learning from on-the-job experiences: a … · a conceptual model on the individual and situational...
TRANSCRIPT
LEARNING FROM ON-THE-JOB EXPERIENCES:
A CONCEPTUAL MODEL ON THE INDIVIDUAL AND SITUATIONAL DETERMINANTS
AND THE IMPACT ON CAREER SUCCESS
Paper accepted for the 19th workshop on strategic human resource management, HEC-Paris, April
22-23, 2004
Karen Wouters
ICM Fellow
Ghent University and
Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School
Reep 1, 9000 Gent, Belgium
Phone: +32 9 210 97 77
Fax: +32 9 210 97 57
E-mail: [email protected]
Dirk Buyens
Ghent University and
Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School
Reep 1, 9000 Gent, Belgium
Phone: +32 9 210 97 22
Fax: +32 9 210 97 57
E-mail: [email protected]
2
INTRODUCTION
On-the-job learning within organizations
As a result of the ever-increasing rate of technological change, induced by developments such as globalization
and the current “explosion of knowledge”, organizational learning capabilities are pinpointed as the key strategic
factors for organizations (Nonaka, 1991). Accordingly, Kahn (1992) suggests that the management literature
could benefit from the adoption of an approach that is based on the importance of organizational learning to
guide research. This is in contrast with the traditional management research literature, which is primarily based
on the ultimate goal of improving organizational productivity (Karakowsky & McBey, 1999). For this learning
at an organizational level, organizations depend on the learning of their employees, since they embody the
capacity to acquire or create new knowledge, disseminate this knowledge to others and apply the new knowledge
within the organization (Dixon, 1994; Dogson, 1993). Moreover, recent changes in the workplace (e.g. the
flattening of organizational hierarchies, escalating technological innovation and an increased use of teams) have
given rise to the idea that learning is a continuous process, in which employees must actively pursue
development activities and which requires an active involvement of the self (Senge, 1990; Nonaka, 1991).
Individuals need to play an active role in their learning process and in defining their own learning opportunities
(Gherardi,Nicoloni & Odella, 1998). Both in the literature on adult development and career development authors
indicate a shift in responsibility for learning away from organizations towards the individual: learning to learn
(Smith, 1990); participation in development activities (Noe & Wilk, 1993); and self-management of careers
(Hall, 1996). Although employee learning in itself is not enough to ensure learning at an organizational level
(Argyris and Schön, 1978; Nonaka, 1991; Senge, 1990), insight in individual learning processes is a necessary
step in understanding organizational learning (Miner & Mezias, 1996; Richter 1998). The assertion that
organizational learning is facilitated through, and requires, individual learning underscores the importance of
more fully addressing the issue at the individual level.
Historically most research in the area of learning on the individual level has focused on formal training
(McCauley & Brutus, 1998; Wexley & Baldwin, 1986) which is typically institutionally-sponsored, classroom-
based and highly structured (Marsick & Watkins, 1997). There is however an increasing recognition that most
development of employees may occur on the job itself (Davies & Easterby-Smith, 1984; Ellinger & Bostrom,
2002; Hunt, 1991; McCall, Lombardo & Morrison, 1988; Mumford, 1997; Wick, 1989). Moreover, research
indicates that on-the-job learning not only leads to the development of knowledge and skills, but also has an
impact on performance and other organization-valued outcomes (Arnold, 1997; Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998). The
assertion that on-the-job learning has advantages for both individual and organization (Arnold, 1997)
underscores the importance of more fully addressing the issue of on-the-job learning. This on-the-job learning is
the focus of our research. We are interested in what Burgoyne & Hodgon (1983) have called “natural learning”,
which takes place on the job and may not always be planned or what Marsick & O’Neill (1999) and what
Marsick & Watkins (1997) have called “informal and incidental learning”, defined as a by-product of some other
activity, such as task accomplishment and interpersonal interaction, of which the control rests primarily in the
hands of the learner. Following Gherardi, et al. (1998) and McCauley, Ruderman, Ohlott & Morrow (1994), we
3
define individual on-the-job learning as learning that takes place through participation in some actual practices in
the workplace.
Research objectives
Considering the current state of the research, we have formulated three research objectives. The first objective
addresses the conceptualization of the on-the-job experience construct. The second objective addresses the
influence of individual difference variables and situational variables on on-the-job learning. The third objective
focuses on the influence of on-the-job learning on career-related outcome variables. In order to deal with these
research objectives a conceptual model was constructed (cf. exhibit 1). Before presenting the model, we
elaborate below on the current state of the research and needs for further research in order to clarify the three
research objectives.
First, although several authors recognize the importance of individual learning processes gleaned from on-the-
job experiences, little systematic research has been done on this subject. This may be due to how the construct of
on-the-job experience has been conceptualized (Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998). These authors argued that a common
language must be developed if research findings are to be used to make conclusions about the effects of work
experience. Relationships between work experience and outcomes will be enhanced by treating work experience
as a multidimensional, multilevel construct. Furthermore, both Quiñones, Ford & Teachout (1995) and Tesluk &
Jacobs (1998) argued that special attention should be paid to the qualitative dimension, as it has received
relatively little attention in the literature in contrast to the quantitative aspects. Therefore, the first part of our
paper addresses the conceptualization of the on-the-job experience construct, with focus on the qualitative
dimension.
Second, from the literature two main approaches to explain differences in learning in general, and on-the-job
learning in particular, can be derived, respectively stressing individual and situational determinants. The
person-centered approach stresses the importance of personal factors in affecting learning. Cognitive learning
theory, followed from this approach, conceptualizes learners as individual actors processing information or
modifying their mental structures, separated from their social, historical and cultural context (Reynolds, 1997).
Contrary, the situation-centered learning approach emphasizes the influence of the situational context (Gherardi,
et al., 1998; Cheetham & Chivers, 2001). Social construction theory, which can be situated within this approach,
conceptualizes learning as a social activity within specific contexts. More recently, theorists subscribe to some
form of interaction model of causality that portrays learning as a product of personal and situational influences
(for a review see Gherardi et al., 1998; Richter, 1998). Although several researchers have stressed the need for
integrating both individual and organizational characteristics (Hall & Mirvis, 1995; McCauley et al., 1994;
Miner & Mezias, 1996; Reynolds, 1997; Spreitzer, McCall & Mahoney, 1997; Van der Sluis & Hoeksema,
2001; Van Maanen, 1977) literature has provided little evidence to support this (Buyens, Martens, Meganck,
Wouters & De Vos, 2002; Richter, 1998). Therefore, this research attempts to provide more insight into the
interactionistic approach, combining insights from both cognitive learning theory and social construction theory.
The second part of this paper addresses the individual and situational factors, influencing on-the-job learning.
4
Third, as to date, research on on-the-job learning has primarily included knowledge and skill development as
outcome variables (Morrison & Branter, 1992). However, some authors (Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998; Hoeksema,
1995; Noe, 1996) suggest that on-the-job learning also has an impact on career outcomes. Furthermore, literature
on career development increasingly pays attention to learning from on-the-job experiences. Several authors
argue that at the heart of today’s careers lies the upsurge and interest in continuous learning (Hall, 1996; Hall &
Mirvis, 1995; Howard & Bray, 1988; Rousseau, 1989; Rousseau & Wade-Benzoni, 1995; Robinson & Miner,
1996; Schalk & Freese, 1997; Sullivan, 1999). This continuous growth process is centered around on-the-job
learning. As stated by Morrison & Hoch (1986): “The major source of individual career development is the
learning that occurs through experience in work activities, roles and contexts.” Following these authors, we can
conclude that theories on on-the-job learning are a relevant perspective to look at individuals’ careers. Therefore,
the third part of the paper addresses the influence of on-the-job learning on career success.
-Insert Figure 1 about here-
CONCEPTUALIZATION OF THE ON-THE-JOB EXPERIENCE CONSTRUCT
Several areas of research, like for instance management development and career development, attest to the
importance of on-the-job learning. Although off-the-job management education and training have dominated the
management and leadership development literature, recent work refocused attention to learning that takes place
on the job (Wexley & Baldwin, 1986). Approaches like action learning (Revans, 1980; Marsick & O’Neill,
1999), more self-control by the individual (Smith, 1990) and mentoring (Kram, 1988) have been suggested for
structuring and improving the developmental strength of on-the-job experiences. Also research on career
development has indicated ample evidence that people learn and grow over the course of their careers as a result
of their experiences (Howard & Bray, 1988). Career development can refer to a broad range of activities and
processes, but providing employees with varied work experiences is one important component (Campion,
Cheraskin & Stevens, 1994). Beside the area of on-the-job learning, the experience construct is also a central
variable of interest in research on work performance, selection, promotion, compensation and training.
