learning literature (Noe, Clarke, & Klein, Reference Noe, Clarke and Klein2013). There are different approaches to experiential learning. One popular model is based on the experiential learning theory (ELT) developed by Kolb (Reference Kolb1984). This model emphasizes a continuous process of learning that includes four stages: concrete experiences, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. The key assumption of ELT is that the four types of active involvement (experiencing, processing, developing mental models, and testing assumptions) are all required for effective experiential learning. People differ in their natural tendencies to use the four techniques and can start with any of the four processes, but they gain the most when they use all four approaches (Kolb & Kolb, Reference Kolb and Kolb2005).

Experiential training focuses upon developing skills for working effectively with members of the target culture. It includes active techniques such as role-plays, simulations, and look-see visits (Kealey & Protheroe, Reference Kealey and Protheroe1996; Morris & Robie, Reference Morris and Robie2001). The emphasis is on being fully engaged and actively involved in activities with direct relevance to functioning in the new cultural context. This shift toward experiential learning and experiential training is consistent with Black and Mendenhall’s (Reference Black and Mendenhall1990) influential social learning theory of cross-cultural training. This theory posits that people learn appropriate intercultural behavior through modeling processes, cognitive attention and retention, as well as behavioral enactment such as reproduction of behaviors (practice) and reinforcement of behaviors with incentives. Based on the higher involvement and engagement associated with experiential learning and experiential training (compared to didactic classroom training), Black and Mendenhall argued that experiential approaches are more effective at increasing intercultural skills.

Benefits of Intercultural Training

Reviews of the intercultural training literature support the benefits of intercultural training across training methods. Black and Mendenhall (Reference Black and Mendenhall1990) demonstrated the benefits of cross-cultural training for personal and cognitive skill development. Morris and Robie’s (Reference Morris and Robie2001) meta-analysis reported positive relationships for intercultural training with expatriates’ intercultural adjustment (ρ = 0.12, p < .05) and performance (ρ = .23, p < .05). Littrell and colleagues’ (Reference Littrell, Salas, Hess, Paley and Riedel2006) narrative review of the cross-cultural training literature concluded that cross-cultural training is effective because it helps foster self-maintenance, interpersonal, and cognitive skills, which are all important for success in a new culture (see also Deshpande & Viswesvaran, Reference Deshpande and Viswesvaran1992).

Despite the documented benefits of intercultural training, organizations too often focus on country-specific training for soon-to-be expatriates and some regard intercultural training with skepticism (Black & Mendenhall, Reference Black and Mendenhall1990). For example, Livermore and Van Dyne (Reference Livermore and Van Dyne2015: 14) noted that “[t]eam members often approach diversity training apathetically, going through the motions just because it is required.” With the advent of CQ and the rigorous statistical evidence that CQ predicts adjustment, decision making, and performance in many culturally diverse contexts, intercultural training clearly has relevance to all employees.

Trends in Research on Development of Cultural Intelligence

Key Findings on Cultural Intelligence Training Interventions

Key Findings on Intercultural Experience and Cultural Intelligence

Key Findings from Narrative Research on Cultural Intelligence

Two qualitative studies have explored the cultural learning process by delving into rich reports of participant’s experiences. Gertsen and Søderberg (Reference Gertsen and Søderberg2010) presented four in-depth cases that explored narratives of how expatriates understood and constructed cultural encounters, and how this process is linked to metacognitive CQ. They described how specific encounters elicited emotions and challenged existing understandings and triggered sense-making processes that fostered new learning and development of CQ. Overall, Gersten and Søderberg argued that the narrative approach should be particularly useful for illuminating expatriate’s experiences during cultural encounters and how these experiences enable them to practice and further develop their CQ.

Pless and colleagues (Reference Pless, Maak and Stahl2011) used a different qualitative approach and focused on interviews from 70 participants in a large-scale service learning project called “Project Ulysses.” Project Ulysses is part of PricewaterhouseCooper’s (PwC) global talent development program, and has the goal of promoting responsible leadership within PwC’s global network of firms and developing well-rounded leaders through service learning. The six-phase program involves nomination, preparation (two months), induction (weeklong training), a field assignment (two months), debriefing (weeklong review), and networking after the program. Pless and colleagues (Reference Pless, Maak and Stahl2011) described the program’s foundations within ELT (Kolb, Reference Kolb1984) and emphasized the importance of a multifaceted range of opportunities that facilitate deep-level learning. Based upon the interview results, all program participants evidenced CQ learning, with the highest learning for culture-general knowledge. Learning processes occurred at cognitive, behavioral, and affective levels and included resolving paradoxes, constructing a new view of oneself in the world, and making sense of personal emotions while on assignment. The richness and depth of the Project Ulysses program, coupled with providing participants with support and expectations for ongoing cultural learning, make this program a model for future programs on development of CQ. Indeed, intercultural service learning programs for corporate leaders are becoming increasing popular, including programs at IBM, Cigna, and GlaxoSmithKlein (Caligiuri, Mencin, & Jiang, Reference Caligiuri, Mencin and Jiang2013; Chong & Fleming, Reference Chong and Fleming2014; Maas, Reference Maas2015). Supporting these programs with effective CQ training is an important future direction.

Increasing Methodological Rigor and Sample Diversity

We recognize the challenges of conducting research on the development of intercultural competence and implementing intercultural, longitudinal research designs (Gelfand, Raver, & Ehrhart, Reference Gelfand, Raver, Ehrhart and Rogelberg2002). Nonetheless, we agree with prior critiques of the intercultural training literature (Kealey & Protheroe, Reference Kealey and Protheroe1996; Littrell et al., Reference Littrell, Salas, Hess, Paley and Riedel2006) that it is important for researchers to use more rigorous designs. The trend toward using matched-samples control groups (Bücker & Korzilius, Reference Bücker and Korzilius2015; Eisenberg et al., Reference Eisenberg, Lee, Bruck, Brenner, Claes, Mironski and Bell2013; Engle & Crowne, Reference Engle and Crowne2014; Ramsey & Lorenz, Reference Ramsey and Lorenz2016) is a positive development, as is the use of longitudinal assessments of increases in CQ (Erez et al., Reference Erez, Lisak, Harush, Glikson, Nouri and Shokef2013; Reichard et al., Reference Reichard, Dollwet and Louw-Potgieter2014). These research designs need to become the norm for studies that aim to quantify the effects of CQ development.

Where possible (e.g., student training programs), it is also necessary to use random assignment of participants into treatment and control groups to establish whether CQ may be developed for participants who do not self-select into cross-cultural programs. Interestingly, the only study that showed minimal benefits of CQ training used students who did not self-select into cultural training (Fischer, Reference Fischer2011). The other studies examined the development of CQ in samples who were likely already motivated to learn about cultural differences (e.g., those who enrolled in CCM courses or signed up for a cross-cultural sojourn). It is important for future research to establish whether CQ interventions are equally effective for those who do not self-select into these programs. Delayed treatment control groups may be a viable option for eventually delivering training to all program participants while meeting the standards of rigorous experimental design.

More research is also needed on working adults in employment contexts. Traditionally, the intercultural training literature has focused on expatriates (Littrell et al., Reference Littrell, Salas, Hess, Paley and Riedel2006), and yet this population is strikingly underrepresented in the studies we have reviewed. It is possible that results with nonstudent samples will be even stronger (Despande, Joseph, & Viswesvaran, Reference Deshpande, Joseph and Viswesvaran1994). However, it is also possible that the nature of these training programs will differ (e.g., shorter, more didactic; e.g., Reichard et al., Reference Reichard, Serrano, Condren, Wilder, Dollwet and Wang2015), thereby affecting the potential benefits of developing CQ interventions.

Matching Dimensions of Cultural Intelligence to Development Methods

We also need research on why and how CQ training differentially influences specific dimensions of CQ. Our summary of existing research suggests that the effects of CQ training and cross-cultural experience are stronger for cognitive and metacognitive CQ, followed by motivational CQ, with the least gains seen for behavioral CQ. The reason for these differences is not entirely clear but they are consistent with findings from the broader training literature. Meta-analytic evidence on training interventions has shown that effect sizes for behavioral change tend to be smaller than those for cognitive change (Arthur et al., Reference Arthur, Bennett, Edens and Bell2003). The difficulty of eliciting behavioral and results-focused improvements may be due to situational constraints that discourage the transfer of training. Nonetheless, it is promising that two recent CQ training studies (Bücker & Korzilius, Reference Bücker and Korzilius2015; Reichard et al., Reference Reichard, Serrano, Condren, Wilder, Dollwet and Wang2015) did elicit improvement in behavioral CQ. One topic for future research is to investigate whether participants’ motivational or behavioral CQ is more likely to increase based on experiential (simulation) training and/or a combination of experiential training and sojourner experiences such as described by Pless and colleagues (Reference Pless, Maak and Stahl2011), especially if coupled with a supportive transfer environment.

The broader training literature has also documented stronger links between parallel training methods and outcomes (Arthur et al., Reference Arthur, Bennett, Edens and Bell2003). For example, cognitive change occurs after attributional or cognitive training methods (Bhawuk, Reference Bhawuk1998) whereas behavioral change occurs after behavior modification (Mak & Buckingham, Reference Mak and Buckingham2007) and behavioral modeling training (Taylor, Russ-Eft, & Chan, Reference Taylor, Eft and Chan2005). We encourage scholars to specify the didactic, self-awareness, attributional, and/or experiential elements of their interventions and to investigate theoretically matched CQ outcomes. It will be beneficial to draw from theory in the organizational training literature (e.g., Taylor et al., Reference Taylor, Eft and Chan2005) to specify the ways in which learning outcomes are matched to the specific training method.

Transferring Cultural Intelligence Gains to Subsequent Outcomes

We found no studies that linked developmental interventions (e.g., training, experience) with indicators of intercultural effectiveness. Exploring more complex, mediated models is an important future direction. As noted by scholars in the broader industrial-organizational literature on training, the field needs to separate training outcomes from transfer outcomes (Blume et al., Reference Blume, Ford, Baldwin and Huang2010). Thus, increases in CQ do not necessarily equal better acculturation or intercultural effectiveness.

Additionally, the organizational training literature has emphasized the importance of the learning context and transfer of training (Aguinis & Kraiger, Reference Aguinis and Kraiger2009), yet this is not true of the intercultural training literature. We suggest the value of theoretically based studies on the transfer of CQ gains to subsequent indicators of intercultural effectiveness (e.g., acculturation in new cultural contexts, global leadership potential, and global leader effectiveness).

One promising theory drew on ELT to propose that concrete international experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation are foundations for global leadership development (Ng, Van Dyne, & Ang, Reference Ng, Van Dyne and Ang2009). This theoretical model positioned CQ as an exogenous factor, but it also may mutually reinforce international experience, such that both CQ and intercultural experience influence global leadership self-efficacy, accuracy of mental models, flexible styles, and global leader effectiveness. Research testing propositions from this model is strongly encouraged.

Considering Individual and Cultural Boundary Conditions

Research has begun to provide some evidence for boundary conditions that qualify relationships predicting the development of CQ, especially with regard to individual differences (e.g., open-mindedness, divergent learning style, goal orientation; Fischer, Reference Fischer2011; Li et al., Reference Li, Mobley and Kelly2013; Moon et al., Reference Moon, Choi and Jung2012). These studies shed light on why some people are better or less able to benefit from interventions designed to develop CQ, but there is much more work to be done.

