ENGAGEMENT, SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING, & JOB PERFORMANCE1
The Influence of Engagement and Self-Directed Learning on
Job Performance for Managers
Kenneth R. Bartlett
Louis N. Quast
Witsinee Bovornusvakool
Soebin Jang
Jeremy M. Clark
Wei Song
Joseph M. Wohkittel
Dennis W. Paetzel
Ricardo Aparico
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, USA
Copyright © 2017Bartlett, K. R., Quast, L. N., Bovornusvakool, W., Jang, S.,
Clark, J. M., Song, W., Wohkittel, J. M., Paetzel, D. W., & Aparico, R.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the possible influence of behavioral measures of work engagement and self-development on performance ratings of managers in the United States. The data (N = 36,844) were collected using The PROFILOR® for Managers (PDI Ninth House, 2004) from managers in mid and senior- level positions in organizations in the United States. The instrument contains 135 behavioral items. The variables in this study: employee engagement, self-development, and performance were conceptualized from existing theory and literature. Ratings were made by the direct supervisor of the managers using a five-point Likert-type scale. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) for the engagement, self-development, and performance latent variables indicated adequate model fit. Structural equation models (SEM) were then conducted to test the models. Engagement was found to be highly positively correlated with performance. Self-developmentwas positively associated with performance on its own, but not as strongly as engagement. In the three-way model including, engagement, self-development,and performance, the relationship between engagement and performance strengthens. However, when we control for engagement, the remaining self-development variable does not have any predictive value for performance. Findings suggest that HRD practitioners should work first to enhance engagement of managers, and then provide them with the time and resources to engage in self-development. These practices could lead to higher job performance. The behavioral measure of engagement has not been studied in association with other approaches to assessing engagement. Future research can shed light on the similarities or differences among these measures of engagement and the relationship to core HRD practices often used for leadership development.
Keywords: Employee Engagement, Self-development, Job Performance
The Influence of Engagement and Self-Directed Learning on Job Performance for Managers
While there is agreement that development is necessary for performance and competitiveness, there is concern that traditional forms of human resource development (HRD) that rely on formal workplace training and development may not be sufficient to provide for individual, organizational, or national competitiveness (Hilton, 2008; Oh, Seo, Kim, Yoo, & Seong, 2015; Ratwani, Zaccaro, Garven, & Geller, 2010). In a former era with a more stable business environment, employees could be prepared for predictably static work through pre-employment education, planned formal training and development programs, and prior work experience (Marsick, Watkins, & Volpe, 1999). It is increasingly accepted that these approaches to learning alone are no longer sufficient to address the rapidly shifting learning needs that characterize the dynamic environment confronting most organizations (Clardy, 2000; Guglielmino & Guglielmino, 2001; Molloy & Noe, 2010). In response, there has been a greater emphasis on workplace learning that is increasingly future focused (Birdi, Allan, & Warr, 1997), voluntary (Maurer, Lippstreu, & Judge, 2008; Maurer & Tarulli, 1994), and self-planned (Reichard & Johnson, 2011).
Consequently, in both HRD research and practice, there has been greater interest and emphasis on self-directed learning (Ellinger, 2004; Nesbit, 2012) and other forms of self-development (Hezlett, 2016; Karp, 2012). It has been suggested that self-development, especially for leaders, should be formally pursued as an organizational strategy (Reichard & Johnson, 2011). Birdi et al. (1997) suggested that “associated with the increasing interest in individual long-term ownership of their development, it is now desirable to examine a wider spread of possible outcomes beyond merely increases in specific job-related skills and knowledge” (p. 848). Yet, there is little research evidence on the extent to which self-development is related to engagement, and what, if any, effect self-development may have on measures of performance. As noted by Ren, Collins, and Zhu (2014), there is a need for more research to examine the self-development construct, and to examine variables that may influence self-development behaviors and their relationship to performance.
Engagement
Historically, scholars have struggled to differentiate engagement from numerous related constructs such as organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and job involvement (Saks, 2006). There is still a lack of consensus on the meaning, antecedents, and outcomes of the construct (Saks & Gruman, 2014). In the field of HRD, employee engagement has been defined as the “cognitive, emotional, and behavioral energy an employee directs toward positive organizational outcomes” (Shuck & Wollard, 2010, p. 103). As Shuck and Rocco (2014) stated:
The interest in engagement for HRD lies at the crossroads between performance improvement and the individual experience of work. The unique contribution of HRD is to not only look at how much performance can be leveraged, but also, how performance can be leveraged through experiences that enhance the meaning of work (p.118).
While most of the existing literature exploring the relationships between HRD and engagement has adopted one of the four approaches described by Shuck (2011), more recent research has considered abehavioral approach. This approach suggests that employee engagement is a psychological state demonstrated primarily through observed behavior (Bartlett, Quast, Wohkittel, Center, & Chung, 2012). In their study of the relationships between management development practices, engagement, and job performance, Bartlett et al. (2012) identified eight behavioralmeasures considered primary indicators of engaged employees. These behaviors aligned with descriptors of high levels of employee engagement as defined by Shuck and Wollard (2010). The behavioral approach is unique and differentiated from other approaches to engagement in that (1) it measures employee behaviors rather than attitudes or cognitive states, and (2) it reflects supervisory ratings of observed behavioral demonstrations of engagement behaviors at the workplace. However, little research has examined the relationships between such behavioral measures of engagement and formal and informal HRD practices within organizational settings.