Nonetheless, research and practice in these areas has progressed largely without any guiding theoretical
framework. This may be due to the lack of consistency in the definition and measurement of the construct of
experience (Quiñones et. al, 1995; Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998). In line with previous research (Hofmann, Jacobs &
Gerras, 1992), Quiñones et al. (1995) and Tesluk & Jacobs (1998) argued that most studies have measured
experience in terms of tenure or by the number of times an individual has completed a certain task or operation.
The latter type of studies does not provide an adequate consideration of the qualitative aspects of experience
(Hofmann, et al., 1992). Based on the conceptual framework for the measurement of experience from Quiñones,
et.al (1995), Tesluk & Jacobs (1998) provided an important attempt to bring the qualitative and quantitative
dimension of experience together in a comprehensive model.
In the following paragraphs Tesluk & Jacobs’ (1998) conceptualization of the work experience construct and a
further elaboration of McCauley et al. (1994) on the qualitative dimension of the construct will be discussed. In
5
the last paragraph, we formulate some remarks on these conceptualizations in order to delineate our conceptual
model and formulate the related research questions.
Before discussing the conceptualizations, it is important to notice that Quiñones et al. (1995) and Tesluk &
Jacobs (1998) focused their theoretical framework on the domain of work experience, as but one delineated
domain of the broader experience construct, because according to the authors any systematically investigation of
experience must be context-bound (Quiñones, et al., 1995). Work experiences are those events that are
experienced by an individual that relate to the performance of some job. This is still a broad domain of research
consisting of formal work experiences, like continuing vocational training courses, informal work experiences,
like working groups, and incidental or on-the-job work experiences, that occurs in learner’s natural setting
(Merriam & Caffarella, 1999; Marsick & Watkins, 1997). As mentioned in the introduction, our research
attempts at understanding latter form of on-the job work experiences1.
Tesluk & Jacobs’ (1998) conceptualization of the work experience construct
Tesluk & Jacobs (1998) have described work experience in terms of three components (quantitative component,
qualitative component and interaction component) and four levels of specification (task, job, workgroup and
organization). By integrating qualitative aspects the authors have better captured the richness of the experience
construct, in comparison with the traditional line of theorizing that has used experience almost interchangeably
with tenure or seniority. Furthermore quantitative and qualitative components not only combine in an additive
fashion to form experience, but also may interact. Adding levels of specification to work experience enhances its
conceptualization, improves operationalization, and establishes more direct and clear relationships with factors
that contribute to the development of work experiences and its outcome.
The quantitative dimension includes time-based as well as amount-based measures. Time-based measures
reflect the time working on a task, in a job or in an organization and are operationalized in various measures of
tenure. Amount-based measures reflect the number of times that a task or duty has been performed. The
advantage of latter type is that it reflects important qualities that impact work experience, such as opportunity to
perform and practice. However, both measures provide little information regarding the nature of experience and
thus, are not able to take into account the fact that not all experiences have the same developmental power for all
people (Hofmann, et al. 1992).
Therefore, it is important to also integrate a more qualitative dimension, or the specific nature of work situations
(Campion, et al. 1994). Tesluk & Jacobs (1998) were able to find a few studies in which the qualitative
dimension was used, sometimes described in terms of variety of work experiences (DuBois & McKee, 1994) and
sometimes in terms of the amount of challenge provided in different work situations (McCauley et al., 1994).
Based on these findings, the authors conclude that the specific modes of quality are domain and context specific.
Certain modes are more appropriate for relating work experience to particular variables of interest. Variety,
complexity and challenge are listed as possible modes to describe the qualitative component. However, as to date
the mode of challenge has received most attention Research has suggested that individuals develop primarily
1 For practical reasons we will use in the following the term on-the-job experience instead of on-the-job work experience.
6
through confrontations with challenging situations in the work context (Fleishman & Mumford, 1989; Hall,
1991; McCall et al., 1988; McCauley et. al, 1994; Morrison & Brantner, 1992).
Quantitative and qualitative components not only combine in an additive fashion to form experience, but may
also interact (Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998). For instance, repeated exposure to certain work situations that comes with
greater tenure is likely to provide gains in the qualitative aspects of experience such as receiving challenging
assignments. According to the authors, the interaction dimension can be described in terms of various types of
acquired work experiences that depend on a particular dimension of time. They make a further distinction
between the density-mode and the timing-mode. Former mode refers to the intensity of experiences, whilst latter
refers to the moment on which a work event occurs relative to a longer sequence of successive experiences (e.g.
a particular career stage).
Next to taking into account several dimensions, Tesluk & Jacobs (1998) included four levels of specification
(task, job, work group and organization) to describe the work experience construct. Research of Quiñones et al.
(1995) indicated that the definition and operationalization in terms of level of specificity had a moderating effect
on the relationship between experience and performance. More concrete, the strongest relationship between
experience and performance occurred when work experience was measured on task level. Based on these
findings, the authors concluded that it is important to appropriately select and match the level of specification of
work experience to enhance the predictive power of the construct.
McCauley et al. ‘s (1994) conceptualization of the qualitative component of the on-the-job work
experience construct
In following paragraph we further elaborate and specify Tesluk & Jacobs’ (1998) qualitative component of on-
the-job experience. Although Campion, Cheraskin & Stevens (1994), Quiñones et al. (1995) and Tesluk &
Jacobs (1998) pointed out the fact that relatively little attention has been paid at the qualitative modes of
measuring experience, they also recognized that several scholars in the area of management development have
taken into account the extent to which on-the-job experiences stimulate learning. Those experiences have been
labeled developmental on-the-job experiences (Dechant, 1990; McCall et al. 1988; McCauley et al., 1994).
More concrete, three kinds of studies have contributed to delineate the characteristics of more developmental on-
the-job experiences (McCauley & Brutus, 1998): (1) Studies retrospectively asking managers to describe
developmental experiences in their careers (Davies & Easterby-Smith, 1984; McCall et al., 1988; Valerio, 1990);
(2) Studies asking managers to rate characteristics of their current job and then correlate these ratings with some
measure of learning (Kelleher, Finestone & Lowy, 1986; McCauley, Ohlott & Ruderman, 1989; McCauley et al.,
1994; Ruderman, Ohlott & McCauley, 1990; Pearson & McCauley, 1991) and; (3) Studies that examine how
transitions to new jobs or work roles affect personal change or development (Brett, 1984; Nicholson & West,
1988). Across these studies, the common feature of developmental experiences is the degree of challenge
offered necessary to stimulate learning (Robinson & Wick, 1992).
7
Especially McCauley and her colleagues’ work has set the tone in the area of developmental on-the-job
experiences. They have done the most comprehensive review of literature in the field of on-the-job experiences
important for management learning and development. Based on this review they have distinguished among
several developmental components of a job situation (cf. infra) and developed an instrument (Developmental
Challenge Profile)2 to measure those components (McCauley et al., 1989; McCauley, et al. 1994; Ohlott,
McCauley & Ruderman, 1995; Ruderman, et al. 1990). Across several studies developmental McCauley et al.
(1994) and McCauley & Young (1993) assert that each of these developmental job components stimulate
learning by providing individuals with the opportunity to learn and acting as a motivator for learning. In their
later work (McCauley & Douglas, 1998; McCauley, 2001; Van Velsor, McCauley & Moxley, 1998) they argue
that the opportunity and motivation to learn stems from respectively the challenge and the assessment element
offered in on-the-job experiences. In other words, opportunities to learn may exist when one has the chance to
take in new information, reframe the way one thinks about old information, or try out different behaviors or
actions and see their consequences. Motivation may stem from a desire to close the gap between one’s actual and
desired level of competency, to avoid a negative outcome, or to reduce the discomfort of a painful situation.
Five developmental components have been identified: transitions, creating change, high levels of responsibility,
managing interfaces and dealing with diversity (McCauley et al., 1994). In the following the components, and
how they can provide opportunity and motivation for learning (i.e. developmental characteristics), are described
in more detail.
Transitions that put the employee in new situations with unfamiliar responsibilities have been identified as
developmental by multiple sources (Davies & Easterby-Smith, 1984; Hall, 1991; McCall, et al., 1988; Nicholson
& West, 1884: Stewart, 1984). More concrete, following transitions have been identified as developmental:
switches from line to staff; changes in employer or; increases in the scope of responsibility. The developmental
power of those transitions varies with the degree of unfamiliarity that the job problems, responsibilities and
choices pose for the particular manager. Therefore, we agree on the suggestion of Tesluk et al. (internal
document) to label this component “unfamiliar responsibilities”. Unfamiliar responsibilities are developmental
because employees are confronted with novel situations rendering existing routines and behaviors inadequate
and requiring the development of new ways of coping with problems and opportunities. Furthermore, those
experiences motivate employees to prove themselves all over again to their peers, subordinates and superiors.