In addition to investigating other individual characteristics, it is also likely that cultural background of participants matters. For example, research has demonstrated that culture of the participant interacts with type of training to impact outcomes (Earley, Reference Earley1994; Triandis, Brislin, & Hui, Reference Triandis, Brislin and Hui1988), and yet intercultural training has proceeded as if training methods and benefits are equally appropriate across cultures. It is possible, for example, that participants from high power distance cultures may react more favorably and learn more from didactic, classroom-based training, whereas those from low power distance cultures may benefit less. Similarly, training participants from loose cultures (Gelfand, Nishii, & Raver, 2005) may be more open to divergent perspectives and thus may more quickly benefit from attribution training, compared to participants from tight cultures. Thus, future research on culturally intelligent ways to conduct training should consider ways to adapt the content and delivery to be culturally appropriate. Finally, it would be valuable to incorporate scholarship on cultural differences in thinking and learning styles into the design of training programs.

Individual Differences

Individual differences or trainee characteristics have been found to be strongly predictive of training outcomes. Among the individual differences that have been found to predict training outcomes, cognitive ability, motivation to learn, self-efficacy, personality, and goal orientation have been found to be especially important. Cognitive ability has been found to be a strong predictor of training success across a wide variety of jobs (Colquitt, LePine, & Noe, Reference Colquitt, LePine and Noe2000). In their meta-analysis, Colquitt et al. (Reference Colquitt, LePine and Noe2000) found that cognitive ability was strongly related to declarative knowledge, skill acquisition, and transfer.

Motivation to learn or training motivation refers to “the direction, intensity, and persistence of learning-directed behavior in training contexts” (Colquitt et al., Reference Colquitt, LePine and Noe2000: 678). Colquitt et al. (Reference Colquitt, LePine and Noe2000) found that motivation to learn is positively related to declarative knowledge, skill acquisition, reactions, posttraining self-efficacy; and transfer and motivation to learn is predicted by individual characteristics (e.g., locus of control), job/career variables (e.g., job involvement), and situational factors (e.g., supervisor support).

Self-efficacy has also consistently been found to be related to training outcomes including learning, on-the-job behavior, and performance. For example, Colquitt et al. (Reference Colquitt, LePine and Noe2000) found that pretraining self-efficacy was positively related to declarative knowledge, skill acquisition, transfer, and job performance and posttraining self-efficacy was positively related to transfer independent of skill acquisition.

Personality has also been found to be related to training outcomes. For example, in their meta-analysis of training motivation, Colquitt et al. (Reference Colquitt, LePine and Noe2000) found that locus of control was related to declarative knowledge and transfer, however, conscientiousness was only related to motivation to learn.

Finally, there is also some evidence that a learning goal orientation is positively related to learning and performance outcomes. A meta-analysis of goal orientation found that both trait and state learning goal orientation are positively related to several proximal and distal consequences. With respect to proximal consequences, trait learning goal orientation was positively related to self-efficacy, self-set goal level, learning strategies, and feedback seeking, and negatively related to state anxiety. In terms of distal consequences, trait learning goal orientation was positively related to learning, academic performance, and job performance and state learning goal orientation related positively to learning and job performance. In addition, goal orientation explained significant incremental variance in job performance above cognitive ability and the Big Five personality dimensions, which was largely due to learning goal orientation (Payne, Youngcourt, & Beaubien, Reference Payne, Youngcourt and Beaubien2007).

Thus, to date, a handful of individual difference variables have been found to predict learning and training outcomes. However, some of these are stable individual differences (e.g., cognitive ability) that cannot be changed or modified. Thus, there are only a handful of modifiable individual differences that can be changed to improve a training program’s effectiveness: self-efficacy, motivation to learn, and state learning goal orientation. Trainers can improve learning and training outcomes by increasing trainees’ motivation to learn and self-efficacy and by having trainees set learning goals.

Instructional Strategies

Most of what is known about training program effectiveness involves learning principles and instructional strategies. As defined by Salas, Tannenbaum, Kraiger, and Smith-Jentsch (Reference Salas, Tannenbaum, Kraiger and Smith-Jentsch2012), instructional strategies refer to the “tools, methods, and context that are combined and integrated to create a delivery approach” (85). General learning principles such as task sequencing and overlearning have been known for decades and tend to be associated with improved learning and retention (Baldwin & Ford, Reference Baldwin and Ford1988).

Two of the most important instructional strategies for learning and training effectiveness are practice and feedback (Salas et al., Reference Salas, Tannenbaum, Kraiger and Smith-Jentsch2012). Furthermore, practice is most effective when it is accompanied with timely, constructive, and diagnostic feedback (Salas et al., Reference Salas, Tannenbaum, Kraiger and Smith-Jentsch2012). Sitzmann et al. (Reference Sitzmann, Kraiger, Stewart and Wisher2006) found that web-basedinstruction (WBI) is more effective than classroom instruction (CI) for teaching declarative knowledge when WBI includes practice and feedback. When both WBI and CI include practice and feedback, they are equally effective. Thus, practice and feedback are key factors for the effectiveness of both types of training and more important than the media used to deliver training. Thus, instructional methods are the primary factors that determine trainee learning not the media used to deliver the training content (Brown & Sitzmann, Reference Brown, Sitzmann and Zedeck2011; Clark, Reference Clark1994).

With respect to training methods, it has long been known that behavior modeling training (BMT), in which trainees observe and then imitate behaviors performed by a model, is one of the most effective methods for learning interpersonal and supervisory skills (Taylor, Russ-Eft, & Chan, Reference Taylor, Russ-Eft and Chan2005). A meta-analysis of BMT found that it had positive effects on declarative and procedural knowledge, as well as attitudes, behavior, and results although the effects were larger for learning outcomes than behavior and results (Taylor et al., Reference Taylor, Russ-Eft and Chan2005). Furthermore, several factors were found to increase the effects of BMT on learning and job behavior (e.g., presenting learning points, use of negative and positive models).

Simulations (working representations of reality that provide trainees with structured opportunities to practice job-relevant skills) have also been found to be effective for enhancing learning and improving performance (Salas et al., Reference Salas, Tannenbaum, Kraiger and Smith-Jentsch2012). In a meta-analysis of computer-based simulation games, Sitzmann (Reference Sitzmann2011) found that compared to a control group, simulation games resulted in higher declarative and procedural knowledge, as well as higher posttraining self-efficacy and retention, and simulation games were more effective than other instructional methods (i.e., lecture and discussion).

In recent years, error management training that explicitly encourages trainees to make errors during training and to learn from them, has received considerable attention (Keith & Frese, Reference Keith and Frese2008). A meta-analysis found that error management training results in more positive training outcomes than training that does not encourage trainees to make errors during training (Keith & Frese, Reference Keith and Frese2008). Furthermore, error training was found to be more effective for posttraining task performance than within-training task performance, and more effective for adaptive tasks than analogical tasks. It should be noted that none of the studies in the meta-analysis measured on-the-job performance.

There is also some evidence that setting a training goal that emphasizes learning the training material (a mastery or learning training goal) rather than a training goal for high levels of performance (a performance training goal) can improve training outcomes especially for complex tasks (Kozlowski et al., Reference Kozlowski, Gully, Brown, Salas, Smith and Nason2001). Kozlowski et al. (Reference Kozlowski, Gully, Brown, Salas, Smith and Nason2001) found that a mastery training goal was positively related to knowledge structure coherence and self-efficacy, which were subsequently related to adaptive performance.

Finally, several studies have examined the effects of prompting self-regulation on trainee learning that involves asking trainees reflective questions during training to stimulate self-regulatory processes such as self-monitoring and self-evaluation (Sitzmann & Ely, Reference Sitzmann and Ely2010). Self-regulation prompts encourage trainees to engage in self-regulatory activities during training by asking them if they have set goals, if they are using effective strategies, and if they are making progress toward their goals (Sitzmann et al., Reference Sitzmann, Bell, Kraiger and Kanar2009). Prompting self-regulation has been found to have positive effects on declarative and procedural knowledge as well as performance (Sitzmann et al., Reference Sitzmann, Bell, Kraiger and Kanar2009; Sitzmann & Ely, Reference Sitzmann and Ely2010).

Transfer of Training Strategies

Although training is primarily focused on learning outcomes, learning alone is seldom the main objective of training. Rather, a key indicator of training effectiveness is the transfer of training or the extent to which knowledge and skills learned in training are used on the job and result in meaningful changes in job performance (Blume et al., Reference Blume, Ford, Baldwin and Huang2010). Early research on transfer focused on several learning principles such as identical elements, general principles, stimulus variability, and conditions of practice (e.g., feedback; Baldwin & Ford, Reference Baldwin and Ford1988). Most of this research was conducted in the laboratory and involved memory and motor tasks. Learning principles have been found to improve learning and immediate retention of the training material (Baldwin & Ford, Reference Baldwin and Ford1988). Transfer research has also explored individual differences, work environment characteristics, and posttraining interventions.

Many of the individual difference variables described earlier (e.g., self-efficacy, motivation to learn) have been linked to transfer of training. In their meta-analysis, Blume et al. (Reference Blume, Ford, Baldwin and Huang2010) found that the trainee characteristics with the strongest relationships were cognitive ability and conscientiousness, while neuroticism, pretraining and posttraining self-efficacy, motivation to learn, and a learning goal orientation had small to moderate relationships with transfer. Furthermore, of all the predictor variables included in their meta-analysis, cognitive ability had the largest relationship with transfer.

Posttraining work environment factors, such as opportunities to practice and supervisor support have also been a focus of transfer research. For example, trainees have been found to be more likely to transfer when they are provided with opportunities to practice (Ford et al., Reference Ford, Quiñones, Sego and Sorra1992). A meta-analysis of the transfer of management training found that transfer was greater for training programs that included opportunities for managers to practice newly learned skills (Taylor et al., Reference Taylor, Russ-Eft and Taylor2009).

Other important work environment factors that influence transfer include the transfer climate and an organization’s learning culture. A positive transfer climate and a continuous learning culture have been found to be positively related to training outcomes (Rouiller & Goldstein, Reference Rouiller and Goldstein1993; Tracey, Tannenbaum, & Kavanagh, Reference Tracey, Tannenbaum and Kavanagh1995). In their meta-analysis, Blume et al. (Reference Blume, Ford, Baldwin and Huang2010) found that work environment factors had the strongest relationship with transfer, which was primarily due to the transfer climate followed by support. Furthermore, supervisor support had a stronger relationship with transfer than peer support. Overall, the situational variables were just as strongly related to transfer as trainee characteristics.

Finally, transfer research has often investigated the effects of posttraining transfer interventions that can be added at the end of a training program to prepare trainees to transfer newly acquired knowledge and skills. One of the most researched is relapse prevention (RP) in which trainees identify and prepare for high-risk situations that might prevent transfer (Hutchins & Burke, Reference Hutchins and Burke2006). Hutchins and Burke (Reference Hutchins and Burke2006) reviewed the research on RP and found that several factors have contributed to mixed and inconsistent results for its effectiveness. Blume et al. (Reference Blume, Ford, Baldwin and Huang2010) found that the effects of transfer interventions were small to moderate.

Thus, while several factors have been found to predict the transfer of training, it is important to point out that Blume et al. (Reference Blume, Ford, Baldwin and Huang2010) found same-source and same-measurement-context (SS/SMC) bias inflated the observed relationships between predictors and transfer outcomes. In fact, when SS/SMC was controlled there were few strong predictor relationships with transfer. This led the authors to conclude that “although there are some significant relationships across studies, there are surprisingly few consistently strong individual predictors of transfer” (90). As a result, they suggested that the most promising approach to improve transfer of training is to increase trainee motivation and induce high levels of support in the work environment. They also suggested that transfer of training will be more likely if a training program increases trainees’ posttraining knowledge and self-efficacy.

