The relationship of on the job off the j

The Relationship of On-the-Job,
Off-the-Job, and Refresher
Training to Human Resource
Outcomes and Variables

zyxwvu
zyxwv
zyxw
zy

Kenneth A. Kovach, Debra /. Cohen

zyxwvut

Only a few research studies have examined training methods and

out-

comes, and these have been limited in scope. This research examines three
common training sources-on-the-job, oj-rhe-job, and refresher-to determine their relationship to job satisfaction, pay, promotion, seniority, a n d
projected orgunkation tenure. Education is also examined to determine its

relationship to the same five variables. Subjects were 628 nonmanagerial,
semiskilled, and unskilled employees across 150 organizations.

Training and development research has increased significantly over the
last two decades (Latham, 1988; Wexley and Latham, 1984; Goldstein,
1980; Campbell, 1971). However, a great deal about training remains to be
explained. The current research seeks to examine several sources of training in concert with several important human resource variables. Organization training programs are one of the most widely used methods for
enhancing employee productivity (Michael, 1982). For example, just about
everyone knows what on-the-job training (OJT) is and has probably experienced it for themselves. Unfortunately, little is actually known about its
impact on pay, job satisfaction, seniority, promotions, and projected organization tenure (Goldstein, 1986). These are important gaps to be filled
because knowledge gleaned may be useful for organizational decision
makers.
Off-the-job training (OFJT), which encompasses every type of training
not accomplished on the job, can take any number of forms (for example,

zyxwvu
zyxwvutsrqpon

Nole: Portions of this paper were presented to the Management Education and
Development Division of the Academy of Management, Washington, DC, August

1989.
H U W REQU1CL

DWELOPME~
QUAQ.TEary, vol. 3, no. 2. Summer 1992 Q J a w - B r u Publishen

157

158

zyxwvuts
Kovach. Cohen

in-house training, outside seminars, and so on) (Wexley and Latham,
1991). Off-the-job training, as a concept in and of itself, has rarely been
studied in light of important human resource variables. Instead of breaking
off-the-job training into categories such as formalized skills training or
development seminars, it is typically conceptualized as just the “opposite”
of on-the-job training. This type of training is very costly (American Society
for Training and Development, 1988) and is extensively used by organizations. Understanding the impact of this training can be quite useful to

HRD professionals.
“Refresher” training, defined here as periodic training designed to
restore an employee’s knowledge of organization and job practices and
procedures, is another aspect of training that deserves attention. Training
of this nature might be considered remedial in nature rather than as continuing education. As a concept, the refresher training variable fits well
with both OJT and OUT, because to some extent, it bridges the gap between
the two. Consequently, this study examined training methodologies (concepts) rather than specific training methods. In other words, rather than
scudying specific training methods (such as lecture, case study, or role
play), this study investigated approaches to training (such as OJT, OFJT,
and refresher training).
An additional concept that is relevant to a discussion of training methodologies and that may be useful in explaining outcome variables is education. Training is more job specific, and development is broader in scope
(Gilley and Eggland, 1989). Education, however, refers to knowledge and
skill acquisition in a (formal) school setting. Thus, education may encompass many aspects of training and development, but the perspective is
from that of an educational institution rather than an organization or specific employer. Although education is not always a viable substitute for the
various types of training, it is another method for improving job-related
capabilities and therefore must also be analyzed when looking at outcome
levels in areas of satisfaction, pay, promotions, and past and projected
seniority (American Sociery for Training and Development, 1988).
Organizations spend billions of dollars each year on the training and
development of their employees (Sonnenfeld and Ingols, 1986; Carnevale,

1986; Carnevale and Gainer, 1988), yet often cannot and do not attempt to
measure the benefit chat their organization has derived from the investment
(Saari, Johnson, McLaughlin, and Zimmerle, 1988; Goldstein, 1986). Evaluation of training rarely goes beyond the reaction or learning stages. In fact,
Wexley and Latham (1991) note that rigorous evaluation appears to be the
exception rather than che rule. Moreover, Arvey and Cole (1989) lament
that there is a lack of sophisticated statistical discussions available to be
used by those who wish to evaluate their training and development
attempts. Consequently, employee behavior and organizational results from
training are often not known.