(McCauley et al., 1994)
Task or projects that require the manager to bring about change are a second developmental source (Dechant,
1990; Kelleher et al., 1986; McCall, et al., 1988; Valerio, 1990). More concrete, the developmental
characteristics may stem from the need to develop new directions, to address inherited problems or to react on
problems with employees (e.g. resistance to change, incompetence). Creating change is developmental because
the combination of a desired goal and ambiguity about how to achieve it gives rise to willingness to try new
behaviors and attitudes in order to adapt and an opportunity to innovate. Further, the outcomes of change efforts
2 The Developmental Challenge Profile (DCP) has been revised and updated to create the Job Challenge Profile. As a shorter (50 instead of 133 items) self-score assessment the JCP is more accessible and user-friendly while maintaining the power and insight of its predecessors.
8
help to either reinforce newer reinforced approaches to problems or suggest revision or modifications (McCauley
et al., 1994)
High level of responsibility has been pointed out as a third developmental component (Davies & Easterby-
Smith, 1984; Kelleher, et al., 1986; Kotter, 1988; McCall et al., 1988). This component includes a high visibility
to higher management in combination with a large scope and scale of responsibilities, resulting in a strong push
to enhance skills and abilities and a forum for making an impact (McCauley, 1994).
Managing interfaces are another developmental component (Dechant, 1990; McCall et al., 1988). This
component consists of job situations that require the employee to handle external pressure or to influence
situations with little formal authority over others. Those situations can be developmental because they require
use of negotiation and influence skills, building relationships, thinking other’s perspective, being straightforward
with others, and getting parties to work collaboratively. (McCauley, et al., 1994).
The final developmental component of on-the-job experience is managing diversity (Tesluk et al., internal doc.).
Although this component was not included in the McCauley et al. (1994) study, it was added in their subsequent
work because of the important lessons managers gain from being in situations when they are responsible for
leading diverse work groups and working with others from different backgrounds and cultures. These type of
work experiences require managers to develop an understanding and appreciation of cross-cultural differences
and diversity and improve their interpersonal skills such as communicating with those from different cultures.
Remarks and research questions on the conceptualization of the on-the-job experience construct
To conclude, some final remarks have to be made. First, McCauley and colleagues elaborated in their later work
on the different kinds of developmental experience (McCauley, 2001; McCauley, Moxley & Van Velsor, 1998).
Historically, the major focus of research has been on developmental job assignments or components, as they are
central to the process of on-the-job learning (Fleishman & Mumford, 1989; Hall, 1991; McCall et al., 1988;
McCauley et al., 1994; Morrison & Brantner, 1992). However, experiences can also occur on the job through
relationships with others (McCauley & Douglas, 1998) and through hardships (Moxley, 1998). In line with
authors suggesting to include contextual dynamics underlying the developmental on-the-job experiences (e.g.
mentoring and organizational structure) (Higgins & Kram, 2001; Higgins & Thomas, 2001; Kram, 1988;
McCauley & Young, 1993; Merriam & Heuer, 1996; Morrison & Branter, 1992), we consider developmental
relationships as one aspect of support delivered by the context (cf. infra). Hardships are suggested to be
developmental because they cause people to stop and reflect and produce psychological discomfort and as such,
motivate to change and learn (McCauley et al., 1994; Moxley, 1998). However, recent empirical research has
failed to find a significant relationship with perceived challenge and growth (McCauley et al, 1994). Therefore,
this kind of experiences will not be included in our research.
Second, Tesluk & Jacobs (1998) have further developed the work experience construct, introduced by Quiñones
et al. (1995), by elaborating on the dimensionality of work experience. They suggested including the different
This shorted version was created by eliminating items and scales that were identified as less effective in McCauley et al.’s original validation
9
components of experience, as each measure captures a somewhat unique portion of an individual’s overall level
of work experience. They argued that relationships between work experience and outcomes will be enhanced by
treating work experience as consisting of three components (qualitative, quantitative and interaction) and by
specifying the appropriate level of analysis (task, job, work group or organization). However, as mentioned
before, these authors also argued that special attention should be paid to the qualitative dimension.
Third, Tesluk et al.’ study (internal doc.) indicated, consistent with McCauley et al.’s view of developmental
experiences, the five components are best understood and represented as forming an aggregate higher-order
developmental on-the-job work experience construct (Law, Wong & Mobley, 1998). The five developmental
components themselves are not considered to be constructs, but are specific components (first-order factors) of
developmental on-the-job work experiences (Tesluk et al., internal doc.).
Finally, the terms challenging and stretching have been used to describe assignments that are particular
developmental. However, previous research has not directly assessed the degree of challenge experienced
(Tesluk et al., …). Research (McCauley et al., 1994) has indicated that some challenging situations (e.g. lack of
support) were negatively related to development. It is possible that the stress of coping with conflict is so great
that a manager does not reflect on what has been learned from the negative situation until later on when it has
been terminated or otherwise resolved (Hall, 1991). Therefore, several authors point out the importance to
integrate the degree of challenge as potential mediating mechanism (Bunker & Webb, 1992; McCauley et al.,
1994; Tesluk et al., …; Hall, 1991).
Considering the need for further research, our study focuses on the qualitative dimension, as an aggregate
higher–order construct taking into account the degree of challenge. More concrete, with regard to the
conceptualization of the on-the-job work experience construct, we formulate two research questions:
Research question 1: Can the on-the-job experience construct be considered as an aggregate higher-
order construct consisting of the five developmental job components: unfamiliar responsibilities,
creating change, high levels of responsibility, managing interfaces and managing diversity?
Research question 2: What is the mediating effect of the degree of challenge experienced?
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE VARIABLES AND SITUATIONAL VARIABLES INFLUENCING ON-
THE-JOB LEARNING
As argued by the interactionistic approach, future research needs to consider individual and situational factors to
further our understanding in on-the-job learning. “Learning does not often automatically follow from experience;
it requires reflection and a desire to learn from what has occurred as well as an environment that provides
opportunities for reflection and learning” (Seibert, 1996). In McCauley, Ohlott & Ruderman’s study (1989), job
demands and transitions accounted for less than one-third of the variance in the measures of development,
suggesting that additional factors impact learning. They concluded that in order for experience to lead to learning
and growth, the individual manager has to recognize and accept the challenge, and react adaptively. Also the
study (1994).
10
organization has to provide feedback, support and reinforcement (McCauley et al., 1989). Tesluk & Jacobs
(1998) have added that individual and situational factors need to be considered together in how they produce
experience. And, next to directly contributing to the development of work experiences, these factors facilitate
what is gained from experience (Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998). In the following paragraphs we elaborate on these
individual difference variables and the situational variables. At the end of each paragraph, we indicate the focus
of our research and formulate research questions with regard to the variables of interest.
Individual difference variables
In general, there is less systematic research on the role of individual differences in on-the-job learning than there
is on the kinds of experiences that are developmental (McCauley & Brutus, 1998). Most research has tended to
focus on a limited number of variables, in absence of any guiding theoretical framework. Based on a review of
previous empirical and theoretical work (Wouters & Buyens, internal document), a distinction can be made
among four streams of research on individual variability in on-the-job learning. First, research on the way in
which individuals learn, i.e. their learning strategy (Biggs, 1988; Entwistle, 1988; Hoeksema, 1995; Marton &
Saljo, 1976; Megginson, 1996; Pask, 1988; Sadler-Smith, 2001; Spreitzer et al., 1997). This stream of research
originated in the field of education, but induced by Kolb’s work, has also been introduced in the literature on
adult development. Second, researchers in the field of management development have examined the
characteristics of individuals who are particularly adept at learning from job experiences, i.e ability to learn
(Bunker & Webb, 1992; Kelleher et al., 1986; McCauley, Ruderman & Ohlott, 1996; Spreitzer et al., 1997; Van
Velsor & Guthrie, 1998). Third, researchers in the field of education have also had an interest in the processes by
which individuals become more self-directed, effective learners, i.e. learning to learn (Brookfield, 1995; Candy,
1990; Gibbons, 1990; Knowles, 1974; Smith, 1990). Finally, based on the Human Capital Theory (Tharenou,
1997) the impact of socio-demographic variables and occupation type (background variables) on developmental
on-the-job experiences have been examined (Campion et al., 1994; Cianni & Romberger, 1995; Gattiker &
Larwood, 1988; Horgan, 1989; Lyness & Thompson, 1997; Ohlott, Ruderman & McCauley, 1994; Tharenou,
1997; Van Velsor & Hughes, 1990)
Research on on-the-job learning needs an overarching theory that would help explain why individuals with
particular preferences, personalities, abilities, and demographic characteristics are more likely to learn from on-
the-job experiences (McCauley & Brutus, 1998; McCauley, 2001). Such a theory should first articulate what it
means to learn from experience, followed by indicating what individual variables play a role in those behaviors
(Hall, 1991). In the literature a few attempts to come to a more integrating theory can be found (Wouters &
Buyens, internal doc.). First, Tesluk & Jacobs (1998) made a distinction between two broad categories of
activities related to on-the-job learning: development of experiences and extracting lessons from these
experiences. Also Van Velsor & Guthrie (1998) indicated what it might mean to learn from experience. “The
ability to learn from experience involves being able to: (1) Recognize when new behaviors, skills, or attitudes are
called for, which involves being able to see when current approaches are not working; (2) Engage in a variety of
development experiences to learn new skills or test skills that are previously untested, and to try new approaches
or reframe points of view (as opposed to avoiding the situation or denying the need, and; Develop and use a
variety of learning tactics to acquire the new skills, approaches, or attitudes (Van Velsor & Guthrie, 1998, p.