Summary

Although we have learned a great deal about the factors associated with training outcomes and how to make training programs more effective, the practical implications that stem from the extant literature are limited. This is because many of the results pertain more to learning than behavior or job performance; there are only a few individual differences that can be modified, and the two strongest predictors of transfer of training are stable individual differences that cannot be changed (i.e., cognitive ability and conscientiousness); there have not been many new developments when it comes to the design of training programs; and most of the strategies that are effective for improving the transfer of training take place after a training program in the work environment (e.g., opportunities to practice, transfer climate, supervisor support). Thus, there remains much to learn about how to improve the effectiveness of training programs when it comes to behavior, transfer, and performance criteria. We believe that the research and literature on POB and PsyCap have much to offer in this regard. Therefore, in the next section we discuss research on POB and PsyCap with the objective of developing a new perspective and approach to the training process and training effectiveness.

Dimensions of PsyCap

Luthans et al. (Reference Luthans, Avoilo, Avey and Norman2007) suggest that PsyCap represents an employee’s “positive appraisal of circumstances and probability for success based on motivated effort and perseverance” ( 550). As suggested in the preceding definition, PsyCap is a higher-order construct comprised of four constituent components: hope, self-efficacy, resiliency, and optimism (Luthans et al., Reference Luthans, Avoilo, Avey and Norman2007).

PsyCap and Work Outcomes

PsyCap is conceptualized as a major determinant of behavior and performance in organizations. Peterson et al. (Reference Peterson, Zhang and Carpenter2011) argue that PsyCap is “critical to human motivation, cognitive processing, striving for success, and resulting performance in the workplace” (429). There are at least two reasons it is considered so critical. The first reason is that unlike more limited constructs with more circumscribed effects, PsyCap influences work outcomes through a comprehensive set of mechanisms including cognitive, affective, conative, and social (Youssef & Luthans, Reference Youssef, Luthans, David, Boniwell and Ayers2013). The cognitive mechanism enables positive appraisals of current and future situations that can impact motivation and productivity. The affective mechanism involves the experience of positive emotions that have been shown to broaden thought-action repertoires and build resources (Fredrickson, Reference Fredrickson2001). The conative mechanism, which involves deliberate, goal-oriented and proactive behavior, induces employees to initiate action toward important goals. Finally, the social mechanism involves PsyCap’s ability to intensify the impact of social relationships in producing valued outcomes. The combined effect of these mechanisms makes PsyCap a potent source of leverage for achieving work outcomes, including those related to training.

The second, related, reason is that there is evidence to suggest that PsyCap has a stronger and more consistent relationship with organizational outcomes than the individual constructs that comprise it (Luthans et al., Reference Luthans, Avolio, Walumbwa and Li2005; Luthans et al., Reference Luthans and Youssef2007). It is suggested that this occurs because although each individual component of PsyCap has unique cognitive and motivational processes, when combined into the higher-order PsyCap construct these processes are mutually enhanced (Luthans et al., Reference Luthans and Youssef2007). In essence, the PsyCap whole is greater than the sum of its constituent parts (Luthans et al., Reference Combs, Liu, Hall and Ketchen2006).

There is now growing evidence demonstrating that PsyCap is positively associated with numerous valued outcomes in organizations and a growing amount of research demonstrating its mediating and moderating effects on such outcomes. A meta-analysis (Avey et al., Reference Avey, Reichard, Luthans and Mhatre2011) found that PsyCap has significant correlations with work outcomes such as job satisfaction (corrected r = .54, p < .05), organizational commitment (corrected r = .48, p < .05), turnover intentions (corrected r = -.32, p < .05), and stress and anxiety (corrected r = -.29, p < .05), and correlates significantly with behaviors such as organizational citizenship behaviors (corrected r = .45, p < .05), and employee performance (corrected r = .26, p < .05).

Using a multiple-indicator latent growth modelling approach, Peterson et al. (Reference Peterson, Luthans, Avolio, Walumbwa and Zhang2011) demonstrated that not only is PsyCap associated with supervisor-rated performance and sales revenue, but that intraindividual variability in PsyCap parallels changes in these two outcomes. The symmetric association between PsyCap and performance outcomes likely occurs because changes in the mechanisms postulated to account for PsyCap’s effects covary with changes in the level of the construct. Consistent with this idea, a cross-lagged panel analysis suggested that the direction of causality between PsyCap and performance outcomes is unidirectional with the former producing changes in the latter (Peterson et al., Reference Peterson, Luthans, Avolio, Walumbwa and Zhang2011). Attesting to its additive value, PsyCap has also been shown to offer incremental prediction of attitudinal and behavioral criteria over and above that provided by more established constructs such as personality, core-self-evaluations, person-job, and person-organization fit (Avey, Luthans, & Youssef, Reference Avey, Luthans and Youssef2010).

Although most PsyCap research has been conducted at the individual level, there is a growing amount of evidence that collective PsyCap positively influences group performance. In a sample of retail store employees, Clapp-Smith, Vogelgesang, and Avey (Reference Clapp-Smith, Vogelgesang and Avey2009) found that the collective PsyCap of followers was positively related to sales growth performance through trust in management. Similarly, Peterson and Zhang (Reference Peterson, Zhang and Carpenter2011) demonstrated that the collective PsyCap of top management teams was related to the performance of their business units.

PsyCap has also been shown to have mediating effects. For example, PsyCap has been shown to fully mediate the relationship between a supportive organizational climate and employee performance (Luthans et al., Reference Luthans, Avey and Patera2008). Wang et al. (Reference Wang, Liu, Wang and Wang2012) found that PsyCap partially mediates the relationship between work-family conflict and burnout among female doctors. PsyCap has also been found to mediate the relationship between authentic leadership and creativity (Rego et al., Reference Rego, Sousa, Marques and Pina e Cunha2012), and between transformational leadership and both in-role performance and organizational citizenship behaviors (Gooty et al., Reference Gooty, Gavin, Johnson, Frazier and Snow2009).

Recently, moderating effects of PsyCap have also been observed. For example, the relationship between authentic leadership and follower job performance has been shown to be stronger among employees with low rather than high PsyCap levels (Wang et al., Reference Wang, Sui, Luthans, Wang and Wu2014). Similarly, Abbas et al. (Reference Abbas, Raja, Darr and Bouckenooghe2014) demonstrated that the relationship between perceptions of organizational politics, on the one hand, and job satisfaction and job performance, on the other hand, were moderated by PsyCap such that the negative relationships were stronger when PsyCap was low.

In summary, there is now substantial evidence underscoring the legitimacy and value of PsyCap as an organizational construct. For our purposes, it behooves us to consider whether and how PsyCap can be developed and leveraged to make training programs more effective. Toward this end, in the next section we discuss how PsyCap can be developed.

Interventions to Develop PsyCap Dimensions

Table 19.1 indicates how trainees’ PsyCap can be developed using PsyCap interventions as well as instructional strategies and transfer of training strategies from the training literature that we discuss later in the chapter. PCI is a form of training that targets the individual components of PsyCap. This training is based on prior conceptual and empirical work addressing how each individual component can be developed. It should be noted, however, that efforts to develop each component of PsyCap can also produce salutary influences on levels of the other components. This is because the individual components of PsyCap operate synergistically. As noted by Peterson et al. (Reference Peterson, Zhang and Carpenter2011), if one component of PsyCap is affected (e.g., self-efficacy) the others (e.g., hope, optimism, resiliency) will also likely be affected. Therefore, although based on techniques that build each component of PsyCap individually, the PCI produces interactive benefits that foster the development of PsyCap as a whole.

Research on PsyCap Development

The PCI has been applied in short, micro-interventions lasting from one to three hours (Luthans et al., Reference Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman and Combs2006; Luthans et al., Reference Luthans, Avey, Avolio and Peterson2010) and has taken the form of traditional face-to-face (e.g., Luthans et al., Reference Luthans, Avey, Avolio and Peterson2010) and online training (Luthans et al., Reference Luthans, Avey and Patera2008). In their initial report on the effectiveness of the PCI, Luthans et al. (Reference Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman and Combs2006) reported that a one-hour PCI micro-intervention with management students, and a two-hour PCI with practicing managers, each significantly increased PsyCap by approximately 3%. They also reported that PsyCap increased significantly after a 2.5-hour PCI session with employees in a high-tech manufacturing firm, but not to the same degree. Luthans et al. (Reference Luthans, Avey and Patera2008) investigated the effectiveness of an online PCI comprised of two 45-minute sessions two weeks apart. Controlling for pretraining PsyCap scores and several other covariates, Luthans et al. (Reference Luthans, Avey and Patera2008) found that compared to a control condition, participants in the PCI experienced a significant increase in PsyCap scores.

Recent research has demonstrated that not only can PsyCap be developed generally, but the PCI can be tailored to address specific work demands or training goals. For example, Reichard, Dollwet, and Louw-Potgieter (Reference Reichard, Dollwet and Louw-Potgieter2014) developed and tested a training program designed to develop cross-cultural PsyCap in U.S. and African working adults. Cross-cultural PsyCap refers to one’s confidence, hope, optimism, and resiliency specifically within cross-cultural interactions (Dollwet & Reichard, Reference Dollwet and Reichard2014). Reichard et al. (Reference Reichard, Dollwet and Louw-Potgieter2014) found that training increased cross-cultural PsyCap levels and increased participants’ cultural intelligence and positive emotions, and decreased ethnocentrism. Similarly, Luthans, Luthans, and Avey (Reference Avey2014) demonstrated that relative to a control group, a two-hour PCI focused on increasing students’ academic PsyCap resulted in higher academic PsyCap scores, although the training produced the same results for general (nonacademic) PsyCap.

In considering whether PsyCap training will transfer to the work environment it is necessary to consider the work context. As noted by Peterson et al. (Reference Peterson, Luthans, Avolio, Walumbwa and Zhang2011), the extent to which employees’ levels of PsyCap increase or decrease is affected by the work context, such as the organizational climate, the availability of social support, and leadership. In two studies, Avey (Reference Avey2014) found that PsyCap was predicted by contextual antecedents including authentic leadership, ethical leadership, and empowering leadership (leadership category), and task complexity (job design category). Similarly, in a review of the PsyCap literature, Newman et al. (Reference Newman, Ucbasaran, Zhu and Hirst2014) reported that PsyCap is enhanced by workplace support and buddying, and is reduced by stressful work environments and work-family conflict. Such contextual factors are also likely to influence the degree to which training that includes PsyCap components transfers to work behavior.

In summary, research has shown that PsyCap can be developed using traditional face-to-face and online training interventions and PCIs can be tailored to specific work situations and training goals. With this in mind, we now turn to a consideration of the development of PsyCap for learning and training program effectiveness.

Needs Analysis

As the first step in the training process, a needs analysis can determine which of the PsyCap constructs will be important for a training program’s success and should be designed into the training program. Each level of the needs analysis process (organizational, task, and person analysis) will provide important information about the need for each PsyCap construct. For example, a key part of an organizational analysis is to determine if the environment will support the training or what Salas et al. (Reference Salas, Tannenbaum, Kraiger and Smith-Jentsch2012) refer to as environmental readiness. This also helps to identify any obstacles to the success of a training program so that they can be removed or plans can be made to address them during or after training. One way to address potential obstacles to training success is to develop trainees’ PsyCap. For example, if the training will be especially difficult to apply on the job or if the work environment is not very supportive of the training it will be important to develop trainees’ self-efficacy and resiliency for applying it on the job.