zyxwvu

On-the-Job, Ofl-the-Job, and Refresher Training

zyxw
159

One important variable related to employee behavior is job satisfaction.
This variable has been shown to be related to such important human
resource outcomes as absenteeism and turnover, which in turn are related

to seniority (Mobley, 1982; Locke, 1976). Many facets of the job, individual,
work group, and organization will contribute to satisfaction. However, the
notion of training as one of those influences has received little attention in
the literature. Training as a contributing factor of job satisfaction would be
considered an organizational factor, since it is part of the organization’s
policies and procedures (Locke, 1976). Other important behaviors, such as
those observable actions that lead to performance, are also potential outcomes from organizational training.
Exemplary performance, particularly as a result of organizational training programs, may result in promotions and increased pay (American
Society for Training and Development, 1988). There are several reasons
why the relationship between training, pay, and promotions needs to be
understood. First, if training does not lead to better performance and
consequently lead to increased pay and promotions, then perhaps the
training has not been effective. On the other hand, if training has led to
better performance but does not result in increased pay and promotions,
then the organization may be establishing a weak relationship between
performance and reward (Heneman, 1984). In either case, the end result
may be increased turnover and less organizational commitment. Finally,
employees who receive training may feel a commitment either to the organization or on behalf of the organization to them, and as a result express a
desire or intention to stay with the company longer (projected longevity)
than those who have not received such training. The reverse of this, however, may also be true. Organizations may be more willing to invest in

training for individuals who have been with the organization longer and
who have already displayed longevity tendencies.
It should be noted that the link between training and performance is
not always direct. For example, a trainee may not always have an opportunity to apply on the job what he or she has learned. Moreover, there are
other factors, such as seniority or the organization’s ability to pay, that may
have an impact on salary and salary increases. In short, it may be difficult
to say that training leads to performance or that training is responsible for
pay and promotion decisions. However, this same uncertainty is true of
almost any research in the behavioral sciences.
The issues of training effectiveness and the relationships between training sources and individual and organizational outcomes are clearly important and, to date, underresearched. Although these relationships may be
influenced by organizational and supervisory policies, the type of training
may be able to explain at least part of the significance of the relationship.
Moreover, although on-the-job and off-the-job training may both be job
related or even contain similar content, the training approach suggests that

160

zy

Kovach, Cohen

there are some important differences in terms of how important the training is or how complicated it might be for the participant.
The present study attempts to further the somewhat limited research in
the area of the relationship between training methodologies (OJT, OFJT,
and refresher), education, and select human resource outcomes and variables (satisfaction, pay, promotion, seniority, and projected longevity).
Although there is very little theory as a foundation for this study, twenty
hypotheses are proposed as a starting point for understanding differences
between these training methods and for future research. This study marks
a significant first step in examining the impact of training methodologies
on important human resource outcomes. If these relationships are better
understood, organization decision makers may be better able to direct their
HRD dollars for effective use in their organizations.
Currently, very little is known about the actual impact of training on
how long a person stays with an organization. Moreover, although discussed
more often, little is known about the relationship between training and
seniority, promotion, or satisfaction. This lack of knowledge presents a
problem for both scholars and practitioners. The problem for scholars is
that until recently, training and development research has lacked a solid
foundation or focus. It is hoped that this introductory study will bridge the
gap between HRD and important human resource management (HRM) and

behavioral outcomes in organizations. For those operating HRD functions
within organizations, the problem is related both to effectively spending
training dollars, and being able to justify programs to top management.

On-the-Job Training

zy

OJT can be formalized, but more often than not it is an informal procedure
(Goldstein, 1986). In a recenr survey, 93 percent of companies reported
using OJT for management development practices (Saari,Johnson, McLaughlin, and Zimmerle, 1988). This may be due to the fact that, as Goldstein
has concluded, there are very few (if any) training programs that can
provide trainees with all they need to know in a setting that is away from
the job. Even the basic introduction or orientation to the job may be
considered OJT. Hence, most OJT is of a very informal nature (Goldstein,
1986; Rothwell and Kazanas, 1990).
On-the-job training accounts for $90 to $180 billion annually, as compared to $30 billion spent for more formal training (Carnevale and Gainer,
1988). OJT usually has one of three general goals: to upgrade the skill of
existing workers; to cross train existing employees; and to orient new,
transferred, or promoted workers (Rothwell and Kazanas, 1990).

