Training match and mismatch as a driver of key employee behaviours

• Author: Gregory John Lee
• Published date: 01 November 2015
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12069
• Date: 01 November 2015

Training match and mismatch as a driver of key

employee behaviours

Gregory John Lee, Wits Business School, University of the Witwatersrand

Human Resource Management Journal, Vol 25, no 4, 2015, pages 478–495

Training is widely believed to have the potential to improve key workplace outcomes such as the in-role

behaviours and organisational citizenship of employees. However, this article argues that match of actual

training provision to requirements leads to the greatest possible improvement in key behaviours, an

assertion that lacks prior validation. Undertraining relative to requirements would typically be associated

with lower behavioural gain, or even negative behaviours. Overtraining may have both positive and

negative implications; however, this article argues that on aggregate excess training will be associated

with worse outcomes compared with match. An analysis of 699 matched employee–manager dyads

supports the assertion that match is associated with the best relative levels of key workplace behaviours,

and associates either undertraining or overtraining with degradation in outcomes. This research

highlights the importance of training needs analysis and encourages active management of trained

workers to match work to skills.

Contact: Gregory John Lee, Wits Business School, University of the Witwatersrand, #2 St

David’s Place Parkwood, Johannesburg 2000, South Africa. Email: gregory.lee@wits.ac.za

Keywords: training; employee performance; overtraining; overqualification; undertraining;

difference score regressions

INTRODUCTION

Employee training, defined here as ‘instruction intended to improve performance or

support learning of a specific level of knowledge and skill required to perform some

aspect of a job or task’ (Spector et al., 2013: 963), is one of the pillars of HRM. This is

especially because of the potential for training to raise individual and firm performance

through improvements in key workplace behaviours (Bartel, 1994, 2000; Bishop, 1994; Huselid,

1995; Black and Lynch, 1996; Blundell et al., 1999; Jones et al., 2012; Lee, 2012).

However, training is unlikely to be universally effective. For a given person, task set and

environment, there may exist optimal levels, types and qualities of training, a view underlining

the focus of the instructional design process approach to planning training (e.g. Tannenbaum

and Yukl, 1992; Taylor et al., 1998). This article argues that matching training provision to job

and person requirements optimises employee behavioural responses, an assertion that, while

deceptively intuitive, lacks much prior validation and theoretical development.

In addition, the article investigates the relative behavioural effects of ‘undertraining’ or

‘overtraining’ in relation to requirements. Undertraining refers to a situation in which firms

provide inadequate quantity or quality of training in contrast to that required by an employee

to perform his/her job adequately, whereas overtraining refers to an opposing situation in

which firms provide more training than is required.

Unfortunately, little direct evidence or even theory exists regarding associations between

training match/mismatch and key employee behaviours such as in-role behaviours (IRB;

enactment of core behaviours required on the job), organisational citizenship (helpful

workplace behaviours that exceed the job’s strict role ambit) and negative behaviours

bs_bs_banner

doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12069

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 25 NO 4, 2015478

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Please cite this article in press as: Lee, G.J. (2015) ‘Training match and mismatch as a driver of key employee behaviours’. Human Resource

Management Journal 25: 4, 478–495.

[counterproductive workplace behaviours (CWB)]. Extant literature on the effects of training

(see citations in the first paragraph) usually focuses on the gross amount or types of training

and does not include a benchmark measure of needs or requirements required to address

such questions. The lack of a theoretical base is especially stark in the case of overtraining.

Analyses of major research databases for keywords such as overtraining, excess training,

overdevelopment and others bring up no results that pertain to key employee behaviours or

performance (although there is plenty on athletes). Kalleberg and colleagues (Kalleberg and

Sørensen, 1973; Kalleberg, 2006, 2008) address overtraining in principle but without specific

study into key behaviours or performance.

Accordingly, this article first discusses some essential theoretical foundations for the possible

effects of match or mismatch in training provision relative to requirements. Next, the article

presents the results of a dyadic empirical study on these relationships, which suggests various

theoretical, practical and research directions.

THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS FOR BEHAVIOURAL EFFECTS OF TRAINING

MATCH/MISMATCH

Various areas of theory provide bases for effects of match or mismatch of training provision to

requirements. These include economic, cognitive, psychological and sociological foundations.

Economics of the behavioural–optimal training link

Economic theory provides only the most basic background and usually focuses on amounts or

broadly construed types of training across firms or economies rather than on nuances of match

to requirements at the individual. Broadly, however, economics proposes optimal levels of

training provision because of decreasing marginal returns to the productivity of training (e.g.

Frazis and Loewenstein, 2005) that at some stage cannot overcome increasing economic and

productive costs such as those of having the trainee absent from work (e.g. Smits, 2007). This

approach would suggest, all else being equal, that a match between training provision and

requirements is associated with maximum behavioural and performance gains, while

training-based gains decline with either undertraining, because there remain marginal

productive gains to be had with more training, or overtraining, because the productive costs,

especially of having the employee absent from work, are higher than marginal gains.

Cognitive theory regarding training match/mismatch

Second, various strains of cognitive theory may apply. The fundamental basis of much training

is its ability to expand levels of knowledge, skills and abilities, with implicit links to improved

behavioural outputs, and cognitive ability has long been located as a key component in training

transfer (e.g. Burke and Hutchins, 2007; Salas and Cannon-Bowers, 2001). Such gain applies

especially to the type of IRB analysed in this article, such as adequate completion of role tasks

and meeting formal performance requirements.

In addition to the direct link to role tasks, the cognitive gain from training may also provide

resources to the individual, for example where higher skills facilitates more efficient work

processes, thereby reducing core work stress. These added resources may provide the

individual with the ‘space’ (opportunity) to engage in extra-role behaviours as envisaged in the

organisational citizenship outcomes analysed in this article, such as helping others who have

heavy workloads.

However, the cognitive gain from training may be context dependent. As one of its major

foundations, person–job fit theory (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005) proposes that match between the

Gregory John Lee

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 25 NO 4, 2015 479

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.