Download
brandon l young mary jane sierra kimberly a smith jentsch university of central florida n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Brandon L. Young Mary Jane Sierra Kimberly A. Smith- Jentsch University of Central Florida PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Brandon L. Young Mary Jane Sierra Kimberly A. Smith- Jentsch University of Central Florida

Brandon L. Young Mary Jane Sierra Kimberly A. Smith- Jentsch University of Central Florida

261 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Brandon L. Young Mary Jane Sierra Kimberly A. Smith- Jentsch University of Central Florida

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Brandon L. Young Mary Jane Sierra Kimberly A. Smith-Jentsch University of Central Florida Determinants of Individual Motivation and Learning in the Context of Team Training: A Multilevel Perspective

  2. Purpose • Training Input-Factors: • Organizational • Individual • Team • Interactions • Training States: • Motivation (LGO) • Training Outcomes: • Affective • Cognitive • Behavioral

  3. Training Individuals in Teams • An important goal of team training is to develop individuals, not JUST whole teams • Learning must be transportable to other teams • But how do we know what the individual takes away from team training? Team 1 Team 2 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 4 10 1 1 4 M = 1 M = 1 M = 4 M = 4

  4. Team Training • We cannot assume that the influences on individuals in individual training are the same in team training • Team-level factors are likely to impact individuals… • … and interact with influences at other levels of analysis Organizational-Level Factors: Organizational Support for LGO Team-Level Factors: Leader Team Training LGO Individual-Level Factors: Trait LGO

  5. Hypothesis 1: Training Strategy Perceived Organizational Support for LGO Perceptions of Team Efficacy Member State LGO Team Leaders’ LGO Teamwork Mental Model Accuracy Team Self-correction Behavior Member Trait LGO +

  6. Team-Level Determinant:Leader Team Training LGO • Theory suggests that team leader LGO may impact members’ motivational states • Dragoni’s (2005) model of LGO emergence • Mechanism = Work group climate that supports LGO behaviors

  7. Team-Level Determinant:Leader Team Training LGO • Empirical research supports the idea that leaders’ LGO behaviors can impact members’ motivation: • Goal contagion (Aarts, Gollwitzer, & Hassin,2004) • Mechanism = Unconscious adoption of leader’s goals • Framing (Bell & Kozlowski, 2008) • Mechanism = Verbal framing of training as a learning opportunity • Sensemaking/Sensegiving(Naidoo, 2005) • Mechanism = Leader behaviors which help team members understand which goals are most appropriate during team training

  8. Hypothesis 2: Training Strategy Perceived Organizational Support for LGO Perceptions of Team Efficacy Member State LGO Team Leaders’ LGO Teamwork Mental Model Accuracy + Team Self-correction Behavior Member Trait LGO

  9. Organizational-Level Determinant:Organizational Support for LGO • Organizational Support for LGO (Tannenbaum, 1997) • Members given support, resources, and opportunities for learning • Members encouraged to take risks, learn from errors, and continuously challenge themselves to master new skills • Trainee perceptions of organizational support for learning and LGO behavior positively influences motivation in individual training (Chiaburu & Tekleab, 2005)

  10. Hypothesis 3: Training Strategy Perceived Organizational Support for LGO Perceptions of Team Efficacy + Member State LGO Team Leaders’ LGO Teamwork Mental Model Accuracy Team Self-correction Behavior Member Trait LGO

  11. The Leader as a Neutralizer • The strong and proximal influence of leaders with LGO training goals is likely to neutralize the impact of factors preceding team training: • Member Trait LGO • Organizational Support for LGO

  12. Hypotheses 4 & 5: Training Strategy Perceived Organizational Support for LGO Perceptions of Team Efficacy Member State LGO Team Leaders’ LGO Teamwork Mental Model Accuracy Team Self-correction Behavior Member Trait LGO

  13. Hypothesis 4: LGO Leader Member State LGO Non-LGO Leader Member Trait LGO

  14. Hypothesis 5: LGO Leader Member State LGO Non-LGO Leader Organizational Support for LGO

  15. Hypothesis 6a-c: Training Strategy Perceived Organizational Support for LGO Perceptions of Team Efficacy Member State LGO + Team Leaders’ LGO Teamwork Mental Model Accuracy + Team Self-correction Behavior Member Trait LGO +

  16. Training Strategy as a Moderator • Self-regulation is a critical mechanism in the LGO—Learning relationship (Payne et al., 2007; Schmidt & Ford, 2003) • Training which provides opportunities to engage in self-regulatory behavior should enhance the LGO—Learning relationship • planning, goal-setting, & self-correcting following errors

  17. Hypothesis 7a-c: Training Strategy Perceived Organizational Support for LGO Perceptions of Team Efficacy Member State LGO Team Leaders’ LGO Teamwork Mental Model Accuracy Team Self-correction Behavior Member Trait LGO

  18. Hypothesis 7a-c: Self-Regulation Training Affective, Behavioral, Cognitive, Learning Outcomes Non-Self-Regulation Training Team Member State LGO

  19. Full Proposed Model Training Strategy Perceived Organizational Support for LGO Perceptions of Team Efficacy Member State LGO Team Leaders’ LGO Teamwork Mental Model Accuracy Team Self-correction Behavior Member Trait LGO

  20. Sample • 210 male, U.S. Navy personnel assigned to submarine attack center teams engaged in pre-deployment exercises (20 leaders, 190 members) • 20 teams, ranging from 7 to 21 members (M=14, SD=2.50)