When OJT is necessary for some individuals to perform their jobs and
not for others, certain inferences can be made. For example, if individuals
must be shown how to do a job before proceeding, then it is likely that the

zyxwvut
zyxw

On-thegob, Og-the-Job,
and Refresher Training

161

employee has less experience and knowledge about the job than employees
who do not require such training. As a consequence of this inexperience,
it is predicted that employees who receive on-the-job training will initially
be paid less and be less likely to receive promotions because they lack the
requisite experience. As a result of lower pay and starting level, these
individuals may also tend to be less satisfied than those who have not
needed OJT (Locke, 1976). In addition, they may also feel less secure,
since they are only learning the job.

Employees requiring on-the-job training may also be less senior in the
organization. This may be the case for two reasons. First, the organization
may select these individuals either through layoff or as a result of a probationary period in which the employee needed to demonstrate proficiency
at a newly learned job. Conversely, employees may self-select themselves
out of the job because they are dissatisfied with their pay, organizational
level, or lack of promotional opportunities. For similar reasons, these
employees may also be more likely to project a shorter tenure in the organization than employees who have not received OJT (Martin, 1979).
Although dissatisfaction is the typically cited cause for turnover, an
additional reason in this instance may be that of equity perceptions. Dittrich and Carrel1 (1979) found that employee perceptions of equitable
treatment were stronger predictors of absenteeism and turnover than were
satisfaction variables. Feelings of inequity may lead to tension (Adams,
1965), which may in turn lead to dissatisfaction. Employees who receive
OJT but who have limited opportunity for additional training or promotions
may feel inequitably treated and hence may leave or project that they will
leave sooner.

zyxwvu

Off-the-Job Training

Positions requiring additional training outside the job may be more complex than jobs that do not require such training or jobs for which training
can take place on site. Because these jobs are more involved or complex,
they may require additional skills or abilities on the part of employees. In
addition, the training itself may be more involved than would be typical for
OJT, and employees may start with a higher base pay than those without
such training and may also be likely to receive promotions more often than
those who do not receive OFJT.
One of the advantages of OFJT is that competent and often highly
trained trainers are used as resource people (Wesley and Latham, 1981).
Organizations will typically not want to invest such resources in lower-level
positions. Moreover, in today’s financially strained environment, organizations may be less willing to divert resources across all levels of the hierarchy. This is evidenced by a per-employee expenditure for training that is
higher at the managerial, professional, and technical levels (Mangum, 1990).

162

Kovach. Cohen

Higher pay and more potential promotions may, in turn, lead to higher
levels of satisfaction, which may in turn impact seniority. These individuals
may also be more satisfied and thus more likely to stay with the organization because there is less job role ambiguity. By receiving additional training
off the job, individuals are more likely to have a clearer understanding of
their roles and responsibilities (Katz and Kahn, 1978). Given that one of
the main limitations of OJT is that coworkers and supervisors acting as
trainers may not have the motivation or capability to provide trainees with
the necessary learning experiences (Wesley and Latham, 1981), the opposite may be true of OFJT. Off-the-job training may provide a more worthwhile and less ambiguous foundation.
Relating to projected longevity, March and Simon (1958) developed a
simple but well-known model of turnover, hypothesizing that turnover
results from two primary factors. The first, desirability of leaving, has to do
with (among other things) individuals’ satisfaction with the organization,
their pay, coworkers, supervisors, and so on. The second, ease of leaving,
has to do with individuals’ marketability (as well as the environment and
labor-market conditions). Consequently, market conditions permitting,
people with additional OFJT and skills might predict shorter tenures with
the organization because they see themselves as having additional options.

Refresher Training
Employees who periodically receive additional (refresher) training for their
jobs, as with those who receive OUT, may be in positions that are more
involved or complex. Simple or routine jobs would most likely not require
the individual to be “refreshed or updated. However, jobs that are more
involved or are more complex may require some updating or refresher
training. Since these jobs potentially require more knowledge and skill, the
individuals who receive annual refresher training may be higher paid and
may receive more promotions. Because the organization invests more in
these individuals in the way of training, they may attempt to keep these
individuals by paying them more and promoting them more often. The
same would not be true for OJT, since the investment would most likely be
considerably smaller.
The logic for predictions about seniority, satisfaction, and projected longevity would be the same for individuals receiving refresher training, as it
would be for individuals receiving off-the-job training. Consequently, since
these individuals are more experienced and higher paid, they may be more
satisfied and more senior but may perceive themselves as more marketable
and consequently predict shorter longevity with their current employers.
In the literature, refresher [raining has usually not been singled out as
different from OFjT. By its nature, refresher training may be viewed simply

zy

On-the-job, OJ-thegob, and Refresher Training

163

as continuing internal education for the purposes of enhancing employee
skills (Goldstein, 1986). Data, however, were collected in this study to allow these two types of training to be examined separately. This may be
important, since refresher training implies that the content of training
should already be known or familiar to trainees but needs to be reemphasized. OFJT, on the other hand, implies that new knowledge is to be
imparted to trainees (Wexley and Latham, 1981; Goldstein, 1986).