11
243).” This definition is in line with the distinction made by Tesluk & Jacobs (1998). The first activity of
recognizing corresponds with what Tesluk & Jacobs (1998) have called pursuing and developing on-the-job
experiences. The other two activities refer to gaining lessons from the experiences in order to enhance one’s
knowledge and skills.
Individual characteristics enabling each of these activities can be selected (Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998). Based on a
comprehensive review, McCauley & Brutus (1998) detected four individual difference variables that are
important in influencing who actively pursues challenging assignments and/or who gains the critical lessons of
experience from those assignment.
Several researchers have found learning orientation to be critical to on-the-job learning (Bunker & Webb, 1992;
Hofmann et al., 1993; Kelleher et al., 1986; McCall, 1994; Merriam & Caffarella, 1999; Noe & Wilk, 1993;
Spreitzer et al., 1997). Learning is a central concept in these individuals’ approach to work. They see life as a
series of ongoing learning experiences. They accept responsibility for learning and seek experiences that will
enhance their personal development (McCauley & Brutus, 1998, Van Velsor & Guthrie, 1998). Those with a
strong learning orientation are also more likely to gain lessons from developmental experiences, which can be
explained by the tendency to perceive feedback as an opportunity to learn (VandeWalle, Cron & Slocum, 2001)
and to demonstrate persistence in mastering new skills and knowledge (Dweck, 1986, Van Velsor & Guthrie,
1998).
A second variable that is considered to play a role in the ability to learn from on-the-job experiences is a
proactive stance toward problems and opportunities (Bunker & Webb, 1992; Dechant, 1990; Marsick &
Watkins, 1990; McCall, 1994). These managers tackle problems head-on; they are biased toward action. They
also have a sense of adventure; they like to experience new things, try out new ideas, and meet new people.
When they find themselves in a new situation or identify a learning deficit in themselves, they demonstrate a
readiness to take initiative and are very self-directed in their efforts to satisfy their learning needs. (McCauley &
Brutus, 1998). Individuals with a proactive stance toward problems and opportunities tend to have positive
attitudes toward unfamiliar experiences in general and a greater willingness to engage in them (Barrick &
Mount, 1991).
Third, critical reflection has been pointed out as a relevant individual difference characteristic in influencing on-
the-job learning (Bunker & Webb, 1992; Dechant, 1990; Kelleher et al., 1986; Marsick & Watkins, 1990;
McCall, 1994; Spreitzer et al., 1997). Critical reflection refers to a tendency to reflect, not just on the events, but
on one’s underlying assumptions (Marsick & Watkins, 1990). There are various ways in which individuals may
engage in critical reflection (McCauley & Brutus, 1998). They pay attention to surprising results and try to
understand them. They explore how things work, why things are the way they are. They see patterns and
connections between seemingly unconnected variables. They ask many questions and look at questions from
different perspectives. They seek out feedback, comparison points, benchmarks, and role models. They try to
understand their own strengths and weaknesses and diagnose the gaps between their current skills and what is
needed in a situation. (McCauley & Brutus, 1998, p. 46-47).
12
A last variable included in the review of McCauley & Brutus is openness (Bunker & Webb, 1992; Kelleher et
al., 1986; McCall, 1994; Spreitzer et al., 1997). Openness mainly influences the lessons gained from
experiences. Those individuals with an open personality are open to other points of view, to feedback and
criticism from others, and to shifting their strategies. In their work they emphasize being open to information
from the environment and they are sensitive and react adaptively to cultural differences. (McCauley & Brutus,
1998).
Within the literature, some authors focus on challenge as the common feature of developmental on-the-job
experiences. Here, learning is considered as overcoming the stress and inertia when confronted with a new
experience (Bunker & Webb, 1992; Van Velsor & Guthrie, 1998). As a result, with respect to the individual
variability, variables that have been mentioned are a positive attitude towards learning (learning goal
orientation), a strong self-concept (self-efficacy) and a sense of personal control (locus of control, coping
abilities). These three categories of individual difference variables are expected to moderate the extent to which
work experiences, that present obstacles and initial failures, translate into motivation development and
knowledge and skill acquisition (Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998). With exception to learning orientation, which has been
described above, we elaborate on each of these individual difference variables.
First, self-efficacy has been found to influence the likelihood that individuals pursue opportunities to update their
skills and the acquisition of new knowledge and skills through on-the-job experiences (Morrison & Brantner,
1992; Noe & Wilk, 1993). Self-efficacy stands at the very core of the social-cognitive learning theory and is
defined as people’s beliefs about their capabilities to exercise control over challenging situations (Bandura,
1989). These expectations of personal efficacy can enhance human function in several ways. First, they influence
the choices people make; people tend to select tasks and activities in which they feel competent and confident
and avoid those in which they do not. Second, self-efficacy beliefs help determine how much effort people will
expend on an activity, how long they will persevere when confronting obstacles, and how resilient they will be in
the face of adverse situations. Finally, they influence an individual’s thought pattern and emotional reactions
(Bandura, 1977; 1989; Wood & Bandura, 1989; Pajares). Not surprisingly, research has shown that high levels
of self-efficacy are related to high levels of task performance (Gist, Schwoerer & Rosen, 1989; Mathieu,
Martineau & Tannenbaum, 1993). With respect to the influence on developmental activity, some preliminary
results have shown that individuals with high levels of self-efficacy are more likely to choose to participate in
challenging assignments and take responsibility for personal development than individuals with low levels of
self-efficacy (Morrison & Brantner, 1992; Noe & Wilk, 1993).
Second, locus of control has been mentioned as a relevant variable in creating a sense of personal control (Van
Velsor & Guthrie, 1998; McCauley, 2001). This individual variable refers to a person’s view as responsible for
and able to effect outcomes (Ilgen & Klein, 1988; Van Velsor & Guthrie, 1998). A further distinction has been
made between internal and external locus of control. Former implies a belief that outcomes are a direct result of
their own efforts. Contrary, people with an external locus of control outcomes as resulting more from luck, fate,
or other factors not under their control. Locus of control might influence people’s reaction to assessment
feedback, what they believe about the relation between effort and mastery, and how they feel about rewards they
13
can expect from a learning effort. Trainees with internal locus of control are more likely to act on feedback and
remain committed to difficult goals longer because they see themselves as in control of their own development
and are likely to believe that their efforts will bring improvement (Van Velsor & Guthrie, 1998, p. 250).
Finally, several authors suggest to consider coping strategies as factors in predicting on-the-job learning (Bunker
& Webb, 1992; McCauley et al., 1989; McCauley et al., 1994). Emotion-focused coping, i.e. coping aimed at
reducing or managing the emotional stress, has been contrasted with problem-focused coping, i.e. coping aimed
at problem solving to alter the source of stress (McCauley et al., 1994). Van Velsor & Guthrie (1998) argue that
understanding feelings and managing anxiety are critical to learning from experiences. Contrary, McCauley et al.
(1994) stressed the role of problem-focused coping strategies. Emotion-focused coping engages the manager in
controlling feelings about the problem rather than trying to take action and learn from the consequences of those
actions, resulting in less a sense of control. And, the less control a manager feels over some problem or painful
situation in his or her job, the less likely he or she will approach that situation as a learning opportunity
(McCauley et al., 1994, p. 558).
