Journal Critique Paper

RICHARD C. ABANGAN, JR.
JOURNAL CRITIQUE PAPER
Effects of training and development (T&D) on employee outcomes and firm innovative
performance: Moderating roles of voluntary participation and evaluation by Sun Young
Sung and Jin Nam Choi (2019)
SUMMARY and FINDINGS
As the title suggests, this study involves the determination of the effects of
training and development on employee outcomes and firm innovative performance,
moderated by voluntary participation and evaluation. The main objective of this study is
to explicate the reasons for the inconsistent findings of each of the two dimensions of
T&D, firm investment in T&D and employee positive perceptions of T&D, in relation to
firm innovative performance through employee outcomes. The study also proposes that
employee outcomes, employee competence and employee commitment, mediate the
relationship between the two dimensions of T&D and the firm innovative performance.
The research framework of this study is empirically validated using multisource time-
lagged data collected from 325 Korean companies at three time points over a 5-year
period.
The findings of the study are the following:
1. The direct effect of T&D on firm innovative performance is significant only for
firm investment in T&D, but not for employee positive perceptions;
2. The two said dimensions of T&D are significantly related to employee
outcomes, which are employee competence and employee commitment.
Notably, firm investment in T&D showed a larger effect on employee
commitment than on employee competence. By contrast, employees’ positive
1
experiences and perceptions of T&D exhibited a larger effect on employee
competence than on commitment. The study further showed that the effect of
employee competence on firm innovative performance is larger than that of
employee commitment;
3. With respect to the moderators, employees’ voluntary participation in T&D is a
positive moderator to channel the effects of the two dimensions on employee
and firm outcomes. Indirect effects of T&D on firm innovation via employee
outcomes are significant and positive only when employees are allowed to
volunteer in T&D activities. The negative moderating effect of T&D evaluation
is clearly observed in the firm investment dimension of T&D. The indirect
effect of employee positive perceptions of T&D on firm innovation also
supports the negative effect of T&D evaluation in the context of learning. The
effects of employee positive perceptions of T&D on employee commitment
and its accompanying indirect effects on firm innovation, however, are
unexpectedly positive in firms that implemented T&D evaluation.
THE CRITIQUE
As regards to the first findings, while I agree with the authors of the study in
question that the result may have something to do with the five-year gap between T&D
measures and firm innovation, it is plausible that these dimensions are misplaced in
T&D. According to Raymond A. Noe, the author of Employee Training and
Development, 7th edition, the overall goal of training and development is learning and
how such learning contributes to the company’s competitive advantage through
improving employee performance, which eventually becomes part of human capital.
2
Moreover, learning of employees may be processed and acquired through different
factors, such as, but not limited to, motivation, trainee’s characteristics, training design,
training strategies, and factors influencing employee’s behavior. (Werner & DeSimone,
authors of Human Resource development, 6 th edition). Hence, positive perception of
T&D as defined by the author of the study in question constitutes as a sweeping
generalization that may exclude factors that contribute firm innovation. Logically
speaking, positive perception may be ephemeral and may not last up to 5 years as
conducted by this study as the training styles and methods implemented in the course
of T&D may vary. In order to be specific, I espouse more with the study of Debra L.
Truitt, the effect of training and development on employee attitude as it relates to
training and work proficiency, that positive training attitude is perceived to improve job
proficiency. Perhaps, this is what the study tries to portray. On the other hand, I
consider firm investment in T&D as a sweeping generalization as well as it only
measures the amount of firm’s monetary investment in T&D, without considering or
even mentioning other factors or resources which the company invested in to maintain
or enhance the quality of T&D.
As regards to the second findings, the results support the theories surrounding
Organizational Citizenship Behavior, particularly social exchange theory. According to
that theory, if the organization chooses to invest for the employee’s training, the latter,
on the other hand, invests his skills and knowledge into the organization. The results
likewise support the correlation between perceived employability and counterproductive
work behavior. In the study conducted by Hassan Imam regarding Employees’ behavior
in employability paradox, perceived employability is positively associated with
3
counterproductive behavior. Therefore, such findings put an organization in an absurd
situation wherein it would invest heavily in T&D but would not employ the bottom-up
process as to prevent unnecessary turnover. As a result, the performance outcome
would not be what the organization expected it to be. In other words, the performance
becomes substandard.
As regards to the last findings, the result with respect to T&D evaluation is
seemingly counterintuitive as it indirectly contradicts the purpose of T&D evaluation.
While the main purpose of T&D evaluation is to make an effective training decisions,
one of the reasons of making an effective training decision is to enhance firm
innovation. Such result, however, must be corroborated with the positive perception of
T&D dimension. The plausible reason why there is no negative moderating effect of
T&D evaluation on positive perception of T&D dimension is the expectancy theory,
which states that “people will perform behaviors that they perceive will bring valued
outcomes.”
In fine, while I do not totally dismiss the possibility that the aforesaid dimensions,
firm investment and positive perception of T&D, are indeed dimensions of T&D, I do not
support the idea that they are exclusive. There may be other dimensions that need to be
explored, particularly under the concept of learning and other theories relating and
relevant thereto. Nonetheless, this study shows the dichotomy between employee
commitment and employee competence in connection with the objective of a particular
T&D. Lastly, the study also shows the organization or practitioners of T&D the
importance of informing employees the benefits of T&D for the T&D evaluation not to
impede firm innovation.

Journal Critique Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal Critique Paper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal Critique Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RICHARD C. ABANGAN, JR.

JOURNAL CRITIQUE PAPER

performance: Moderating roles of voluntary participation and evaluation by Sun Young

Sung and Jin Nam Choi (2019)

SUMMARY and FINDINGS

training and development on employee outcomes and firm innovative performance,

employee outcomes, employee competence and employee commitment, mediate the

The findings of the study are the following:

firm investment in T&D, but not for employee positive perceptions;

2. The two said dimensions of T&D are significantly related to employee

outcomes, which are employee competence and employee commitment.

Notably, firm investment in T&D showed a larger effect on employee

commitment than on employee competence. By contrast, employees’ positive

employee competence on firm innovative performance is larger than that of

3. With respect to the moderators, employees’ voluntary participation in T&D is a

positive moderator to channel the effects of the two dimensions on employee

volunteer in T&D activities. The negative moderating effect of T&D evaluation

is clearly observed in the firm investment dimension of T&D. The indirect

effect of employee positive perceptions of T&D on firm innovation also

effects of employee positive perceptions of T&D on employee commitment

and its accompanying indirect effects on firm innovation, however, are

unexpectedly positive in firms that implemented T&D evaluation.

T&D. According to Raymond A. Noe, the author of Employee Training and

how such learning contributes to the company’s competitive advantage through

improving employee performance, which eventually becomes part of human capital.

authors of Human Resource development, 6 th edition). Hence, positive perception of

T&D as defined by the author of the study in question constitutes as a sweeping

Truitt, the effect of training and development on employee attitude as it relates to

consider firm investment in T&D as a sweeping generalization as well as it only

measures the amount of firm’s monetary investment in T&D, without considering or

or enhance the quality of T&D.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior, particularly social exchange theory. According to

likewise support the correlation between perceived employability and counterproductive

in employability paradox, perceived employability is positively associated with

process as to prevent unnecessary turnover. As a result, the performance outcome

seemingly counterintuitive as it indirectly contradicts the purpose of T&D evaluation.

one of the reasons of making an effective training decision is to enhance firm

T&D evaluation on positive perception of T&D dimension is the expectancy theory,

commitment and employee competence in connection with the objective of a particular

impede firm innovation.

You might also like