Education

zy

Although training and education are very different, it is important to examine education along with training to be sure that the outcomes of the two
are not confused. In other words, what is causing the result? Education or
training or both? An education level is something individuals already possess. Although individuals can increase their levels of education while stiIl
employed at an organization, they do so outside of the organization. Thus,
it is important to determine the impact of education on outcome variables
so that differences are not erroneously attributed solely ro training. As
noted earlier, education and training must be viewed concurrently in outcome assessment, since both enhance performance capabilities (Michael,
1982).
Individuals with higher educational levels tend to be hired at higher
salaries than those who have less education (American Society for Training
and Development, 1988; Camevale and Gainer, 1988). Due to their
increased knowledge, they might not only receive higher inirial pay but also
receive more promotions; these factors result in a higher expressed level of
job satisfaction. As a result, these individuals may, in fact, stay with the
organization longer, making them more senior than individuals with less
education. However, because of the advantage of more education, these
individuals may ultimately find it easier to leave the organization and find
comparable or better employment elsewhere (March and Simon, 1958). This
ease of leaving may lead more highly educated employees to enjoy a shorter
tenure with the organization. Since the research on the relationship between
education and turnover has been neither strong nor conclusive (Mobley,
1982). the link between March and Simon’s turnover model and this prediction may be somewhat tenuous.

Current Study

zyxwvu

Hypotheses
The purpose of the current study was to examine data from employees
who had been exposed to training from various sources. The following
hypotheses were tested:

164

zyxwvu
zy
zyxwv
zyx
zyxw
zyx
zyxwv
Kovach, Cohen

Hypotheses 1-5: Employees who receive (formal) on-the-job training when
they start their job will be (1) less satisfied, (2) receive less pay, (3) be
promoted less often, (4) have less seniority, and ( 5 ) have a higher projected longevity than those who did not receive on-the-job training.
Hypotheses 6-1 0: Employees who receive (formal) off-the-job training for
their present job will (6) be more satisfied, (7) be paid more, (8) be
promoted more often, (9) be more senior, and (10) project lower longevity than those who do not receive off-the-job training.
Hypotheses 11-15: Employees who receive annual refresher training for
their present job will (11) be more satisfied, (12) be paid more, (13) be
promoted more often, (14) be more senior, and (15) project lower longevity than those who did not receive refresher training.
Hypotheses 16-20: Employees hired with higher levels of education will
(16) be more satisfied, (17) be paid more, (18) be promoted more often,
(19) have more seniority, and (20) project lower longevity than employees
with lower levels of education.
A summary of hypothesis predictions is shown in Table 1.

Method
S a m p l e a n d Procedures. A fifty-four item questionnaire, consisting of
both closed and open-ended questions (see sample questions in Exhibit
1). was distributed and administered to 908 employees across 150 companies in the service-retail sector. From this population, subjects used in the
present study were 628 unskilled and semiskilled workers in nonmanagerial
positions. Since permission was received beforehand to interview employees within each company, the response rate was 100 percent. The data
were gathered under a US.Department of Labor grant. Organizations were
from a stratified sample of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas using
Bureau of Census and Bureau of Labor Statistics indicators.
Satisfaction with each of eleven different job facets was self-reported
on a seven-point Likert Scale. These eleven scores were then summed to

Table 1. Summary of Hypothesis Predictions

Job satisfaction
Pay
Promotion
Seniority
Longevity

OIT

OFJT

Refresher

Educational
Level

Less
Less
Less
Less
Higher

More
More
More
More
Lower

More
More
More
More
Lower

More
More
More
More
Lower

zy

On-the-Job, Off-thejob, and Refresher Training

zy
zyxw
165

Exhibit 1. Sample Questions

How many years of schooling have you completed?
Did you receive on-the-job training?
How long did this OJT last?
Did you receive off-che-job training?
How long did this OUT last?
Do you have annual "refresher" training!
How long does it last?
How long have you worked here?
What is your annual gross pay?
Have you had any promotions since you have been with this organization? If yes,
how many?
How much longer do you intend to work for this organization?