A task analysis is conducted to identify the critical work functions of a job as well as the task requirements and the knowledge, sklls, and abilities (KSAs) that are necessary to perform each task successfully (Salas et al., Reference Salas, Tannenbaum, Kraiger and Smith-Jentsch2012). The task analysis provides important information regarding what to include in a training program and the performance standards. In addition, a task analysis should also consider which of the PsyCap constructs will be most important for learning the KSAs and being able to use them on the job. For example, self-efficacy will be important for tasks that are novel and complex. Resiliency will be important for tasks that are difficult to learn and/or apply in the work environment. Optimism and hope will be important for tasks that require persistence to learn and transfer.

A person analysis helps to identify who is lacking the KSAs for the tasks identified in the task analysis and therefore who needs training. However, a person analysis can also identify characteristics of trainees that are important for training success such as motivation to learn (Salas et al., Reference Salas, Tannenbaum, Kraiger and Smith-Jentsch2012). With respect to PsyCap, a new component of a person analysis is to measure the PsyCap of trainees to identify those who are low on the PsyCap constructs that have been identified in the organization and task analysis as important for learning and using the trained KSAs on the job. Thus, a person analysis will not only identify trainees who need training but also those who should have one or more components of their PsyCap developed during the training to facilitate their learning and transfer.

In summary, needs analysis can be expanded to consider the relevance of each of the PsyCap constructs for learning training content and applying it in the work environment. This sets the stage for the design of training programs that develop one or more of the PsyCap constructs to facilitate learning and transfer outcomes.

Training Design and Instructional Strategies

A PsyCap approach to training design means that training programs should be designed with instructional strategies to facilitate the development of trainees’ PsyCap. The instructional strategies will depend on the PsyCap variables that are most in need of development for a particular training program as per the needs analysis. As described in the following text, the interventions used to develop PsyCap discussed earlier (PCIs, see Table 19.1) can be used in training. In addition, as shown in Table 19.1, instructional strategies for training design can also be used to develop trainees’ PsyCap.

Transfer of Training Strategies

Although Blume et al. (Reference Blume, Ford, Baldwin and Huang2010) found that the effects of transfer interventions on transfer were small to moderate, transfer interventions might be more effective if they are designed to develop trainees’ PsyCap. As indicated earlier, only a few individual difference variables that are susceptible to change have been found to predict transfer of training (e.g., self-efficacy, training motivation) and many of the strategies for improving transfer take place in the work environment after training (e.g., opportunities to practice, transfer climate, supervisor support). Therefore, in addition to self-efficacy, transfer of training strategies should focus on the development of trainees’ hope, optimism, and resiliency for transfer.

Some of the instructional strategies discussed in the previous section can also be used as a transfer strategy. The difference is that the focus shifts from learning during training to on-the-job behavior and performance in the work environment.

To develop hope, optimism, and self-efficacy goal setting should involve goals for using the training content on-the-job or transfer goals. Goal-setting interventions should focus on multiple pathways to achieve transfer goals, consideration of obstacles to transfer goals, and the development of a plan to deal with obstacles to goal achievement. As indicated earlier, the effect of BMT on job behavior was greater in studies that had trainees set goals for how they will apply their new skills on the job (Taylor et al., Reference Taylor, Russ-Eft and Chan2005).

Although research on RP has been mixed (Hutchins & Burke, Reference Hutchins and Burke2006) and Blume et al. (Reference Blume, Ford, Baldwin and Huang2010) found that the effects of transfer interventions were small to moderate, RP might be more effective if the focus is on the development of trainees’ self-efficacy and resiliency for transfer. Because RP prepares trainees to anticipate and cope with high-risk situations to overcome transfer obstacles and barriers, it is an ideal intervention to develop trainee self-efficacy and resiliency for transfer. In fact, the original conception of RP is to enhance trainees’ self-efficacy for using and maintaining trained skills (Hutchins & Burke, Reference Hutchins and Burke2006). Thus, RP might have direct positive effects on trainee self-efficacy and resiliency, which will in turn lead to greater transfer. Thus, RP interventions should be designed with particular attention on the four sources of self-efficacy development.

Realistic training previews as well as RTTS can also be used at the end of a training program as a posttraining intervention to develop trainee resiliency for transfer. The focus now shifts from learning the training material to transfer. Thus, trainees will develop realistic expectations about transfer and they will learn emotion-focused and problem-focused coping skills for the potential transfer obstacles they might encounter on the job.

Finally, as noted earlier, factors in work environment such as the transfer climate and supervisor support are important determinants of transfer. Similarly, research on PsyCap has found that it is influenced by contextual factors such as authentic leadership, ethical leadership, and empowering leadership as well as workplace support. Therefore, supervisors should be encouraged to support trainees by developing their hope, optimism, self-efficacy, and resiliency for transfer.

In addition, there is some research suggesting that the development of PsyCap during training might influence employees’ perceptions of the transfer climate and encourage transfer. In two studies, Bergheim et al. (Reference Bergheim, Eid, Hystad, Nielsen, Mearns, Larsson and Luthans2013) demonstrated that employees’ levels of PsyCap influenced their perceptions of climate, in this case, safety climate. These results suggest the possibility that training programs that focus on developing the components of PsyCap and activate the mechanisms through which it operates, may encourage training transfer by improving employees’ perceptions of the transfer climate. Employees who are more hopeful, optimistic, confident, and resilient may perceive opportunities, resources, and support in the transfer environment that those who are low on these constructs overlook or interpret differently.

Thus, while the training literature considers supervisor supportive behaviors in terms of encouragement, positive feedback, and involvement in training (Burke & Hutchins, Reference Burke and Hutchins2007), we believe this can be extended to involve behaviors that are aimed at the development of trainees’ PsyCap for transfer.

Training Evaluation

A PsyCap approach to training has several implications for training evaluation. First, training programs should include the measurement of PsyCap as part of training evaluation. In particular, the PsyCap variables should be measured before a training program as well as immediately after and at some point on the job. It is worth noting that Kraiger, Ford, and Salas’s (Reference Kraiger, Ford and Salas1993) affective evaluation dimension of their multidimensional evaluation model includes self-efficacy. Thus, an extension of the Kraiger et al. (Reference Kraiger, Ford and Salas1993) model is to include hope, optimism, and resiliency in addition to self-efficacy and to make PsyCap a distinct dimension of training evaluation.

Second, the measurement of PsyCap provides a new set of criteria for formative evaluation, which is important for understanding why a training program did or did not have an effect on training outcomes and has often been neglected in training evaluation relative to summative evaluations (Brown & Gerhardt, Reference Brown and Gerhardt2002). Given that formative evaluation is necessary for identifying the critical components for training success, adding PsyCap to existing models of formative evaluation contributes to the expansion of existing models by adding additional criteria that are important for training effectiveness (Brown & Gerhardt, Reference Brown and Gerhardt2002). In addition, PsyCap evaluation makes it possible to examine the mediating mechanisms for the effects of a training program on learning and transfer outcomes.

Summary

In this section, we have described the implications of PsyCap for the training and development process. It is our contention that training programs can be more effective for trainee learning and transfer if they include strategies and interventions to develop trainees’ PsyCap for learning and transfer of training.

The Business Realm

There are several streams of training-related literature that speak to the importance of having participants in training acquire systemic understanding in business operations. The tradition of experiential learning (Kolb, Reference Kolb1984; Kolb & Kolb, Reference Kolb and Kolb2005) laid the premise for thinking about how to integrate one’s ongoing experiences at work with efforts of collecting performance data, reflecting and developing more precise language for understanding the impact of one’s actions and adjust the course accordingly. This tradition of research has more recently been paralleled by evidence-based approaches to managing and developing organizations (Michie & West, Reference Michie and West2004; Pfeffer & Sutton, Reference Pfeffer and Sutton2006a), though mostly applied in the health services (Michie & West, Reference Michie and West2004; Rousseau, Reference Rousseau2006). Open book management (Mouritsen, Hansen, & Hansen, Reference Mouritsen, Hansen and Hansen2001) with extensive sharing of financial and performance information to all parts of the organization, draws from both these sets of literatures (Pfeffer, Reference Pfeffer1998; Pfeffer & Sutton, Reference Pfeffer and Sutton2006b).

Another and more direct descendant (Beckman & Barry, Reference Beckman and Barry2007) of experiential learning is the tradition of design thinking (Martin, Reference Martin2009; Rylander, Reference Rylander2009). Design thinking typically sets out to use integrative approaches to solve complex challenges in a way that addresses user feasibility, technical/competence feasibility, and business feasibility (Brown, Reference Brown2008). Design thinking is a broad field of practice more than a clearly defined field of research. There has been repeated calls for uptake of design thinking in education and project-based learning (Dunne & Martin, Reference Dunne and Martin2006; Dym et al., Reference Dym, Agogino, Eris, Frey and Leifer2005), but as far as we know the tradition has received little attention in research on training design.

So what could systems thinking in the business realm mean for training? The cases prepared on Zingerman’s community of businesses by Wayne Baker and colleagues at University of Michigan (Baker, Reference Baker2013a; Reference Baker2013b; Smerek & Baker, Reference Smerek and Baker2010) are indicative of the potential for enhancing training with systemic understanding as a main target. Waiters or other frontline service personnel at Zingerman’s are known to be able – and quite enthusiastic about – giving articulated and spontaneous accounts of the company’s vision, values, strategies, or finances to customers. The firm’s mission and vision were often summarized as building shared commitment to a triple bottom line of: (1) great food, (2) great service, and (3) great finance (Baker, Reference Baker2013a). The mission is followed up by deliberate installment of holistic understanding in all employees with extensive sharing of performance data, practices for participation in strategy discussion, and a broad-based ownership program (Baker, Reference Baker2013b). A key practice is a weekly “huddle” built on principles of open-book finance with joint sharing and discussions over past and forecasted performance data visualized on big white boards (Smerek & Baker, Reference Smerek and Baker2010). The event involves all available employees, who take turns facilitating and keeping metrics updated between events. Participation from newcomers is particularly emphasized.

Zingerman’s training practices also include: (1) a new employee introduction course taught by the two founders of the firm: “New employee orientation is the last thing Ari and I would have ever considered delegating or outsourcing” (Baker, Reference Baker2013a: 13); (2) extensive in-house training at the “University of Zingerman’s” where employees are requested to attend a series of orientation courses and also can earn training certificates and associate, bachelor, and more advance degrees; (3) all managers are expected to spend two hours of formal study every week and all leaders are expected to provide at least one hour of formal teaching every month in this setting; and (4) informal learning takes place on the job with regular food-tasting sessions where employees learn about new products and potential suppliers. The training practices at Zingerman’s, and the broader outlook on participation and ownership, have several parallels at Southwest Airlines. Just as with Zingerman’s, airline personnel at Southwest Airlines are trained to “go the extra mile” and use their common sense when facing unique situations with passengers. Systemic understanding is central to ensuring that autonomy yields exceptional service.

To reduce unnecessary red tape, Southwest does not have a formal performance management system. The focus is on the core of their business, ensuring fast turnaround and providing excellent customer service. Southwest conducts most if not all training in-house with extensive use of experiential learning and a large degree of participation of leaders in training activities, including introductory courses for newcomers. For new training initiatives, leaders undergo training first to signal the importance of participation and to be familiar with the content that their employees will learn.