In summary, it can be concluded that ability to learn has been considered as a complex combination of
motivational and personality factors. Previous research failed to clearly conceptualize and operationalize the
construct. To overcome the lack of consistency, future research might begin by developing a better
understanding of ability to learn by grounding it in an overarching theory and considering it as an
multidimensional construct (McCauley, 2001; Spreitzer et al., 1997). Considering the shortcomings of current
research, our research examines the individual variability by looking at the effects of individual difference
variables on both pursuing and extracting lessons from developmental on-the-job experiences. Furthermore, as
the degree of challenge is included in our focal on-the-job experience construct, we also include those variables
that are expected to have an impact on the degree of challenge experienced.
With regard to the individual difference variables influencing on-the-job learning, we formulate following
research questions:
Research question 3: What are the effects of individual difference variables on the development of on-
the-job experiences?
Research question 4: What are the effects of individual difference variables on the lessons gained from
on-the-job experiences?
Research question 5: What are the effects of individual difference variables on the degree of challenge
experienced?
Situational variables
Research has indicated that although developmental assignments stretch people and point out their strengths and
weaknesses, the assignments that are most developmental also incorporate an element of support (Van Velsor et
al., 1998; Ohlott, 1998). McCauley et al.’s study (1994) conceptualized lack of support as an obstacle from
which managers learn. Their data however, suggested that development is perceived as stronger when lack of
support is low rather than high. Furthermore, Morrison (1992) argued that there is such a thing as too much
14
challenge stemming from obstacles and that support is needed to balance this out. Without such safeguards and
support developmental experiences, like for instance new assignments, could be overwhelming rather than
developmental (McCauley & Hezlett, 2001; Merriam & Heuer, 1996). Support can be situated on different levels
(societal level, occupational level, organizational level and immediate work environment level) and is important
both in influencing participation in developmental experiences and in facilitating the extent to which knowledge
and skills result from work experience (Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998). Below, we elaborate on the immediate work
environment level, as primarily this level has an impact on or supports learning from on-the-job experiences
(Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998). Moreover, in line with the major focus of current research (Wouters & Buyens, internal
doc.), our research focuses on developmental relationships.
The typical research focused on the primary mentoring relationships (McCauley & Young, 1993; Higgins &
Kram, 2001; Higgins & Thomas, 2001). Within this traditional approach mentoring is mainly conceptualized as
the developmental assistance provided by an individual who holds a higher-level or more senior organizational
position (e.g. Fagenson, 1989; Hunt & Michael, 1984; Kram, 1988; Roche, 1979). Some authors have opposed
this classical view to the idea that individuals look to more than a primary individual (Higgins & Kram, 2001;
Higgins & Thomas, 2001; Kram & Isabella, 1985; McDougall & Beattie, 1997). This idea was first introduced
by Kram (1988), under the label of “relationship constellations”, but received only more recently further
theoretical and empirical attention. Kram (1988) stated that relationships with peers, bosses, subordinates and
friends and family members can also provide a range of developmental functions. More recent theoretical
research has revisited this idea, focusing on the importance of relationships with multiple developers (Higgins &
Kram, 2001). Higgins & Kram (2001) defined an individual’s developmental network as the set of people a
protégé names as taken an active interest in and action to advance the protégé’s career by providing
developmental assistance (p. 268). In accordance to the underlying social network perspective the relationships
are simultaneously held, as opposed to a sequence of developmental relationships (e.g. Turban & Dougherty,
1994; Whitely & Coetsier, 1993). The authors expect the diversity and the strength of such networks to have an
impact on individual’s career. Finally, it is important to notice that these authors go beyond the discussion
between primary and secondary mentors. They provide one overarching term for people who provide
developmental assistance, namely “developers”. Only few studies have examined sources of support beyond a
traditional or primary source. Kram, (1988) and Kram & Isabella (1985) examined peer relationships and their
influence on development. These two studies indicated that peer relationships appear to have the potential to
serve some of the same critical functions as mentoring relationships. Moreover, peer relationships may have the
advantage that this kind of relationship is more likely to be available to individuals. Furthermore, Burke, Bristor
& Rothstein (1995) examined the role of interpersonal networks in women’s and men’s career development.
Building on Kram’s notion of a relationship constellation, all potentially supportive relationships of a focal
person, both inside and outside the organization were considered. The findings indicated that the presence of
supportive interpersonal relationships is associated with valued work and career outcomes. Finally, Higgins &
Thomas (2001) empirically tested the effects of an individual’s developmental constellation in comparison with
an individual’s primary mentoring relationship. The results showed that the constellation perspective explained
as much if not more variance than the primary developer perspective on mentoring.
15
Historically, research has also focused on the existence of a mentor on the one hand and relevant outcome
variables (e.g. career attainment, salary and retention) on the other hand (Fagenson, 1989; Fagenson, 1994; Hunt
& Michael, 1983; Kram, 1988; Roche, 1979; Turban & Dougherty, 1994; Whitely, Dougherty & Dreher, 1991).
In more recent research on multiple developmental relationships a similarly tendency can be found, as this
research has tended to look at the number of developers offering developmental support (Higgins &Thomas,
2001). In terms of Tesluk & Jacobs’ (1998) conceptual framework of work experience (cf. supra) it can be
concluded that previous research conceptualized and operationalized the mentoring relationship in quantitative
terms. Contrary, Higgins & Thomas (2001) and Mullen (1998) suggested that research not only needs to address
the question of whether or not having one or more developers influences employees’ development. Rather,
research should focus on the conditions under which having such developers are indeed helpful, or in Tesluk &
Jacobs’ terms, on the qualitative components of developmental relationships. On a theoretical level, both the
mentoring literature, the literature on social support and on management development elaborated on the
qualitative dimensions (Wouters & Buyens, internal doc.). Although there has been an extensive theoretical
discussion on what exactly makes developmental relationships developmental, little empirical evidence can be
found to clarify the underlying mechanisms of the positive effects of developmental relationships. Only research
on the distinct functions of mentoring, introduced by Kram and colleagues (1988), forms an exception.
Research by Kram and her colleagues (1988) attempted to explain how mentoring enhances both an individual’s
growth and advancement (Fagenson, 1989; Mullen, 1998). These studies resulted in a distinction between career
functions and psycho-social functions, which are considered to be the essential characteristics that differentiate
developmental relationships from other work relationships. A number of studies supported Kram’s original
work, and have documented the functions that mentors provide to protégés (e.g. Noe, 1988; Schokett & Haring-
Hidore, 1985). Career functions are those aspects of the relationship that enhance learning the ropes and
preparing for advancement in de organization. These functions aid the protégé’s career development and include
sponsorship, exposure-and-visibility, coaching, protection, and challenging assignments. Sponsorship involves
actively nominating an individual for desirable lateral moves and promotions
The exposure-and-visibility function involves assigning responsibilities that allow a lower-level manager to
develop relationships with key figures in the organization who may judge his or her potential for further
development (visible). These assignments also allow a junior manager to learn about parts of the organization
that he aspires to enter (expose to future opportunities). The coaching function enhances the junior person’s
knowledge and understanding of how to navigate effectively in the corporate world. The protection function
shields the junior person from untimely or potentially damaging contact with other senior officials. The mentor
supports career advancement by reducing unnecessary risks that can threaten an emerging reputation as a
potential manager. The assignment of challenging work, supported with technical training and ongoing feedback,
enables the junior manager to develop specific competencies and to experience a sense of accomplishment in a
professional role. The ongoing support and feedback on performance enable the junior person to meet the
challenges presented. Without critical feedback and support, the junior person might feel overwhelmed by the
degree of complexity of assignments or angry for being asked to do so much at this point. Kram (1988) argues
that while sponsorship, exposure-and-visibility, coaching and protection open avenues for advancement,
challenging work assignments equip the individual with the skills to take advantage of these opportunities.
16
Psychosocial functions are those aspects of a relationship that enhance a sense of competence, clarity of identity
and effectiveness in a professional role. Psychosocial functions help in the development of the self-concept and
include role modeling, acceptance-and-confirmation, counseling and friendship. Role modeling involves the
senior person setting a desired example, and the junior person identifying with it. A senior colleague’s attitudes,
values and behavior provide a model for the junior colleague to emulate. Through the function of acceptance and
confirmation the individual derive a sense of self from the positive regard conveyed by the other; provide
support and encouragement; has a basic trust that encourages the adult to take risks; tolerates differences and
allows self-differentiation. This enables the junior manager to experiment with new behaviors. Counseling
implies that the more experienced senior colleague provides a sounding board for self-exploration, offers
personal experience as an alternative perspective, and helps resolve problems through feedback and active
listening. This enables an individual to explore personal concerns that may interfere with a positive sense of self
in the organization. The friendship function is characterized by social interaction that results in mutual liking and
understanding and enjoyable informal exchanges about work and outside work experiences. This enhances work
on the difficult tasks of early and middle career years.