create a single index for overall job satisfaction. Similarly, data on the three
types of training (on-the-job, off-the-job, or refresher) were self-reported,
as was information concerning pay, promotions, existing educational level,
seniority, and projected longevity. Self-report data on pay and seniority
were verified using employee personnel records for over 95 percent of the
subjects.
The figures signifying pay represent a respondent's annual take-home
pay in thousands of dollars (19.03 = $19,030). Promotion simply designates
the number of promotions received. Seniority represents the actual number
of years worked at the organization, and projected longevity indicates how
much longer respondents felt they would work in the organization.
Organizations were located in the continental United States, and those
represented in the study had an average of 137 employees and ranged in
size from 13 to 2,645 employees. The average age of the respondents was
36.77 years. Respondents had an average seniority level of 6.29 years in an
organization and an average educational level of 11.4 years, roughly a high
school education. Their average salary was $18,700 per year, and 439 of
the respondents were married.
Analysis. Using SPSS-X, t-tests were run to check for differences in pay,
promotion, job satisfaction, seniority. and projected longevity among those
who had various types of training and those who did not as well as for
those who had different levels of formal education. As the variance of the
groups were significantly different (p < .05 or less), the separate variance
rather than the pooled variance t-test was used.
Using SPSS-X, ten multiple stepwise regression equations were done
to see which independent variables (educational level, on-the-job training,
off-the-job training, refresher training) had significant impact on each of
the five regression variables of pay, promotion, job satisfaction, seniority,
and projected longevity. This was done once for all employees and once
for only those employees who received one or more of the three types
of training.

zyxw

zyx
zyx

166

zyxwvuts

zyx
zy
zy
zyxwvu
zyxwv
zy
z
Kovach, Cohen

There are situations in which the t-test is preferable over other methods
(such as multivariate analysis). Since multiple stepwise regression was used
also to test the hypotheses, it was felt that t-tests were an acceptable analysis to check for differences in the variables noted above.
Results
On-the-Job Training. The hypotheses relaring to OJT were analyzed in
several ways. All of the results are contained in Tables 2, 6, and 7.
Hypothesis 1 stated that employees with OJT would be less satisfied
than employees who had no OJT. This hypothesis was not supported. A ttest indicated that there was almost no difference in the means for those
who had OJT and those who did not. A regression for all subjects and a
regression for only those subjects who had training also indicated no
significance. Using all of the above tests, hypotheses 3 (promotions) and 5
(projected longevity) were also not supported.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that individuals receiving initial OJT would be
paid less than those who did not receive OJT. This hypothesis was supported by a t-test, -2.39 ( p I.05), and the regression for all subjects.
Hypothesis 4 predicted that individuals receiving initial OJT would be less
senior than those who did not receive OJT. This hypothesis was also supported by a t-test, -2.37 (p I.05>,and the regression for all subjects.
Off-the-Job Training. Results of the hypothesis testing for OFJT are
contained in Tables 3, 6, and 7. Hypotheses 6 (job satisfaction) and 7
(pay) were not supported. Hypothesis 8 predicted that individuals who
received off-the-job training would be promoted more. This hypothesis
was supported by a t-test, 5.22 ( p I .001), and both the regression equations for all subjects, for just those subjects, and for just those subjects who
were trained. Hypothesis 9 predicted that individuals who received OFJT
would be more senior than those who did not receive OFJT. This hypothesis was supported by the t-test, 4.61 (p I.OOl), and the regression for
those subjects who received training. Finally, hypothesis 10, which predicted that those with OFJT would have a lower projected longevity, was
not supported.
Refresher Training. Results of hypothesis testing for refresher training
are contained in Tables 4, 6, and 7. Hypothesis 11 (job satisfaction) and 12
(pay) were not supported by any test. Hypothesis 13, which predicted that
individuals with refresher training would be promoted more frequently was
supported by a t-test, 4.97 ( p I.OOl), and both the regression equation for
all subjects and the regression for those subjects who received training.
Hypothesis 14, which predicted that individuals who received refresher
training would be more senior, was also supported by a t-test, 4.70
(p I.OOl), and the regression for those subjects who received training.
Finally, hypothesis 15, which predicted that individuals who had received
refresher training would project less longevity, was not supported.