Organizational climate and resources supportive of learning and development practices have been shown to influence employee engagement (Shuck & Rocco, 2014). Employee participation in specific learning interventions has also been linked to higher levels of employee engagement (Czarnowsky, 2008). Shuck and Rocco (2014) found that employee participation in core HRD practices such as employee mentoring, leadership development, and educational programs were highly related to all three facets of engagement (i.e., cognitive, behavioral, and emotional engagement).
Consequently, more research is needed to advance the understanding of the engagement construct in combination with employee participation in core HRD practices including self-development. One of the contributions of the current study is the examination of the relationship between actual engagement behaviors and individual self-development behaviors.
Self-Development
The traditional response to the need for learning in organizations has been the provision of formal training and development programs (Noe, Clarke, & Klein, 2014; Tannenbaum, Beard, McNall, & Salas, 2010). Dynamic and significant changes that have impacted the operation of almost every form of organization has resulted in an acceptance that employee learning will increasingly be informal, on-the-job, not-required, future oriented, and continuous (Birdi et al., 1997; Noe, Wilk, Mullen, & Wanek, 1997; Tannenbaum et al., 2010). This shift to a broader conceptualization of learning in the workplace has led to renewed interest in self-directed learning (London & Mone, 1999). Van der Sluis (2007) asserted that individuals will need to continuously learn to do their jobs well, both in the present and future, to increase their opportunity for advancement and professional development. Noe et al. (2014) suggested “continuous learning, which occurs outside the realm of formal training and development, may be more important for the development of human capital resources” (p. 247). A major component of self-development is self-directed learning and the willingness to assume additional responsibilities to grow new skills and enhance one’s knowledge, often in tandem with or independent from formally structured HRD activities.
Self-directed learning has been defined as “a process in which a learner assumes primary responsibility for planning, implementing, and evaluating the learning process” (Brockett & Hiemestra, 1991, p. 24). Antonacopoulou (2000) emphasized that self-development occurs when individuals become aware of their own need to develop and are encouraged to be responsible for their learning. Self-directed learning is a mature field with an expansive literature base (Ellinger, 2004; Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007; Owen, 2002). There is, however, an acknowledged general lack of literature on self-development as it relates to HRD processes and outcomes. It has been suggested that the limited research is a result of a lack of definitional clarityfor self-directed learning, with wide variation in conceptualizations and an ill-defined boundary of related terms (Candy, 1991; Gerstner, 1992; Hamlin & Stewart, 2011; Merriam, 2001).
The origin of the study of self-directed learning is commonly attributed to Tough (1996; 1979), who became intrigued by learners who took responsibility for planning their own learning. A primary contribution of Tough’s work was to extend the conceptualization of adult learning beyond the setting of the classroom. In self-directed learning emphasis is shifted from external educational or training agents to the responsibility and agency of the learner (Brocket & Hiemestra, 1991; Guglielmino & Guglielmino, 2001; Long, 1990; 2000). Tough (1979) identified that supervisors play a major role in facilitating or inhibiting self-directed learning. This process and its implications for integrating self-directed learning into HRD practice was discussed by Ellinger (2004). She identified and advocated for more research specifically within business and industry settings, in order to develop a better understanding of self-directed learning in the workplace.
Research to identify organizational factors that impact self-directed learning in the workplace has consistently highlighted the role of the supervisor or senior manager. Piskurich (1993) maintained that supervisors create a climate that “helps the trainee take full advantage of the self-directed learning process” (p. 317). The observation has also been made that for employees to be self-directed “it is important that their leaders model this behavior and mentor them in their efforts to become more conscious, capable, and confident self-directed learners” (Guglielmino & Guglielmino, 2008, p. 299). Ratwaniet al. (2010) theorized that the supervisor plays a developmental role in the self-development of leaders within the organization. Reichard and Johnson (2011) proposed that a leader’s motivation to self-develop as a leader should be moderated by the direct supervisor’s leadership style. There have been repeated calls for more research on the relationship between leadership and self-directed learning (e.g., Berson, Nemanich, Waldman, Galvin, & Keller, 2006).
In two studies with high relevance to the present study, Kops (1993; 1997) conducted interviews with managers in both public and private organizationson their self-planned learning projects, to understand how organizational context influenced workplace self-planned learning. Kops (1993) pointed to the role of leadership in creating the organizational climate which he defined as “the prevailing attitude resulting from the leaders’ philosophy” (p. 76). Kops argued that among the varied roles for supervisors is that employees “may require support and assistance to increase their capabilities and readiness for self-directed learning, or to change their perceptions of the learning situation” (p. 85). Kops further suggested the ideal profile of a leader who encouraged self-directed learning as:(a) being an open and effective communicator;(b) holding high expectations of staff;(c) encouraging and rewarding staff contributions; and (d) creating a vision for the organization that includes the need for continuous learning, in order for the organization to be successful.