Kram (1988) argued that relationships that provide both kinds of functions are characterized by greater intimacy
and strength of interpersonal bond and are viewed as more indispensable, more critical to development and more
unique than other relationships. Relationships that provide only career functions are characterized by less
intimacy and are valued primarily for the instrumental ends that they serve in the organizational context. In line
with Kram’s the more is better assumption, much of the prior research on mentoring has assumed that the
effectiveness of a mentoring relationship lies in the amount of mentoring assistance provided (Higgins & Kram,
2001). More concrete, previous studies (e.g. Turban & Dougherty, 1994; Cianni & Romberger, 1995; Thomas,
1990) have often focused on the amount of mentoring support provided as the dependent variable of interest, and
have examined the influence of for example protégé-characteristics and relationship-characteristics on the
strength of the support offered (Higgins & Kram, 2001). As stated by Higgins and Thomas (2001), both the
amount and type of support should be considered as relevant indicators of the quality of the relationship.
Furthermore, implications of the relationship quality in influencing on-the-job learning need further empirical
study (Scandura, 1992).
Considering the needs for further research, as discussed above, our research project focuses on multiple
developmental relationships, with special attention for the qualitative components (amount and type of support)
of the relationships. Furthermore, like with regard to the individual difference variables, we are interested in the
role of support in pursuing and extracting lessons from developmental on-the-job experiences. Finally, as the
degree of challenge is included in our focal on-the-job experience construct, we are interested in the effect of
support from the context on the degree of challenge experienced.
With regard to the situational variables influencing on-the-job learning, we formulate following research
questions:
Research question 6: What are the effects of multiple developmental relationships on the development
of on-the-job experiences?
17
Research question 7: What are the effects of multiple developmental relationships on the lessons gained
from on-the-job experiences?
Research question 8: What are the effects of multiple developmental relationships on the degree of
challenge experienced?
ON-THE-JOB LEARNING INFLUENCING CAREER SUCCESS
As stated in the introduction, theories on on-the-job learning are a relevant perspective to look at individuals’
careers. However, empirical evidence on the impact of on-the-job learning on individuals’ careers is scarce. In
this research project career success will be looked at as outcome variable. Career success is defined in terms of
the positive psychological and work-related outcomes accumulated as a result of one’s work experiences
(Boudreau, Boswell & Judge, 1999; Bretz & Judge, 1994; Dreher & Bretz, 1991; Judge, Cable, Boudreau &
Bretz, 1995; London & Stumpf, 1982; Seibert, Crant & Kraimer, 1999; Seibert & Kraimer, 2001). Two types of
career success can be distinguished. First, intrinsic career success, mostly measured in terms of job satisfaction
and career satisfaction, refers to factors that are inherent in the job itself and is dependent on the incumbent’s
subjective evaluation relative to his or her own goals and expectations (Boudreau et al., 1999; Judge et al., 1995;
London & Stumpf, 1982). Second, extrinsic career success, most often measured in terms of salary and
promotions, refers to outcomes that are instrumental rewards from the job and which are objectively observable
(Boudreau et al., 1999; Judge et al., 1995; London & Stumpf, 1982;). Because these two aspects of career
success are conceptually and empirically distinct (Bretz & Judge, 1994; Seibert et al., 1999; Seibert & Kraimer,
2001) it is important to consider them both in order to provide a broad measure of career success.
With regard to the impact of on-the-job learning on career success, we formulate following research questions:
Research question 9: What are the effects of on-the-job learning on intrinsic career success?
Research question 10: What are the effects of on-the-job learning on extrinsic career success?
CONCLUSION
Obtaining insight in individual learning processes is a necessary step in understanding and managing
organizational learning (Miner & Mezias, 1996; Richter, 1998). Furthermore, there is an increasing recognition
that most learning and development of employees may occur on the job itself (Davies & Easterby-Smith, 1984;
Ellinger & Bostrom, 2002; Hunt, 1991; McCall, et al., 1988; Mumford, 1997; Wick, 1989; Wick & Leon, 1993).
Despite the emergence of on-the-job learning in research and practice, we have no “theory of experience”
(Merriam & Caffarella, 1999). To further develop a theory of on-the-job learning, we have build on the
frameworks provided by Quiñones, Ford & Teachout (1995) and Tesluk & Jacobs (1998). In line with the
research objectives, discussed in the introduction, our study contributes to the theory development in several
ways.
First, in line with McCauley & Hezlett’s (2001) suggestion for further research, our theoretical framework on
on-the-job learning integrates both the adult development lens and the self-directed learning lens. This implies
18
on the one hand that experience is the central variable of interest. On the other hand, both individual difference
and situational variables are taken into account, influencing both the development of on-the-job experience and
how experience translates into leaning and career outcomes (Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998). Second, we elaborate on
the qualitative component of on-the-job experience by including the five developmental job components and by
including the mediating effect of the degree of challenge experienced. Third, research on individual difference
variables is integrated, as we attempt to explain why people with particular preferences, personalities, abilities
are more likely to seek out developmental on-the-job experiences and to learn from these experiences. Fourth,
research on situational variables is elaborated on, as our model includes multiple developmental relationships.
More concrete, the model focuses on the influence of the quality of support provided on the development of on-
the-job experiences and the lessons gained from those experiences. Finally, our framework integrated a career
perspective to consider the impact of on-the-job learning.
19
REFERENCES
Argyris, C., & Schön, D.A. (1978). Organisational learning: a theory of action perspective. Reading: Adisson-
Wesley.
Arnold, J. (1997). Managing careers into the 21st century. London: Loughborough University.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2),
pp. 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), pp. 1175-1184.
Barrick, M.R. & Mount, M.K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-
analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, pp. 1-26.
Biggs, J.B. (1988). Approaches to learning and to essay writing. In R.R. Scmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and
learning styles. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 186-228
Boudreau, J.W., Boswell, W.R., & Judge, T.A. (1999). Effects of personality on executive career success in the
U.S. and Europe. Working Paper Series 99-12. New York: Cornell University.
Brett, J.M. (1984). Job Transitions and Personal and Role Development. In K.M. Rowland & G.R. Ferris (Eds.),
Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management. Greenwich: JAI Press, pp. 155-188.
Bretz, R.D., & Judge, T.A. (1994, February). Person organization fit and the theory of work adjustment:
Implications for satisfaction, tenure and career succes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44, pp. 32-54.
Brookfield, S. (1995). Adult Learning: An Overview. In A. Tuinjman (Ed.). International Encyclopedia of
Education. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Bunker & Webb (1992). Learning How to Learn From Experience: Impact of stress and coping. Greensboro:
Center for Creative Leadership.
Burke, R.J., Bristor, J.M. & Rothstein, M.G. (1995). The role of interpersonal networks in women’s and men’s
career development. The International Journal of Career Development, 7(3), pp. 25-32.
Burgoyne, J.G., & Hodgson, V.E. (1983). Natural learning and managerial action: A phenomenological study in
the field setting. Journal of Management Studies, 20 (3), pp. 387-399.
20
Buyens, D., Martens, G., Meganck, A., Wouters, K., & De Vos, A. (2002). De relatie en interactie tussen
loopbaanactiviteiten en werknemersperceptie inzake loopbaanontwikkeling als onderdeel van het psychologisch
contract: Literatuurstudie en empirisch onderzoek [The relation and interaction between career systems and
employee perceptions as part of the psychological contract: Literature study and empirical research].
Wetenschappelijk onderzoeksverslag opgesteld in het kader van het F.W.O. project nr G.0106.00N, Gent:
Universiteit Gent.
Campion, M.A., Cheraskin, L. & Stevens, M.J. (1994). Career-related antecedents and outcomes of job rotation.
Academy of Management Journal, 37(6), pp. 1518-1542.
Candy, P.C. (1990). How People Learn to Learn. In: R.M. Smith (Ed.), Learning to Learn Across the Lifespan.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 30-63.
Cheetham, G. & Chivers, G. (2001). How professionals learn – the theory. Journal of European Industrial
Training, 25(5), pp. 250-269.
Cianni, M. & Romberger, B. (1995). Perceived racial, ethnic, and gender differences in access to developmental
experiences. Group & Organization Management, 20(4), pp. 440-459.
Davies, J., & Easterby-Smith, M. (1984). Learning and developing from managerial work experiences. Journal
of Management Studies, 21(2), pp. 169-183.
Dechant, K. (1990). Knowing how to learn: The neglected management ability. Journal of Management Studies,
21(9), pp. 40-49.
Dechant, K. (1994). Making the most of job assignments: an exercise in planning for learning. Journal of
Management Education, 18(2), pp. 198-211.