zy
zyxwvu
zyxwv
zyxwvu
z
zyxwvu
I67

On-the-Job, OJ-thedab, and Refresher Training

Education. Results of hypothesis testing for educational level are contained in Tables 5, 6, and 7. Hypotheses 16 (job satisfaction) and 20
(projected longevity) were not supported by the data. Hypotheses 17, 18,
and 19, which predicted that individuals with more education would be
paid more, promoted more, and be more senior, respectively, were all
supported by t-tests-pay, 2.31 ( p I.05);promotion, 3.05 ( p I.Ol); seniority, 3.12 (p 5 .Ol)-but not by the regression equation.
Discussion
Of the twenty hypotheses tested, three were uniformly supported by all the
.tests, three were significantly supported by the t-test and one of the regression equations, and three were supported by the t-tests. Thus, nine of the
twenty hypotheses received at least some support in this study.
On-the-Job Training. Hypotheses 2 (pay) and 4 (seniority) were supported by the data. Individuals with on-the-job training were paid less and

zyxwvutsr
zyxw
Table 2. On-the-JobTraining (Hypotheses 1-5)
Means, Standard Deviations, and t-Test Results
OJT

Vuriuble

Satisfaction
Pay
Promotion
Seniority
Projected longevity

No OJT

M

SD

M

SD

63.18
17.69
.74
6.07
18.86

12.59
11.59
1.18
6.89
12.88

63.15
21.53
.56
7.61
17.05

14.72
18.11
1.08
7.61
12.42

zyx
df

t

173"
156'
606
606

.02
-2.3gh
1.58
-2.37h
1.39

55

As the variance of the groups were significantly diKerent ( p 5 .05 or less). the separate variance
raher than the pooled variance ( - t e s t was used.
p 5 .05.

'I

zy
zyxwvutsr
Table 3. Off-the-Job Training (Hypotheses 6-10)
Means, Standard Deviations, and t-Test Results
~

No OFJT

OFJT

Variable

Satisfaction
Pay
Promotion
Seniority
Projected longevity

M

SD

M

SO

df

t

64.10
19.30
1.61
10.40
19.45

8.77
7.92
1.77
9.00
11.58

63.07
18.21
.61
5.87
18.45

13.31
13.31
1.04
6.64
12.94

137"
149"
94'
99'
111'

.99
1.14
5.22'
4.6 1
.68

" As the variance of the groups were significantly diflerent ( p 5 .05 or less). the separate variance
rather than the pooled variance t-rest was used.

p 5 ,001.

zyxwvutsr
zy
zy
zyx
zyxwv
zyx
zyxwvu
zyxwv
zy

168

Kovnch, Cohen

Table 4. Refresher Training (Hypotheses 1 1 - 15)
Means, Standard Deviations, and t-Test Results
Refresher

Variable

Satisfaction
Payh
Promotion
Senioriry
Projected longevity

No Refresher

M

SD

M

SD

4

t

63.00
19.03
1.72
11.52
20.13

9.82
6.73
1.58
8.58
10.80

63.16
18.34
.65
5.98
18.51

13.05
13.44
1.10
6.78
12.96

67"
85"
57"
58'
63'

-.12
.68
4.97'
4.70'
.88

'' As the variance of the groups were significantly different ( p 5 .05 or less), the separate variance
rather than the pooled variance c-test was used.
Cross pay in thousands of dollars per year
p 5 .OOl.

Table 5 . Education" (Hypotheses 16-20)
Means, Standard Deviations, and &TestResults
Low Education

Vuriuhfu

Satisfaction
Pay
Promorion
Seniority
Projected longevity
J

High Educution

M

SD

M

SD

4

t

63.40
17.26
.58
7.09

12.70
12.75
1.02
7.25
12.53

62.98
19.28
.82
5.64

13.09
13.36
1.26
6.76
11.32

607
607
606h
607
745

.48
-2.31'
-3.05d
3.12d
720

18.91

19.09

Low education is ten years or less of formal education. High education is eleven years or more of

h m a l education.
As the variance of the groups were significantly different ( p 5 .05 or less), the separate varlance
rather than the pooled variance (-test was used.
d

p 5 .05
p 5 01

were less senior than individuals who did not have OJT. These individuals
probably started with lower pay, and since they tended not to remain with
their organizations as long as others, their pay level did not have a chance
to increase. As these individuals gain more experience and move to other
organizations, however, this experience and the training could positively
affect their pay. In fact, a recent study by the American Society for Training
and Development (1988) noted that training and education programs over
the life span account for 15 percent of the salary variance between high
and low earners.
Support was not found for the predictions about satisfaction, promotion, and projected longevity. Because these individuals are less senior in

On-thejob, Off-the-Job, and Refresher Training

zyxw
169

zyx
zyxwv
zyxw
zyxwv
zyx

Table 6. Regression for Subjects with Training

Dependent Variable

Independent Variable
Satisfaction.'