Given the emphasis on employee competence in Southwest, continuous training of its employees is essential. As noted by O’Reilly and Pfeffer: “The emphasis is on performing operations better, faster, and cheaper, understanding other people’s jobs; delivering outstanding customer service; and keeping the culture alive and well (O’Reilly & Pfeffer, Reference O’Reilly and Pfeffer2000: 39). The essentials of Southwest culture are the focus for their introductory courses for all employees where the emphasis is on two of the cornerstones of the business model: relational coordination and excellent customer service. Flight attendants go through extensive training where much of the training focuses on customer service. All training also underpins how to work in teams and cross-functionally. It is key to handling the mutual interdependence of achieving aircraft turnaround within the allocated time, where flight attendants, gate agents, and pilots help each other. Training is almost 100% run by internal resources, to make the content tailor-made and relevant for the participants. Continuously, new training programs are designed when needs emerge, with managers undergoing training along with their peers. Last, but not least, special events such as Front Line forums are set together, where tenured employees discuss the progress of the company, whether training is beneficial, and what needs to be done to maintain the company culture (O’Reilly & Pfeffer, Reference O’Reilly and Pfeffer2000).

The empirical grounding in evidence also extends to employee development efforts. Collins and Hansen (Reference Collins and Hansen2011) have coined such grounding “empirical creativity,” using Southwest Airlines as one of their cases. A good example here is the development work on changing boarding practices (Heskett & Sasser, Reference Heskett and Sasser2010). In an experiment in 2007 in San Diego, passengers were for the first time allowed to reserve their seats in advance. The actual boarding processes were filmed and the passengers were interviewed about their experience. Southwest found that customers preferred its open seating by two to one and that the assigned seating slowed the boarding process by four to six minutes. As a result of this experiment, management decided to maintain open seating but began allowing passengers to “reserve” places in the waiting line (Heskett & Sasser, Reference Heskett and Sasser2010: 7–8) What we see here is a form of evidence-based practice development where members of the organization gather evidence of customer preferences and/or the working of practices (e.g., like boarding), perform small experiments on these practices, and redesign them accordingly. It is a form of development activity where training and improvement efforts may blend, that is cyclical and participative, and that starts with observations in the field.

Like at Zingerman’s frontline employees at Southwest Airlines are noted for being articulate about vision and strategy, “Nothing about nurturing the culture at Southwest Airlines is casual. The result? Southwest people – even at the lowest part of the employee food chain – are extraordinarily articulate about the essence of the Southwest vision” (O’Reilly, Reference O’Reilly1995: 7).

At Explore, training for systems thinking takes two major forms. First, there is cross-disciplinary training. Geoscientists who explore for oil and gas face inevitable needs for combining information from many different sources and disciplines to: (1) develop geological prospects for where oil and gas can be found, (2) communicate these prospects to internal and internal stakeholders in a way that is system competent (e.g., knowing the larger basin in which they are placed, the position and strategies of this basin as well as competing prospects within and outside the basin), and (3) integrate efforts to bring prospects closer to maturation. Senior explorers in charge of training and mentoring activities talk about the necessity of investing in t-shaped (breadth and depth) competence building (Barile et al., Reference Barile, Franco, Nota and Saviano2012) to facilitate cross-disciplinary combination. For example, a specialist in sedimentology, having depth, may need to invest up to five years of his or her career into work activities that provide on-the-job training in complementary disciplines, thus acquiring breadth, including the business of oil field development.

Second, systems thinking at Explore is also nurtured through on-the job training in projects. Successful exploration projects and task forces typically rely on extensive mobilization practices with regard to facilitating open discussions of objectives, plans, and commitments in the early phases, seeding the ground for not only enrollment of people but also holistic understanding and autonomy in the project. Senior exploration managers also frequently talk about the need to nurture and grow people who can become integrators in terms of being ready to assume responsibility for the total development of prospects all the way to drilling. A tale from one successful exploration manager about his own growth as a threshold experience is illustrative:

Developing people with such integrator capabilities is recognized as important at Explore. Managers and current integrators believe that the main way to accomplish this is with on-the-job learning, where employees take on responsibility for real-life projects. Such learning is increasingly coupled with systematic efforts of coaching and joint reflection in formalized training arrangements at the internal Exploration Academy.

A particularly interesting feature of training for system understanding at Explore is the role of the visual. Explorers seldom see or touch the material realities they work with, and interpretive complexity amongst masses of data presents a real danger for fragmentation of work. Newcomer specialists who are delivering small analytics into large projects often voice concerns about such fragmentation and alienation. By contrast, well-working exploration teams typically have arrangements that parallel the huddle at Zingerman’s: There are visual sense-making sessions within projects that place data and maps into larger regional wholes and there are (less frequent) visual delivery schedules and prospect inventories across prospects. The visual becomes the basis for seeing progress in work (Amabile & Kramer, Reference Amabile and Kramer2011) and for relational coordination (Bechky, Reference Bechky2003; Seidel & Fixson, Reference Seidel and Fixson2013; Seidel & O’Mahony, Reference Seidel and O’Mahony2014), training that literally allow newcomers to see how their work fits into and affects the larger landscape of deliverables. So far such schemes are more part of learning-oriented work practice than training per se.

The Beneficiary Realm

The beneficiary realm of making an impact with training consist of the interpersonal system of interactional and reciprocity dynamics with internal beneficiaries and proximal external beneficiaries. The perceived importance of this realm has grown along with increasing awareness of the importance of prosocial behavior (Grant, Reference Grant2007), high-quality connections (Stephens et al., Reference Stephens, Heaphy, Dutton, Cameron and Spreitzer2012), and increased attention to relational being at work (Dutton & Ragins, Reference Dutton and Ragins2007; Gergen, Reference Gergen2009; Sennett, Reference Sennett2012). Brown and van Buren (Reference Brown and van Buren2007) suggest that training involving employee-helping behavior will develop stronger reciprocity norms in organization. More specifically, work on generalized reciprocity and giving behavior show how performance is boosted by being aware of the consequences of one’s action in terms of making a difference to others (Grant, Reference Grant2013; Grant & Berry, Reference Grant and Berry2011).

Much of this theorizing takes an implicit systemic view in the sense that training for one’s perspective taking (Buell, Kim, & Tsay, Reference Buell, Kim and Tsay2014; Galinsky et al., Reference Galinsky, Maddux, Gilin and White2008; Hoever et al., Reference Hoever, van Knippenberg, van Ginkel and Barkema2012) is seen as key to connect, read feedback from immediate others, and perform well (e.g., in terms of social processes such as creativity or negotiations). Galinsky et al. (Reference Galinsky, Maddux, Gilin and White2008) highlight the importance of perspective taking for negotiation outcomes as well as it’s differential effect vis-à-vis empathy. While perspective taking was beneficial for negotiation outcomes, empathy was not. Grant (Reference Grant2008) convincingly demonstrated how exposure to primary beneficiary of call center operators’ work and psychological mechanism of perspective taking stimulates individual creativity, effort, and funds raised. Hoever et al. (Reference Hoever, van Knippenberg, van Ginkel and Barkema2012) conducted a series of experiments to show that diversity only breeds team creativity when supported by perspective taking.

In the high-quality connections literature (Dutton, Reference Dutton2003; Dutton & Heaphy, Reference Dutton, Heaphy, Cameron, Dutton and Quinn2003; Stephens et al., Reference Stephens, Heaphy, Dutton, Cameron and Spreitzer2012) the microdynamics of seeing others, listening to others, and being genuine in relation to others all presupposes ability to understand the effect one has on others. Being able to form high-quality connections is an intersubjective systemic skill in the relational realm. The systemic quality is particularly well qualified by the work of Esa Saarinen and colleagues (Luoma, Hämäläinen, & Saarinen, Reference Luoma, Hämäläinen and Saarinen2008; Saarinen & Hämäläinen, 2010) who talks about systems intelligence as a broadened version of emotional and social intelligence. As defined by Hämäläinen and Saarinen (Reference Hämäläinen and Saarinen2006: 191), “A subject acting with systems intelligence engages successfully and productively with the holistic feedback mechanisms of her environment. She perceives herself as part of a whole, the influence of the whole upon herself as well as her own influence upon the whole.” The wholes that Hämäläinen and Saarinen (Reference Hämäläinen and Saarinen2006: 191) are particularly concerned with are the relational ones, for example what they call interpersonal “systems of holding back” (Hämäläinen and Saarinen Reference Hämäläinen and Saarinen2006: 196–198). Couples may stop doing small gestures of love and people at work may stop trying to do the small positive behaviors that make others thrive, and make a difference to customers because of lack of sensitivity and unchecked assumption about others. We risk being trapped into negative behavioral dynamics because of lack of systems intelligence.

Finally, the beneficiary realm has been further accentuated by a stream of research on help-seeking and help-giving behavior (Amabile, Fisher, & Pillemer, Reference Amabile, Fisher and Pillemer2014; Brooks, Gino, & Schweitzer, Reference Brooks, Gino and Schweitzer2015; Cerne et al., Reference Cerne, Nerstad, Dysvik and Škerlavaj2013; Fisher, Pillemer, & Amabile, Reference Amabile, Fisher and Pillemer2014; Grodal, Nelson, & Siino, Reference Grodal, Nelson and Siino2015; Hargadon & Bechky, Reference Hargadon and Bechky2006; Shapiro, Reference Shapiro2013). For example, being system competent in an organization like the design firm IDEO presupposes learning about and acting upon expectations for actively seeking help for complex problem solving outside one’s project team (Amabile et al., Reference Amabile, Fisher and Pillemer2014). Other examples of organizations that systematically nurture help-seeking and help-giving behaviors at work include Google and ConocoPhilips where peer-to-peer appreciation is used to signal benefits and collaborative systems offers a means to giving and receiving help. Addressing overwhelming fear of losing face or exposing oneself for vulnerability while asking for help, Brooks, Gino et al. (Reference Brooks, Gino and Schweitzer2015) have recently found that asking for help actually increased perceptions of help seekers’ competence (especially if problems were seen as tough and person asked was an expert in the field). Knowing where, when, and how to ask for help and being able to offer help in return should be part of the agenda for training.

Training that addresses the beneficiary systemic realm is well exemplified at Zingerman’s. Its importance is shown clearly by the founders who championed an explicitly giving-oriented culture with emphasis on trust and care. Several parts of the vision statement and the guiding principles allude to the importance of this realm. Examples include (Baker, Reference Baker2013a: 4): “Showing love and care in all our actions. To enrich as many lives as we possibly can” (from the mission statement) and “Strong relationships! Successful working relationships are an essential component of our health and success as a business” (from the guiding principles statement). In terms of human resource and management practices, examples of beneficiary-related training arrangements include (Baker, Reference Baker2013a; Reference Baker2013b): (1) teaching relational skills of servant leadership as core to giving great service and handling complaints; (2) instituting a concept called “positive energy” in which all employees should strive to have professional fun and a positive attitude; (3) fostering open communication with inviting newcomers and others to partner meetings and ensuring key decisions are made in face-to-face meetings with consensus; (4) practices for publicly giving appreciation of co-workers at the end of meetings, expressing gratitude to co-workers for specific actions in the monthly newsletter, and giving formal and public awards for actions qualifying for the “x-tra mile files” and “service stars”; (5) teaching a process known as “caring confrontation” in which employees are told to handle work concerns in a direct and respectful manner; and (6) letting employees fill out donation request forms for charity contributions to recipient organizations in the local community.

Again, several of these ways of thinking about training are mirrored at Southwest Airlines in terms of purposively emphasizing and investing in relations as the major basis of competitive advantage and employee well-being (Gittell, Reference Gittell2001). Like at Zingerman’s, the company was set up with an egalitarian family-like culture emphasizing deeply meaningful work. Relational competence is continually emphasized not just in training, but in recruitment and leadership practices as well (O’Reilly & Pfeffer, Reference O’Reilly and Pfeffer1995).