Dixon, N.M. (1994). A Theoretical Framework of Individual Learning, In: N.M. Dixon (Ed.), The
Organizational Learning Cycle: How We Can Learn Collectively. London: McGraw-Hill Book Company, pp.
10-35.
Dogson, M. (1993). Organizational learning: a review of some literatures. Organization Studies, 14, pp. 375-394.
DuBois, D. & McKee, A. (1994). Facets of work experience. Paper presented at the 6th Annual Conference of the
Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St Louis, MO.
Dweck, C.S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, pp. 1040-1048.
21
Ellinger, A.D., & Bostrom, R.P. (2002). An examination of managers’ beliefs about their roles as facilitators of
learning. Management Learning, 33(2), pp. 147-179.
Entwistle, N.J. (1988). Motivational factors in students’ approaches to learning. In R.R. Scmeck (Ed.), Learning
strategies and learning styles. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 21-52.
Fagenson, E.A. (1989). The mentor advantage: perceived career/job experiences of proteges versus non-
proteges. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10(4), pp. 309-320.
Fagenson, E.A. (1994). Perceptions of proteges’ vs nonproteges’ relationships with their peers, superiors and
departments. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, pp. 55-78.
Fleishman, E.A., & Mumford, M.D. (1989). Individual attributes and training performance. In I.L. Goldstein
(Ed.), Training and development in Organizations. San Fransico: Jossey-Bass, pp. 183-255.
Gattiker, A.E. & Larwood, L. (1988). Predictors for managers’ career mobility, success and satisfaction. Human
Relations, 41(8), pp. 569-591.
Gherardi, S., Nicolini, D., & Odella, F. (1998). Toward a social understanding of how people learn in
organizations: The notion of situated curriculum. Management Learning, 29(3), pp. 273-297.
Gibbons, M. (1990). A Working Model of the Learning-How-to-Learn Process. In: R.M. Smith (Ed.), Learning
to Learn Across the Lifespan. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 64-97.
Gist, M.E., Schwoerer, C., & Rosen, B. (1989). Effects of alternative training methods on self-efficacy and
performance in computer software training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, pp. 884-891.
Hall, D.T. (1996). Protean careers of the 21st century. Academy of Management Executive, 10(4), pp. 8-16.
Hall, D.T. (1991). Twenty questions: Research needed to advance the field of careers. In R.F. Morrison & J.
Adams (Eds.), Contemporary career development issues. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 151-167.
Hall, D.T., & Mirvis, P.H. (1995). Careers as lifelong learning. In A. Howard (Ed.), The changing Nature of
Work . San Fransico, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 323-361.
Higgins, M.C., & Kram, K.E. (2001). Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: a developmental network
perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), pp. 264-288.
Higgins, M.C., & Thomas, D.A. (2001). Constellations and careers: toward understanding the effects of multiple
developmental relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(3), pp. 223-247.
22
Hoeksema, L.H. (1995). Learning strategy as a guide to career success in organizations. Non-published
doctoral dissertation, Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Hofmann, D.A., Jacobs, R., & Gerras, S.J. (1992). Mapping individual performance over time. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 77(2), pp. 185-195.
Horgan, D.D. (1989). A cognitive learning perspective on women becoming expert managers. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 3(3), pp. 299-313.
Howard, A., & Bray, D.W. (1988). Managerial lives in transition: Advancing age and changing times. New
York: Guilford Press.
Howard, A. & Bray, D.W. (1990). Predictions of Managerial Success over Long Periods of Time: Lessons From
the Management Progress Study. In: K.E. Clark & M.B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of Leadership. West Orange:
Leadership Library of America, pp. 113-127.
Hunt, D.M. & Michael,C. (1983). Mentorship: a career training and development tool. The Academy of
Management Review, 8(3), pp. 475-485.
Hunt, J.G. (1991). Leadership: A new synthesis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ilgen, D.R. & Klein, H.J. (1988). Individual Motivation and Performance: Cognitive influences on effort and
choice. In J.P. Campbell, R.J. Campbell and Associates (Eds.), Productivity in Organizations: New perspectives
from industrial and organisational psychology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 143-176.
Judge, T.A., Cable, D.M., Boudreau, J.W., & Bretz, R.D. (1995). An empirical investigation of the predictors of
executive career succes. Personnel Psychology, 48(3), pp. 485-520.
Kahn, W.A. (1992). To be fully there: psychological presence. Human Relations, 45(4).
Karakowsky, L. & McBey, K. (1999). The lessons of work: toward an understanding of the implications of the
workplace for adult learning and development. Journal of Workplace Learning, 11(6), pp. 192-203
Kelleher, D., Finestone, P. & Lowy, A. (1986). Managerial learning: first notes from an unstudied frontier.
Group & Organization Studies, 11(3), pp. 169-202.
Keys, B. & Wolfs, J. (1988). Management education and development: current issues and emerging trends.
Journal of Management, 14(2), pp. 205-229.
23
Knowles, M.S. (1974). The modern practice of adult education: andragogy versus pedagogy. New York:
Association Press NY.
Kram, K.E. (1988). Mentoring at Work: Developmental Relationships in Organizational Life. Lanham:
University Press of America.
Kram, K.E. & Isabella, L.A. (1985). Mentoring alternatives: the role of peer relationships in career development.
Academy of Management Journal, 28(1), pp. 110-132.
Law, K.S. ,Wong, C. & Mobley, W.H. (1998). Toward a taxonomy of multidimensional constructs. Academy of
Management Review, 23, pp. 741-755.
London, M., & Stumpf, S. (1982). Managing Careers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Lyness & Thompson (1997). Above the glass ceiling: a comparison of matched samples of female and male
executives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), pp. 359-375.
Marsick, V.J., & O’Neil, J. (1999). The many faces of action learning. Management Learning, 30(2), pp. 159-
176.
Marsick, V. & Watkins, K. (1997). Lessons from Informal and Incidental Learning. In: Burgoyne, J. & Reynolds
(Eds.), M. Management Learning: Integrative Perspectives in Theory and Practice. London: Sage Publications,
pp. 295-311.
Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I. Outcome and Process. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.
Mathieu, J.E., Martineau, J.W. & Tannenbaum, S.I. (1993). Individual and situational influences on the
development of self-efficacy: implications for training effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 46(1), pp. 125-147.
McCall, M.W. (1994). Identifying leadership potential in future international executives: developing a concept.
Consutling Psychology Journal, 46(1), pp. 49-63.
McCall, M.W., Lombardo, M.M., & Morrison, A.M. (1988). The lessons of experience: How successful
executives develop on the job. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
McCauley, C.D. (2001). Leader training and development. In: S.J. Zaccaro & R.J. Klimoski (Eds.), The nature
of organizational leadership. Lexington, M.A: Lexington Books.
24
McCauley, C.D. & Brutus, S. (1998). Management Development Through Job Experiences: An Annotated
Bibliography. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
McCauley, C.D. & Douglas, C.A. (1998). Developmental Relationships. In: C.D. McCauley, R.S. Moxley & E.
Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, pp.160-193.
McCauley, C.D., & Hezlett, S.A. (2001). Individual development in the workplace. In N. Anderson, D.S. Ones,
H.K. Sinangil & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work & organizational psychology (Vol. 1).
London: Sage, pp. 313-335.
McCauley, C.D., Moxley, R.S., & Van Velsor, E. (1998). The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of
Leadership Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McCauley, Ohlott & Ruderman (1989). On-the-job development: a conceptual model and preliminary
investigation. Journal of managerial issues, 1(2), pp. 142-158.
McCauley, C.D., Ruderman, M.N., Ohlott, P.J. & Morrow, J.E. (1994). Assessing the developmental
components of managerial jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), pp. 544-560.
McCauley, C.D. & Young, D.P. (1993). Creating developmental relationships: roles and strategies. Human
Resource Management Review, 3(3), pp. 219-230.
McDougall, M. & Beattie, R.S. (1997). Peer mentoring at work. Management Learning, 28(4), pp. 423-437.
Megginson, D. (1996). Planned and emergent learning: Consequences for development. Management Learning,
27(4), pp. 411-428.
Merriam, S.B. & Caffarella, R.S. (1999). Learning in Adulthood: a Comprehensive Guide. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S.B. & Heuer, B. (1996). Meaning-making, adult learning and development: a model with implications
for practice. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 15(4), pp. 243-255.
Miner, A., & Mezias, S. (1996). Ugly duckling no more: Pasts and futures of organizational learning research.
Organizational Science, 7(1), pp. 88-99.
Morrison, A.M. (1992). The new leaders: Guidelines on leadership diversity in America. San Fransico: Jossey-
Bass.