  21. Training Procedure • Teams completed 3 high fidelity simulation-based exercises lasting 3 hours each • Each simulation was followed by a post exercise team debrief lasting 30 minutes • Teams engaged in 1 exercise and 1 debrief each day for 3 consecutive days

  22. Training Manipulation • Post exercise debriefs • Experimental Group: 12 teams (n=145) debriefed using a method that encourages self-regulation (i.e., Team Dimensional Training) • Control Group: 8 teams (n=65) debriefed using methods that do not encourage self-regulation (i.e., traditional NAVY methods)

  23. Procedure and Measures: Day 1 Day1 Day 2 Day 3 3 Hour Simulation 30 Min Debrief 3 Hour Simulation 30 Min Debrief 3 Hour Simulation 30 Min Debrief Member Trait LGO (α=.88); 8 item measure of trait LGO developed by Button, Mathieu, & Zajac (1996) Leader Team Training LGO (LGO vs. PGO); “If I had to pick one most important objective or outcome of this week, it would be…” (a)“to learn as much as we can as a team” or (b)“to be evaluated highly as a team.” Org. Support for LGO (α=.85); 51 items based on work by Tannenbaum

  24. Procedure and Measures: Day 2 Day1 Day 2 Day 3 3 Hour Simulation 30 Min Debrief 3 Hour Simulation 30 Min Debrief 3 Hour Simulation 30 Min Debrief Member State LGO (α=.79); 25 items developed to assess members’ state LGO in the context of the team simulation exercise and post-exercise debrief Teamwork MMA; card sort – agreement with expert model Team self-correction behavior (α=.87);11 items measuring degree to which they engaged in team self-correction behavior during a post-training debriefing session

  25. Procedure and Measures: Day 3 Day1 Day 2 Day 3 3 Hour Simulation 30 Min Debrief 3 Hour Simulation 30 Min Debrief 3 Hour Simulation 30 Min Debrief • Team Efficacy (α=.91); 10 items adapted from Smith-Jentsch et al. (2009) to assess individuals’ confidence in their team’s ability to perform

  26. Results: Determinants of SLGO Training Strategy Perceived Organizational Support for LGO β = .37** H7a Perceptions of Team Efficacy Member State LGO Member State LGO β = -1.03* H6a H7b Leader’s Team Training LGO Teamwork Mental Model Accuracy β = 1.40* H6b H7c Team Self-correction Behavior n.s. Member Trait LGO H6c β = .37** R2=.16**; ΔR2 = .02* *p<.05, **p<.01

  27. Leader’s LGO*Perceived Organizational Support for LGO on Member State LGO (Hypothesis 5)

  28. Interaction between Leader’s Team Training Goal and Member Trait LGO on Member State LGO. Leader’s LGO*Member Trait LGO on Member State LGO (Hypothesis 4)

  29. Results: Learning Outcomes Training Strategy Perceived Organizational Support for LGO H7a Team Efficacy R2 = .05* H3 Member State LGO β = .26** H5 H7b Leader’s Team Training LGO Teamwork MMA R2 = .06** H2 β = .19** H7c Team Self-correction Behavior R2 = .03* H4 β = .16* Member Trait LGO H1 *p<.05, **p<.01

  30. Results: Learning Outcomes Training Strategy Perceived Organizational Support for LGO β = 1.64** H3 Team Efficacy R2 = .11**; ΔR2 = .06** Member State LGO β = -.53* H5 n.s. Leader’s Team Training LGO Teamwork MMA R2 = .06**; ΔR2 = .00 H2 n.s. β = .98* Team Self-correction R2 = .04*; ΔR2 = .01* H4 n.s. Member Trait LGO H1 *p<.05, **p<.01

  31. Training Strategy*Member State LGO on Perceptions of Team Efficacy (Hypothesis 7a)

  32. Training Strategy*Member State LGO on Team Self-correction Behavior (Hypothesis 7c)

  33. Training Strategy*Member State LGO on Teamwork MMA (Hypothesis 7b)

  34. Implications • Individual members do vary in their motivational states and learning in team training! • Team training evaluation should include individual-level assessment if the goal is to train transportable competencies

  35. Theoretical Implications • Team-related factors (especially leader characteristics) are important determinants of individual-level team training processes, states, and outcomes • The influence of “others” on motivational states should be considered by researchers studying motivation in group settings

  36. Practical Implications • There may be benefits to selecting team members based on their propensity for adopting learning goals in achievement situations • Selecting such leaders may be most efficient • Most useful when organization does not support LGO behavior • Most useful during training which provides opportunities for trainees to engage in LGO-related behavior • Interventions for inducing state LGO among team members, especially in leaders, may be beneficial

  37. Future Directions • Identify mechanisms by which team leader LGO has influence • Examine the additional effects of leader/team-level influences • More distal training outcomes • Team-level outcomes • On-the-job effects • Develop methods for inducing state LGO in leaders • Identify boundaries to leaders’ influence • Individual differences variables • Situational / Task variables • Other leader characteristics • Leader-member relationship quality • Explore the impact of leaders’ non-motivational characteristics

  38. Thank You! ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: This work was supported by the NASA grant (NNX09AK48G) to Dr. Eduardo Salas, Principle Investigator, Dr. Kimberly Smith-Jentsch and Dr. Stephen M. Fiore, Co-Principle Investigators. The views expressed in this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the organizations with which they are affiliated or their sponsoring institutions or agencies.

  39. Regression: Predicting Member State LGO

  40. Regression: Predicting Individual Learning

  41. Means, Standard Deviations, Coefficient Alphas, and Intercorrelations Among Study Variables