Indeed, Judy Gittell’s in-depth studies claimed that relational coordination – as in the fast turnaround processes – is a major explanation of the company’s competitive advantage (Gittell, Reference Gittell2000; Reference Gittell2006). Such relational coordination, according to Gittell, resides in shared goals, shared knowledge, and mutual respect, factors that in turn promote more frequent, timely, and joint communication on crucial issues. From the early days, relational practices at Southwest Airlines included (O’Reilly & Pfeffer, Reference O’Reilly and Pfeffer1995): (1) celebrating a fun-loving culture with serious attention to parties and celebrations; (2) empowering employees to make on-the-spot commonsense decisions to provide customer service, and celebration of examples of helping customers in need; (3) cherishing the customer centric by arranging a “day in the field” program for officers and directors and staffing the human resource department with people with frontline experience only; (4) allowing peer recruiting to better screen for value fit, positive attitudes, and ability to do team work; and (5) appreciating peer-to-peer and cross-function contributions as well as positively deviant customer service experiences. Compared to Zingerman’s, people at Southwest Airlines seem to be more conscious about the value of beneficiary contact practices for creating, gathering, and using stories of positively deviant services. Employees of the company were famous for rapping or singing security announcements and freely using other opportunities to provide unexpected entertainment for passengers. Even turning down people in recruitment in a gracefully and respectful manner seems to have been a means to create positively deviant beneficiary service (O’Reilly & Pfeffer, Reference O’Reilly and Pfeffer1995).

Moving on to Explore, we can say that relational practices have, quite unlike the two other case companies, traditionally not been a major concern in training or team development. Technical concerns and subjects are prioritized and there is little local language for relations that are enlivening and mutually rewarding. Interaction with direct outside beneficiaries is not a part of everyday work. There are no immediate external beneficiaries (as opposed to anonymous energy users) of exploration to interact with except family and other local community members for whom an eventual discovery could mean more investments and high-paying jobs in their area.

Nevertheless, the relational dimension that appears crucial in hydrocarbon exploration activities at Explore is the ability to maneuver in a landscape of specialists and knowing how other specialists or integrators may benefit from one’s work. Finding good ways of asking for help and offering help is of major importance to move prospects further up the line, as there is no such thing as single-person prospect development. Training schemes are giving increased attention to practices for giving appreciation within and across departments. Furthermore, while the organization has for a long time staged peer-review and peer-assist sessions, the generative, energizing and connective aspects of such sessions are now being recognized along with technical matters.

A qualitative study of knowledge creation in one exploration unit and a consulting firm found that high-quality connections played a major role in projects considered particularly fruitful (Aarrestad, Brøndbo, & Carlsen, Reference Aarrestad, Brøndbo and Carlsen2015). In short, explorers experience being more productive and alive in knowledge creation when there is room for more emotionally intense and overlapping interactions, when an open-ended and respectful questioning expands reciprocity in interactions, and when connectivity is helped by the sensory richness of proximity and more use of visuals and tangibles in synchronous interactions. The use of visuals and tangibles in relating is more accentuated in Explore than at Southwest and Zingerman’s, probably due to the complexity of work with need for knowledge cocreation and coordination between many subdisciplines. When transcending knowledge differences (Majchrzak, More, & Faraj, Reference Majchrzak, More and Faraj2012) and encouraging seeking and providing help, active use of visual boundary objects seems to be necessary.

The Societal Realm

Beyond the business realm and beyond the realm of internal and proximal external beneficiaries are larger societal wholes – be they environmental, human-rights related, matters of regional social economic growth, or ethical concerns – that people’s work in organizations may influence. Ultimately, this societal realm, or realms in plural to be more precise, can be seen as a set of CSRs that are immanent in work in ways people are not aware of normally. The consequences of CSR for training at work is a topic that transcends levels of analysis, and for which there is little current knowledge (Aguinis & Glavas, Reference Aguinis and Glavas2012). We know little about how concrete activities within human resource management and training impact CSR (Sharma et al., Reference Sharma, Sharma and Devi2011). Our discussion here is thus tentative. We open for consideration of larger questions than we can hope to answer: Are there systemic realms of a societal nature that training in organizations could target and, if so, how?

Returning briefly to our three cases, the answer to the first part of this question must be a clear “yes.” This is easiest to see in the case of Zingerman’s community of businesses. The founders of the firm appear to have been successful in integrating new business development and ownership with an agenda of local community development in Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County, as well as sustainability and food justice. One of the guiding principles of the business taught to all employees is that Zingerman’s should be “an active part of the community. We believe that a business has an obligation to give back to the community of which it is a part” (Baker, Reference Baker2013a: 4). The owners of the firm have declined several offers to sell or expand upon the brand to other cities and emphasize engaging employees in development of local workplaces and healthy, sustainable food from local suppliers. The community agenda includes the founding of the Food Gatherers, an independent not-for-profit food rescue program and food bank that in 2011 delivered nearly 12,000 meals a day to nearly 44,000 residents of Washtenaw County. Employees handle up to a dozen requests for food donations every day, based on a standardized form given out in all service outlets. Ten percent of the profit posttax is donated to the community as cash. Other initiatives for achieving zero carbon footprints and maintaining “thriveable wages” give further credit to Zingerman’s efforts for making social contributions.

For Southwest Airlines, the clearest systemic societal realm here seems to be workplace democracy. While democracy at work may have several limits as a form of governance (Kerr, Reference Kerr2004), there is little doubt that Southwest Airlines was an industry pioneer in promoting organizational practices – including training, ownership, collaboration, and labor relations – that were considered participative and in promotion of better and more meaningful and egalitarian places to work. The organization seem to have been infused with a societal mission (O’Reilly & Pfeffer, Reference O’Reilly and Pfeffer1995) of showing the possibility of creating a workplace where people can find deep meaning, bring their whole self to work, and do well when doing good – a “level five ambition” (Collins & Hansen, Reference Collins and Hansen2011). Systems thinking in this regard would be more than merely knowing the internal practices well. Employees’ credibility as spokespersons and exemplars of the pioneering quest would require knowledge of the larger discourses of workplace democracy, including knowledge of institutional arrangements concerning democracy and labor collaboration in the aviation industry and other service sectors.

At Explore, the need for systems thinking in the societal realm is evident in many parts of exploration: (1) regional socioeconomic consequences of locating discovery activities and concept decisions with regard to infrastructure for exploiting resources and transport oil and gas (reflected in training arrangements for analysts); (2) safety and environmental consequences of exploration practices, including, for example, the need for emergency preparations regarding oil spills along the coast, something that also affects ship traffic (a key part of the security training for drilling personnel and engineers involved in planning and project management); and (3) sociopolitical impact of international exploration activities, in particular in Third World areas in terms of building institutional capabilities and contributing to democratic development (part of training arrangements for all personnel going abroad, increasing in scope and depth with length of stay and role. Additionally, there are obvious larger environmental and geopolitical issues tied to long-term sustainable energy supply, though this has not been a concern for training so far.

In summary, training for systems thinking in the societal realm may potentially cover a large and varied set of societal systems, depending on nature of value creating activities and the environments they meet. Even a cursory look reveals that training to help employees meet such concerns is complex in various ways, many of them mainly targeted to mid-level managers and project leaders.

Fostering Interdependent Autonomy and Becoming Systems Competent

Job autonomy appears to be one of the essential tenets for integrating training and systems thinking. Job autonomy – or the extent to which a job allows freedom, independence, and discretion to schedule work, make decisions, and choose the methods used to perform tasks (Morgeson & Humphrey, Reference Morgeson and Humphrey2006) – is a cornerstone in contemporary work-design theories and is convincingly related to a number of employee outcomes focal to training, such as increased work performance, organizational commitment, and helping behaviors, as well as reduced stress and turnover (Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, Reference Humphrey, Nahrgang and Morgeson2007). In our cases, we have seen that autonomy is both given and expected in the sense that people are brought into roles and organizational arrangements where they are provided knowledge and leeway to make decisions and initiate actions that have impact – whether that means servicing a customer or bringing a hydrocarbon prospect closer to drilling.

One could probably flag systems thinking as a label for a very different organizational philosophy in which people were trained to follow prescribed behaviors based on organizational structure and mechanisms. Such a control version of systems thinking is not the situation in any of our cases. Rather, what we see is the nurturing of proactive behaviors in which people are encouraged to produce fast and fruitful responses from a different part of their working environment and acquire the needed information to do so. This requires interdependent autonomy in which each node carries responsibility for aligning actions in a system-consistent manner. Autonomy is thus accentuated as both an outcome and contingency of systems thinking and, for some (like the exploration project leader), the challenge of a new role may provide the threshold experience to grow into a fully autonomous and system competent actor.

Further research would be needed to understand the development trajectories of individuals who are growing to become system competent in this manner and shape their work-related identity accordingly. We know little about the formative experiences; training arrangements set people on the pathways of becoming integrators, givers, or socially responsible. There is a rich tradition of research within narrative psychology that qualifies how individuals tend to grow into becoming more generative and increasingly contribute to both proximal and distant beneficiaries as they pass mid-life (e.g., McAdams & Guo, Reference McAdams and Guo2015). We may speculate that this type of life motive amounts to the equivalence of becoming more system competent along the beneficiary and societal realms. But we know of no research on training that tries to investigate such growth trajectories.

Furthermore, other cases would be needed to understand variations of systems thinking, autonomy, and individual growth trajectories across industries. For a fast-paced software development environment like for example Spotify,² it seems that autonomy represents a necessity to answer demands for agile development activities of new services and upgrades, in addition to rapid responses to customers’ demands. Development activities, from programming to systems design to service development, are done in parallel and in response to multiple real-time scenarios. Such activities involve many small and large decisions for which formal coordination and control must be limited. Here autonomy necessitates high levels of systems understanding in the sense of being able to see how one’s work relates to work together within and across developments teams and to the larger portfolio of services as seen by users. Growth of the organization and broadening of service offers may pose further challenges. Initial evidence for this proposition was recently found by Dysvik, Kuvaas, and Buch (Reference Dysvik, Kuvaas and Buch2016) who observed a positive relationship between perceived investment in employee development and taking charge behavior for employees with high levels of job autonomy. In other words, investments in developing employees competence needs to be accompanied by the everyday perception of having the leeway to make use of acquired knowledge and skills, in line with our systems thinking approach.

Getting Visual with Perspective Taking and Transparency

Training for systems thinking means institutionalizing practices for perspective taking and creating transparency, both of which underpin interdependent autonomy. A striking feature of these practices is their visual and physical character. Key to the huddle and open-book management at Zingerman’s is the large whiteboard as a shared visual resource for providing overview of key financial metrics and forecasts. This organization also emphasizes making beneficiary stories visible in internal pamphlets and other graphic boundary objects to communicate awards for going the “X-tra mile.” At Explore, the extensive use of large maps, seismic charts, and well logs in shared office space is regarded key to fostering collaboration in exploration, in particular with regard to involving newcomers. Visuals become central to a way to transcend knowledge boundaries (Majchrzak et al., Reference Majchrzak, More and Faraj2012) and create shared imaginings, literally seeing how one makes a difference to colleagues in their knowledge creation. We also note that several of the training arrangements at Southwest Airlines, such as “a day in the field,” or joint work on turnarounds and luggage handling, presupposes physical proximity in relational coordination.