25
Morrison, R.F., & Branter, T.M. (1992). What enhances or inhibits learning a new job? A basic career issue.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(6), pp. 926-940.
Morrison, R.F., & Hoch, R.R. (1986). Career building: Learning from cumulative work experiences. In D.T. Hall
& Associates (Eds.), Career development in organizations. San Fransico: Jossey-Bass, pp. 236-273.
Moxley, R.S. (1998). Hardships. In: C.D. McCauley, R.S. Moxley & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for
Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp.194-213.
Mullen, E. (1998). Vocational and psychosocial mentoring functions: identifying mentors who serve both.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 9(4), pp. 319-331.
Mumford, A. (1997). Management development: Strategies for action, 3rd ed. London: Institute of Personnel and
Development.
Nicolson, N., & West, M. (1988). Managerial job change: Men and women in transition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Noe, R.A. (1988). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships.
Personnel Psychology, 41(3), pp. 457-479.
Noe, R.A. (1996). Is career management related to employee development and performance? Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 17(2), pp. 119-133.
Noe, R.A. & Wilk, S.L. (1993). Investigation of the factors that influence employees’ participation in
development activities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), pp. 291-302.
Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69(6), pp. 96-104.
Ohlott, P.J. (1998). Job Assignments. In: C.D. McCauley, R.S. Moxley & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for
Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp.127-159.
Ohlott, P.J., McCauley, C.D., & Ruderman, M.N. (1995). Developmental challenge profile: Learning from job
experiences. Chicago: Center for Creative Leadership.
Ohlott, P.J., Ruderman, M.N. & McCauley, C.D. (1994). Gender differences in managers’ developmental
experiences. Academy of Management Journal, 37(1), pp. 46-67.
Pajares, F. Overview of social cognitive theory and of self-efficacy.
(www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/eff.html)
26
Pask, G. (1988). Learning strategies, teaching strategies, and conceptual or learning style. In R.R. Scmeck (Ed.),
Learning strategies and learning styles. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 83-100.
Pearson & McCauley (1991). Job demands and managerial learning in the research and development function.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 2(3), pp. 263-274.
Quiñones, M.A., Ford, J.K. & Teachout, M.S. (1995). The relationship between work experience and job
performance: a conceptual and meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), pp. 887-910.
Revans, R.W. (1980). Action Learning: New techniques for management. London: Blond & Briggs.
Reynolds, M. (1997). Learning styles: A critique. Management Learning, 28(2), pp. 115-133.
Richter, I. (1998). Individual and organizational learning at the executive level: Towards a research agenda.
Management Learning, 29(3), pp. 299-316.
Robinson, D.F., & Miner, A.S. (1996). Career change as organizations learn. In M.B. Arthur & D.M. Rousseau
(Eds.), The boundaryless career: A new employment principle for a new organizational area. New York: Oxford
University Press, pp. 79-94.
Robinson, G.S., & Wick, C.W. (1992). Executive development that makes a business difference. Human
Resource Planning, 15(1), pp. 63-76.
Roche, G.R. (1979). Much ado about mentors. Harvard Business Review, 5(1), pp. 14-24.
Rousseau, D.M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and
Rights Journal, 2(2), pp. 121-139.
Rousseau, D.M., & Wade-Benzoni, K.A. (1995). Changing individual-organization attachments: A two-way
street. In A. Howard (Ed.), The Changing Nature of Work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 290-322.
Ruderman, M.N., Ohlott, P.J. & McCauley, C.D. (1990). Assessing Opportunities for Leadership. In: K.E. Clark
& M.B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of Leadership. West Orange: Leadership Library of America, pp. 547-562.
Sadler-Smith, E. (2001). A reply to Reynolds critique of learning styles. Management Learning, 32(3), pp. 291-
304.
Scandura, T.A. (1992). Mentorship and career mobility: an empirical investigation. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 13, pp. 169-174.
27
Schalk, R., & Freese, L. (1997). New facets of commitment in response to organizational change: Research
trends and the Dutch experience. In C.L. Cooper & D.M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in Organizational Behavior
(Vol. 4). New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 107-123
Schockett, M.R. & Haring-Hidore, M. (1985). Factor analytic support for psycho-social and vocational
mentoring functions. Psychological Reports, 57, pp. 627-630.
Seibert, K.W. (1996). Experience is the best teacher, if you can learn from it. In: Hall, D.T. & Associates (Eds.),
The Career is Dead – Long Live the Career: a Relational Approach to Careers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp.
246-264.
Seibert, S.E, Crant, J.M., & Kraimer, M.L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84(3), pp. 653-663.
Seibert, S.E., & Kraimer, M.L. (2001, February). The five-factor model of personality and career success.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, pp. 1-21.
Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organisation. New York: Double
Day Currency.
Smith , R.M. (1990). Learning to Learn Across the Lifespan. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Spreitzer, G.M., McCall, M.W., & Mahoney, J.D. (1997). Early identification of international executive
potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), pp. 6-29.
Stewart, R. (1984). Developing managers by radical job moves. Journal of Management Development, 3(2), pp.
48-55.
Sullivan, S.E. (1999). The changing nature of careers: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management,
25(3), pp. 457-484.
Tesluk, P. E. & Jacobs, R.R.(1998). Toward an integrated model of work experience. Personnel Psychology, 51,
pp. 321-355.
Tesluk, P. E., Dragoni, L. & Russell, J.E.A (Internal Document). Growing managerial talent: role of
developmental work experiences, learning orientation, and access to opportunities in shaping competencies and
advancement potential.
Tharenou, P. (1997). Organisational, job and personal predictors of employee participation in training and
development. Applied Psychology: An international Review, 46(2), pp. 111-134.
28
Thomas, D.A. (1990). The impact of race on managers’ experiences of developmental relationships (mentoring
and sponsorship): an intra-organizational study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, pp. 479-492.
Turban, D.B. & Dougherty, T.W. (1994). Role of protégé personality in receipt of mentoring and career success.
Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), pp. 688-702.
Valerio, A.M. (1990). A study of developmental experiences of managers. In K.E. Clark & M.B. Clark (Eds.)
Measures of leadership. West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America, pp. 521-534.
Van der Sluis, L.E.C., & Hoeksema, L.H. (2001). The palette of management development. The Journal of
Management Development, 20(2), pp. 168-175.
Vande Walle, D., Cron, W.L., & Slocum, J.W. (2001). The role of goal orientation following performance
feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, pp. 629-640.
Van Maanen, J. (1977). Introduction: The Promise of Career Studies. In: J. Van Maanen (Ed.), Organizational
Careers: Some New Perspectives. London: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 1-12.
Van Velsor, E. & Guthrie, V.A. (1998). Enhancing the Ability to Learn from Experience. In: C.D. McCauley,
R.S. Moxley & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership
Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp.242-261.
Van Velsor, E. & Hughes, M.W. (1990). Gender Differences in the Development of Managers: How women
managers learn from experience. Greensboro: Center for Creative Leadership.
Van Velsor, E. McCauley, C.D. & Moxley, R.S. (1998). Our View of Leadership Development. In: C.D.
McCauley, R.S. Moxley & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership
Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 1-25.
Wexley, K.N. & Baldwin, T.T. (1986). Management development. Journal of Management, 12(2), pp. 277-294.
Wick, C.W. (1989). How people develop: An in-depth look. HR Report, 6(7), pp. 1-3.
Whitely, W.T., Dougherty, T.W. & Dreher, G.F. (1991). Relationships of career mentoring and socio-economic
origin to managers’ and professionals’ early career progress. Academy of Management Journal, 34(2), pp. 331-
351.
Whitely, W.T. & Coetsier,P. (1993). The relationship of career mentoring to early career outcomes.
Organization Studies, 14(3), pp. 419-441.
29
Wood, R. & Bandura, A. (1989). Social Cognitive Theory of Organizational Management. Academy of
Management. The Academy of Management Review, 14(3), pp. 361-384.
Wouters, K.& Buyens, D. (internal document). Literature review on on-the-job learning. Exhibit of the Doctoral
Qualification Exam. Gent: Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School.
EXHIBIT 1: CONCEPTUAL MODEL
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE VARIABLES
- Learning Goal Orientation
- Proactive Stance Toward Problems and Opportunities
- Critical Reflection
- Openness
- Self-Efficacy
- Locus of Control
- Coping Strategies
DEVELOPMENTAL ON-THE-JOB EXPERIENCES
- Unfamiliar Responsibilities
- Creating Change
- High Levels of Responsibility
- Managing interfaces
- Managing diversity
SITUATIONAL VARIABLES
Multiple Developmental Relationships
CAREER OUTCOMES - Extrinsic Career Success - Intrinsic Career Success
PERCEIVED DEGREE
OF CHALLENGE