While the expanded role of leader self-development as an approach to supplement formal leadership development programs is increasingly recognized,there remains a noted challenge for effective evaluation of this form of learning (Orvis & Ratwani, 2010). As Yukl (2006) stated in regards to the lack of empirical research on the effectiveness of self-directed learning techniques focused on leadership:
We know little about the benefits derived from them or the extent to which they can substitute for formal instruction. Research is needed to evaluate how much self-help activities contribute to the development of leadership competencies, and the conditions under which these activities are most effective (p. 409).
Numerous researchers have proposed that there is a connection between individuals’ self-directed learning and job performance (e.g., Antonacopoulou, 2000; London & Smither, 1999). Antonacopoulou (2000) stated that “self-development can enhance self-confidence and help develop latent abilities which would improve initiative and work performance” (p. 8). Boyce, Zaccaro, and Wisecarver (2010) examined the relationship between individuals’ self-development and performance in a study of junior-military leaders. The results showed that the positive association between individuals’ self-development and performance was influenced by individual characteristics and organizational support. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects that engagement and self-development may have on job performance independently and acting in conjunction with one another.
Methods
Adatabase of multisource feedback ratings of managers was used for this study. Specifically, data (N = 36,844) were drawn from an archival database of behavioral ratings collected using The PROFILOR® for Managers (PDI Ninth House, 2004). The PROFILOR® for Managers contains 135 behavioral items. These items were selected by subject-matter experts to represent the range of behaviors expected of successful managers in contemporary organizations. Ratings used in this study were made by the direct supervisor (typically a senior or executive-level leader) of the managers being rated using a five-point Likert-type response scale, ranging from not at all (1), to a very great extent (5).
From the global database, we selected the United States of America for the current study, as this afforded us the largest sample, and avoided possible complications due to cultural differences, a topic to be addressed in a future study. Participants had signed consent forms allowing their data to be anonymously aggregated for research purposes. Others have examined employee perceptions of supervisory behaviors related to transformational leadership and engagement (Breevaart, Bakker, Demerouti, & Derks, 2016), while supervisor assessment of employee engagement behaviors has been largely overlooked.
The variables in this study were conceptualized from existing theory and literature with some used in previous research. Specifically, the employee engagement scale used in this study was adapted from the scale used in Bartlett et al. (2012). The original scale was created by an expert panel that identified eightitems from the PROFILOR® for Managers instrument that described behaviors associated with high levels of employee engagement, as reported from previous studies (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008; Saks, 2006). For this study, the scale was then analyzed and refined to increase discriminant validity, resulting in the elimination of one item. Accordingly, there were seven items used in this research study(α = .870). Sample items include: Readily puts in extra time and effort, persists in the face of obstacles, drives hard on the right issues, and displays a high energy level.
A self-development scale was created to measure the extent to which supervisors observe their subordinate managers actively participating in self-directed learning behaviors. Seven items from the PROFILOR® instrument were originally selected by an expert panel as representative of the construct of self-development. This scale was also analyzed and refined to increase discriminant validity, resulting in the elimination of one item. Consequently, the6-item (α = .792) scale was used to assess the degree to which supervisors observe their subordinate managers taking personal initiative to pursue self-development, seek feedback to enhance performance, and stay informed of new developments in their industry. These identified behaviors have previously been associated with higher levels of individual self-development (London & Smither, 1999; Orvis & Leffler, 2011). Sample items include: Seeks feedback to enhance performance, adapts behavior in response to feedback and experience, pursues learning and self-development, and demonstrates awareness of own strengths and weaknesses.
Job performance was measured using the supervisor’s behavioral ratings. Five items from the PROFILOR® instrument were originally selected by the instrument’s authors as representative of high performance on the job. This scale was also analyzed and refined to increase discriminant validity, resulting in the elimination of one item. Consequently, the resulting 4-item scale (α = 0.872) was used instead of the original five items indicated in the PROFILOR® instrument. The four items of this scale were:Accomplishes a great deal, gets the job done, gets work done on time,and produces high quality work.
As described above, all three scales used in this study were refined to increase discriminant validity. This was in response to concerns that arose in prior research (Tkachenko, Quast, Song, & Jang, 2016) that some items were cross-loading across multiple constructs. The final measurement model excluded the three items that showed the most evidence of cross-loading, one from each scale. No further items were excluded because the fit began to degrade when excluding more than the single item from each of the three scales. Therefore, a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were run to confirm model fit, consecutively excluding items that had large modification indices for the cross-loading. All fit results were evaluated based on the joint evaluation criteria of Hu and Bentler (1999).
In addition, to evaluate the relative contributions of engagement and self-development in predicting performance, three structural equation models (SEMs) were estimated. The first two models evaluated the prediction of engagement and self-development on performance separately. The third and final model evaluated the prediction of both jointly on performance, and these results were compared with the individual models.