A growing body of literature on the role of visuals in perspective taking and transparency is promising. It is pointing toward several impactful training interventions. For example, visualizing the end user has a significant effect on the task performance. In the health care sector, a group of Israeli radiologists (Turner et al., Reference Turner, Silberman, Joffe and Hadas-Halpern2008) conducted an experiment on the task of diagnosing computed tomography (CT) exams from patients. It is a striking finding that attaching patient photo next to the CT exam improved diagnostic accuracy by 46% and that almost 80% of the key results came about only when the radiologists saw the patient’s photograph. Similarly, Buell et al. (Reference Buell, Kim and Tsay2014), show that restaurant chefs who saw their customers made them make (objectively) more tasty food and achieve 10% higher customer satisfaction through feelings of appreciation and meaningfulness. When both customers and cooks were able to see one another (without speaking to each other), the customer satisfaction increased by 17.3% and speed of service delivery increased by 13.2%. In a series of different settings, from call center operators to firemen, Adam Grant and colleagues report even more impactful evidence of triggering prosocial motivation through perspective taking on creativity (Grant & Berry, Reference Grant and Berry2011), persistence, performance, and productivity (Grant & Sumanth, Reference Grant and Sumanth2009). Training for perspective taking, including visualizing, is thus a powerful driver of system thinking at work.

There is a strong research agenda for the systematic focus on perspective taking and visualizing as essential ingredients of integrated training systems – “systems predicated on influencing organizational effectiveness” (Kozlowski et al., Reference Kozlowski, Brown, Weissbein, Cannon-Bowers, Salas, Klein and Kozlowski2000: 203). Future research should span across multiple levels of analysis to help understand the role of perspective taking in facilitating training contexts and processes for broader impact and vertical transfer of training. For example, as far as we know, little research exists about systematic collection and display of end-user testimonials, or other reminder of beneficiaries, for training purposes.

Following the visual and material turn in organization studies (Ashcraft, Kuhn, & Cooren, Reference Ashcraft, Kuhn and Cooren2009; Meyer et al., Reference Meyer, Höllerer, Jancsary and van Leeuwen2013) there is also a broader agenda for studying the use of tangibles and work space in training arrangements. The promise here is that use of visuals will help build transparency, aid coordination, and foster better collaboration (de Vaujany & Mitev, Reference de Vaujany and Mitev2013; Doorley & Witthoft, Reference Doorley and Witthoft2011). One example is the use of huddles, like at Zingerman’s. There is some research on huddles (Provost et al., Reference Provost, Lanham, Leykum, McDaniel and Pugh2014; Quinn & Bunderson, Reference Quinn and Bunderson2013), but not regarding the role of the particular visuals being used or the effect and relevance for training.

Creating Embedded Training Arrangements

The cases we have looked at here all confirm and extend the importance of internally consistent human resource practices, that is, the effect of one human resource practice such as training is contingent upon the wider organizational context including other human resource practices, job design features, and managerial styles. For example, Kraimer et al. (Reference Kraimer, Seibert, Wayne, Liden and Bravo2011) found that while employees may be satisfied with their developmental opportunities, a lack of career opportunities may make them more likely to leave the company and work less effective while they remain. In contrast, a systems approach to training would imply ensuring both horizontal and vertical processes ensuring that employees are allowed to make use of acquired knowledge and skills through horizontal transfer within roles that develop as their understanding of their role embedded in the wider organizational context increases through vertical transfer (Kozlowski et al., Reference Kozlowski, Brown, Weissbein, Cannon-Bowers, Salas, Klein and Kozlowski2000). In addition, Blume et al. (Reference Blume, Ford, Baldwin and Huang2010) found that perceived support from the work environment fosters training transfer. Thus, support from both colleagues (Chiaburu & Harrison, Reference Chiaburu and Harrison2008) and supervisors (Eisenberger et al., Reference Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski and Rhoades2002) is important for systems thinking toward training to be sustainable over time because a lack of support could lead to less transfer and consequently less systems thinking. This is most evident at Southwest Airlines and Zingerman’s where core values, service concepts, ownership models, and recruitment all shape and are shaped by training arrangements.

Training with a systems perspective is not always defined strictly as training but may be a mix of embedded and interrelated organizational practices. In line with such a trend, an increasing number of organizations worldwide are adopting so called 70:20:10 learning strategy implementations (Jennings, Reference Jennings2013; Lombardo & Eichinger, Reference Lombardo and Eichinger1996), where the emphasis on the time, effort, and money spent on training is on the informal learning part, mostly through experiential learning (70%) and relationships (20%), whereas merely 10% of training investments are devoted to formal and traditional learning activities (Lombardo & Eichinger, Reference Lombardo and Eichinger1996). This underlines our call for a shift in how training providers understand training and development as broadening impact, whether for business, beneficiaries, and society.

Underlying Assumptions

Foci of Action

Cultural Context

In relatively high power distance cultural contexts, as typically observed in countries such as China and Malaysia (Hofstede, Reference Hofstede2001; Taras, Steel, & Kirkman, Reference Taras, Steel and Kirkman2012), instructors are put on a pedestal and students expect to be given “correct” answers. Learning is believed to stem from the transfer of knowledge from a wise teacher – deemed by Confucius to be the most respected role within society (Hofstede, Reference Hofstede1986) – to presumably naïve students. In higher power distance contexts, a ringmaster teaching style could thus be culturally incongruent. Students’ resulting threat rigidity (Staw, Sandelands, & Dutton, Reference Staw, Sandelands and Dutton1981) may diminish the effectiveness of ringmaster strategies that work well in relatively low power distance contexts (e.g., Australia and the United States; Hofstede, Reference Hofstede2001; Taras et al., Reference Taras, Steel and Kirkman2012).

Similarly, Moloney and Xu (Reference Moloney and Xu2012) discuss how Chinese language learning in Australian schools is impeded by instructors holding culturally incongruent traditional Confucian schema, with assumptions about a hierarchical relationship between teacher and student, and about education involving knowledge transmission rather than a process in which students actively participate. While a strong focus on exposition of received knowledge tends to be shunned within lower power distance contexts by students who are frustrated by the cultural incongruence of not being actively engaged in shaping the process and content of their learning, it may thus play a larger role in effective teaching amidst higher levels of power distance.

Institutional Context

Research-intensive universities that emphasize creating and explaining empirically verified knowledge may expect instructors to play predominantly rockstar roles, delivering content-driven lectures that showcase cutting-edge scholarly work. In prototypically teaching-oriented institutions that give precedence to collaborative learning and knowledge creation, there may be a greater focus on developing, refining, and using ringmaster teaching pedagogies.

Perceived imperatives for courses to cover certain content, as required by accreditation bodies such as AACSB, EQUIS, and AMBA, may represent another institutional cue to engage in rockstar exposition to present that content. However, the AACSB 2012 accrediting standards also argue that “passive learning should not be the sole, or primary, model of collegiate business education” (31), thereby cuing more ringmaster-style teaching. The latter is enabled by online technological developments that have increased the ease of assigning readings, cases, and videos that are discussed and applied to experiential activities within a flipped class format.

Program Culture

Within a given business school, programs can vary substantially in the expectations they place on students to prepare for class through activities such as reading articles and preparing their response to case studies. When students are well prepared in these ways, there is a foundation for using facilitated approaches such as the case method, discussions, and experiential activities to deepen students’ ability to apply concepts. Rockstar teaching might be more suitable within programs where students are typically less willing and/or able to seriously prepare for class, such as attending noncredit management training.

Facilities

Facilitated classes are aided by flat rooms that enable flexible seating arrangements (e.g., conference rounds and chairs arranged in a horseshoe shape) whereby students face and directly address each other, rather than primarily just the instructor. Chairs that are fixed, front-facing, and/or on a raked floor tend to set the stage for the performance of a rockstar presenter.

Impactful rockstar teaching can be supported by easily adjustable lights, high-quality audio-visual equipment, and/or high-speed Internet access that enables the streaming of videos, video conferences, or analysis of real-time data. Such technology is less important when engaging in ringmaster teaching.

Class Size

With a large number of students, a rockstar mode of instruction may be more viable for fostering learning. While students can have guided discussions in pairs even within massive classes, such contexts constrain the proportion of students who can hear and respond to each other, or be called upon to contribute to an interactive learning process. Smaller class sizes enable instructors to orchestrate live contributions, critiques, peer coaching (whereby participants learn from coaching, being coached, and observing coaching dynamics), as well as the exchange between students who discuss, voice, and respond to the ideas that are presented by other students from around the room.

Class Time

While it is well established that students learn more deeply when they are led to reflect on the relevance of managerial concepts to their personal experiences and challenges (Knowles et al., Reference Knowles, Holton and Swanson2011), doing so can be quite time consuming (Hativa, Reference Hativa2000). In situations in which time is particularly limited, a clear and compelling presentation of relevant concepts and procedures may be more applicable than hurriedly eliciting and superficially engaging with students’ perspectives.

Student Openness

Classes with a preponderance of students with a high learning goal orientation (VandeWalle, Reference VandeWalle1997), who are willing to incur frustrations and setbacks in the service of learning, might be particularly open to the dynamics of a facilitated classroom wherein students are called upon to make public, on-the-spot contributions. Students with a high performance-avoid goal orientation (VandeWalle, Reference VandeWalle1997; i.e., a concern to avoid exposing an ability deficit by providing a “wrong” answer) may feel threatened by being publicly probed and prefer the lower accountability associated with rockstar pedagogies where the instructor delivers most of the content. Similarly, when students have a high need for closure (Kruglanski & Webster, Reference Kruglanski and Webster1996), they might prefer content-driven classes where instructors impart established knowledge and “correct” answers, rather than stimulate debate regarding possible alternatives. Given their higher tolerance for ambiguity, students with a low need for closure may prefer and learn particularly well from ringmaster teaching that encourages them to generate and engage with diverse perspectives.

Student Knowledge/Experience

When students have little if any knowledge or experience regarding class topics, they may benefit most from a compelling presentation of key concepts and illustrative examples. In contrast, more experienced students – and especially practicing managers – tend to relish facilitated opportunities to publicly recount, hear, and analyze illustrative war stories from their organizational lives. For such students, a predominantly rockstar mode of instruction is often deemed less engaging and useful than a facilitated approach (Knowles et al., Reference Knowles, Holton and Swanson2011; Mintzberg, Reference Mintzberg2004).

When challenging students to move out of their comfort zones, given their culture and personality, it can be prudent to manage the risk of “losing” students or indeed a whole class because of having pushed them too far. This may be done by deliberately striking a balance between creating comfortable and uncomfortable learning experiences for students, in light of all the previously mentioned contingencies.

Finding the Right Balance

It is important to underscore the complementarity of the rockstar and ringmaster roles. Both roles are potentially valuable and either could be problematic if overplayed. A strong emphasis on the rockstar role may (or may not) be entertaining and risk exacerbating the status differential between instructors and students (Schein, Reference Schein1969; Reference Schein2009), losing students’ attention, and not stimulating the deep learning and skill development that can occur when students are led to apply concepts to personally meaningful experiences (Mintzberg, Reference Mintzberg2004; Pfeffer & Sutton, Reference Pfeffer and Sutton2006).

An overemphasis on the ringmaster role, by contrast, risks students not being adequately exposed to relevant developments in management theory and research (Wren et al., Reference Wren, Halbesleben and Buckley2007), as well as evidence-based best practices (Pfeffer, & Sutton, Reference Pfeffer and Sutton2006; Rynes, Giluk, & Brown, Reference Rynes, Giluk and Brown2007) – an imperative that is currently being explicitly addressed in scarcely a quarter of the required management courses in U.S.-based MBA programs (Charlier et al., Reference Charlier, Brown and Rynes2011). When taken to the extreme, a ringmaster role runs the risk of reducing an academically grounded course to a reflective practice session in which students share their experiences and help each other resolve their management challenges, without learning to apply evidence-based course concepts.

We thus need more and better ringmaster and rockstar performances. Just as truly helping others involves mindfully shifting back and forth between the roles of “expert” and “process consultant” (Schein, Reference Schein1969; Reference Schein2009), effective management education likely reflects an artful blend and execution of rockstar and ringmaster teaching. How much of the rockstar or ringmaster roles instructors should enact within a given instance will depend on a range of contextual factors like those we discussed earlier, as well as instructors’ identity, default style, and level of competence at enacting each role. For instance, heroic attempts at a radical and sudden shift to a teaching role well beyond one’s comfort zone, without adequate planning and preparation, may be perceived as inauthentic and ineffective, and students may withdraw (psychologically if not physically) from the course.

Developing Teaching Effectiveness

Our contrast between rockstar and ringmaster roles could be applied by instructors to decide how to balance these roles for a forthcoming class, given class objectives and relevant contextual contingencies. Instructors could try representing – with a small dot – where on each continuum in Figure 21.1, from “100% Instructor as Rockstar” to “100% Instructor as Ringmaster,” they plan to function within a given class or within a module with a given learning objective. Such ratings could serve as a valuable point of reference for designing, evaluating, and refining class plans. For example, instructors might complete Figure 21.1 in a manner that implies an intention to play a predominantly ringmaster role, yet still habitually produce so many detailed slides and anecdotes that it takes much of the available class time to adequately work through them, thereby leaving little time for teaching as a ringmaster. Realizing this disconnect could prompt such instructors to substantially prune back their class content and related slides to increase the scope to fully embrace the ringmaster role.

During class, if a facilitated segment seems to have drifted toward consensus around conclusions that are contrary to what robust empirical research has found, a savvy instructor might spontaneously pivot into a rockstar mode to deliver a statement of relevant research findings. Similarly, if students appear relatively disengaged and drowsy in response to an extended rockstar segment of a management class, a ringmaster-like impromptu activity requiring focused input from students may reinvigorate them.

Following class, Figure 21.1 could also be used to analyze the teaching role assumptions and strategies that one actually manifested within a class, based on self-assessment from memory, video analysis, peer and/or student feedback. Such postclass debriefs could highlight not only the extent to which one was on target or deviated from one’s planned trade-offs between the rockstar- and ringmaster-related assumptions and actions, but also illuminate issues such as: What facets of the rockstar and ringmaster roles were played particularly well? Which felt most right? Which seemed to foster the engagement of the class? Which fell flat? Which role facets might have fruitfully been played more often, less often, or differently? We anticipate that answering such questions – ideally working with a peer coach (Parker, Hall, & Kram, Reference Parker, Hall and Kram2008) – could provide invigorating jolts of self-appreciation (Spreitzer, Reference Spreitzer2006) for what is working well in one’s classes, as well as highlighting specific opportunities for reflection and improvement.

A Potential Reality Check

Self-assessment of one’s teaching assumptions and foci of action using Figure 21.1, even aside from a particular management class or workshop, can provide the starting point for profound self-reflection and discussion. For instance, when we had highly experienced executive educator colleagues complete Figure 21.1 during a teaching development workshop, they consistently revealed assumptions highly associated with the ringmaster role. Subsequent peer discussion cued queries about the extent to which these instructors actually manifested those ringmaster-related assumptions in how they led their sessions. Friendly jesting arose about the frequency and zeal with which some of these instructors – who proudly label themselves as “facilitators” – routinely held the limelight with extended periods of exposition and colorful anecdotes. This prompted sobering yet subsequently applauded insights about gaps between their espoused and enacted theories (Argyris, Reference Argyris1990) of effective executive education. A few participants anecdotally reported subsequently reevaluating some of their long-held pedagogical assumptions, identity, and approaches.

Priming Oneself to Enact and Balance the Rockstar and Ringmaster Roles

A challenge for management instructors, mirroring that of practicing managers (Gosling & Mintzberg, Reference Gosling and Mintzberg2003), is to simultaneously work with the contrasting yet complementary rockstar and ringmaster roles. We suspect that stellar instructors move flexibly between these roles as the occasion demands. Rather than acting on the basis of predetermined behavioral recipes, instructors might instead psychologically warm up to an intended blend of rockstar and ringmaster roles, to provide a platform from which they can respond creatively and spontaneously to the teaching and learning needs and opportunities that arise within their class (Brown et al., Reference Brown, Arbaugh, Hrivnak, Kenworthy, Holtom and Dierdorff2013). Three promising levers for psychologically preparing to enact and juggle a broader range of teaching repertoires are positivity, mindfulness, and competing commitments.

Implications for Business Schools

Business school deans and other administrators who mindlessly declare that instructors should abandon sagelike lecturing in favor of guidelike facilitation need to think again! Management instructors – especially those in the early stage of their teaching career – might respond to such declarations by being reluctant to incorporate rockstar elements into their management classes, even when doing so fits other relevant contextual contingencies such as those we discussed. Reluctance to develop one’s rockstar skills or ambivalence about exercising them could undermine instructors’ capacity to authentically deliver the exciting and impactful classes that many students prefer, as well as the valuable injection of relevant evidence-based theory and research findings into management class discussions (Charlier et al., Reference Charlier, Brown and Rynes2011; Rousseau, Reference Rousseau2006). Regarding our opening conjecture about whether professors should largely cease “professing” to their students, use of our model will ideally liberate instructors to teach in whatever manner best serves their learning objectives and teaching context, unconstrained by a hyperbolic mantra that effective management education largely eschews exposition.

Business schools might support (or impede) the effective enactment of the rockstar and ringmaster roles using the program context and facilities, such as room design, flexible furniture, and technological infrastructure, they (fail to) provide. Institutions could support ringmaster teaching by developing program cultures in which students receive consistent messages about the imperative to engage in reading, case preparation, and whatever else is assigned for being fully prepared for class. They might support rockstar teaching by providing state-of-the art technology and encouraging instructors to deliver lectures that showcase their areas of academic expertise. Given the value of infusing students with enthusiasm for evidence-based management principles (Charlier et al., Reference Charlier, Brown and Rynes2011; Pfeffer & Sutton, Reference Pfeffer and Sutton2006; Rousseau, Reference Rousseau2006), as well as facilitating active learning within management classrooms (Mintzberg, Reference Mintzberg2004), we recommend that business schools actively support both rockstar and ringmaster teaching.

Our model will hopefully contribute to the work of business school administrators who increasingly recognize that managerial education can succeed only if managerial educators are both content and process experts (Brown et al., Reference Brown, Arbaugh, Hrivnak, Kenworthy, Holtom and Dierdorff2013; Mintzberg, Reference Mintzberg2004; Pfeffer & Fong, Reference Pfeffer and Fong2002). One feature of a model community of practice (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, Reference Wenger, McDermott and Snyder2002) for managerial educators to hone their skills at performing and balancing the rockstar and ringmaster roles might be a local, informal forum for sharing stories, resources, and best practices for enacting the rockstar and ringmaster roles. Related options would be to workshop stimulus readings (e.g., Anderson, Reference Anderson2013; Antonakis et al., Reference Antonakis, Fenley and Liechti2012; Ibarra & Lineback, Reference Ibarra and Lineback2005; Schein, Reference Schein2009; Schwarz et al., Reference Schwarz, Davidson, Carlson and McKinney2005) or organize peer observations, feedback, and mentoring centered on developing the assumptions, identity, dispositions, and skills associated with being a compelling expounding rockstar and facilitating ringmaster. Finally, faculty should be recognized and rewarded for actively and systematically experimenting with opportunities for expanding their repertoire and effectiveness (Brown et al., Reference Brown, Arbaugh, Hrivnak, Kenworthy, Holtom and Dierdorff2013) at enacting the rockstar and ringmaster roles.

Implications for Training within Organizations

Compared to instructors in business schools, professional trainers are typically concerned with the development of more specifically defined competencies, and with competencies across a wider range of professional domains (e.g., technical, legal, information technology, mechanical, safety, design, and operational). Nonetheless, trainers have the same choice between rockstar and ringmaster pedagogies, and the same challenge of selecting the rockstar or ringmaster assumptions and foci of action that best fit the prevailing training context and learning objectives.

Imagine a highly experienced trainer who has for many years successfully provided safety training to cohorts of new hires using a largely rockstar mode, but is now asked to train future safety trainers who require greater depth in the same safety protocols. The revised teaching purpose (i.e., to prepare the trainees to clarify, explain, demonstrate, and defend safety protocols) involves a shift to the right on Figure 21.1 and calls for more of a ringmaster approach. The related foci of action in Figure 21.1 may guide this trainer to think through the implications, opportunities, and challenges – such as regarding prereading, seating arrangements, exercises, discussions, role plays, information flow, and training evaluation criteria – to best meet the new training objectives within their altered training context.

Alternatively, a proud, longtime provider of highly facilitated training to groups of 20–30 trainees who was called upon to provide similar training to a group of 300 may productively recognize that the substantially increased “class” size may call for a more rockstar mode. Review of the underlying assumptions and foci of action associated with the rockstar mode might help such a trainer in two ways: first, to avoid the trap of habitually trying to facilitate discussions and activities in a manner that are less suited to the new, larger context; and second, to reimagine how to most effectively conceptualize and deliver their content within this new context. Realizing that sometimes people have attended a session to hear from an expert, rather than talk among themselves, may help motivate diehard ringmasters to more seriously consider stepping into the rockstar role in instances when doing so fits with the context.

While the objectives of educators and trainers may thus differ on dimensions such as the breadth, focus, and concreteness of what they aim to convey to their students and trainees, respectively, our distinction between the rockstar and ringmaster roles may nonetheless be applied to guide the conceptualization, delivery, and evaluation of effective training within organizations. We thus suggest that the research avenues outlined next may be productively pursued within both educational and training contexts.

Research Implications

Our model suggests three broad avenues for research. First, we have proposed that reflecting on how one has completed Figure 21.1, together with relevant contingencies, might enable improving one’s teaching effectiveness. Research is needed regarding whether such initiatives, as well as the other applications we have outlined, do indeed lead to more effective teaching. Such research might examine differences between pre- and postintervention ratings of teaching effectiveness, as ideally indicated not just by student satisfaction ratings and changes in students’ knowledge and what they can do (skills), but also affective outcomes such as changes in their motivation, attitudes, and identity that influence whether they will autonomously and proactively apply what they have learned in future, real-world contexts (Kraiger, Ford, & Salas, Reference Kraiger, Ford and Salas1993). Other teaching effectiveness criteria such as student comments, peer ratings, and comments, as well as (video-based) self-analysis, may enable fine-grained assessment of the effectiveness with which instructors enact the rockstar and ringmaster roles.

Second, Figure 21.1 could serve as a useful conceptual foundation for studying how exemplary instructors technically, mentally, and emotionally prepare to teach, as well as how they frame and deal with the most challenging points of choice they encounter in the process of enacting the rockstar and ringmaster roles. Finally, perhaps the quality with which teaching roles are enacted is more important than what position one adopts along each of our dimensions. For instance, the effectiveness of rockstar performance might be judged in terms of the extent to which content is delivered with charisma (Antonakis et al., Reference Antonakis, Fenley and Liechti2011; Reference Antonakis, Fenley and Liechti2012) and effective storytelling (Denning, Reference Denning2004; Ibarra & Lineback, Reference Ibarra and Lineback2005), while ringmaster performances may be judged by the precise application of robust process facilitation principles (Schein, Reference Schein1969; Reference Schein2009; Schunk, Reference Schunk2012; Schwarz, Reference Schwarz2002; Schwarz et al., Reference Schwarz, Davidson, Carlson and McKinney2005) and the quality of student contributions they elicit. Research is needed on the relative contributions to teaching effectiveness of the appropriateness of teaching roles adopted, given relevant contingencies, versus how well they are enacted. Overall, research along the lines we have just outlined may illuminate whether and how our model of rockstar and ringmaster roles can ultimately help improve the teaching of those who strive to apply it.