On-the-job training
Education
Off-the-job training
Refresher training
PAYh

On-the-job training
Education
Off-the-job training
Refresher training

beta

P

-.01
.02
- .04
.05

ns
ns
ns
ns

.o 1

.02

ns
ns

.05
.05

ns

RS

Promotion'

On-the-job training
Education
Off-the-job training
Refresher training

-.01

-.oo

ns

ns

-.08
-.lo

.05

-.02
-.02

ns
ns

-.lo

.01

-.09

.05

.03

ns
ns
ns
ns

.05

Senioriy'

On-the-job training
Education
Off-the-job training
Refresher training
Projected Longevity'

On-the-job training
Education
Off-the-job training
Refresher training
h

)

zy

zyxwvut

'R = -05.F = .53.
R-l = 07. F = .84
' 'R = .15. F = 4.65. p 5 .001.
'I
R' = .16, F = 5.26. p 5 ,001
C
R-' = .09. F = 1.53
'I

-.02
.06
.04

their organizations, it may be premature to predict promotion activity.
Moreover, since they had not been with their organizations as long as
those who had had additional (outside) training, there may not have been
enough time for them to earn, receive, or be turned down for promotions.
These individuals appear to be neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with their
organizations, as shown by the fact tha[ both the t-test and regression
betas were hovering around .OO. Again, since these individuals had been
with the organization for less time, they may not have formed complete
opinions about their level of satisfaction or plans to stay with their
Organizations.

170

zyxwvuts
zy
Kovach, Cohen

zyx
zyxw

Table 7. Regression for All Subjects

Dependent Variable

Independent Variable
Satisfaction'
On-the-job training
Refresher training
Education
Off-the-job training

beta

P

-.oo

ns
ns
ns
ns

.04
.05

-.02
.ll
-.05
-.01

On-the-job training
Refresher training
Education
Off-the-job training

.04

Promotion'
-.05

On-the-job training
Refresher training
Education
Off-the-job training
Seniority'
On-the-job rraining
Refresher training
Education
Off-the-job training

.01
ns
ns
ns

zyx
zyx
zy
ns

.10
-.01
-.08

.o 1

-.08
-.09
-.03
-.07

.O5

.03

ns
ns
ns
ns

ns
.05

.05
ns
ns

zyx
zyxwv

Projected Longevity'
On-the-job training
Refresher training
Education
Off-the-job training
Note: Nor all subjects specified having received training.
a

R2 = .06. F = .80.

R2 =

'R

.08. F = 1.49.

= .12.

= .16,

d

=

.03

F

= 3.21, p I .01.
F = 5.66. p I.001.
.16. F = 5.81, p I .W1.

R'

' R'

.04
-.04

Off-the-Job Training. Hypotheses 8 (promotion) and 9 (seniority)
were supported by the data. Individuals who received off-the-job training
were more senior and were promoted more often. Although these individuals received the promotional benefits that come with additional training
and education, they did not appear to be paid significantly more than
others. The t-test and regression betas for the pay variable were all
positive but not significant. Moreover, these individuals appeared to be
neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. Neither the regression tests nor the ttesi confirmed hypothesis 10 (projected longevity). The lack of significant

zyxwv
zyxw
zyxwvu
zyxwvu

On-the-job, Ofl-the-Job, and Refresher Training

171

differences in projected longevity indicated that individuals with more
training did not anticipate staying with their organizations for a longer
period of time than those who did not have OFJT. This may also explain
the nonsignificant satisfaction results, since these individuals appear not
to be committed to their organizations.
Refresher Training. Support was found for the same hypotheses under
refresher training as under OFJT. No support was found for hypotheses 11
(satisfaction) or 12 (pay). Projected longevity was not supported by the ttest. Both promotion and seniority were supported by all the tests. One
possible yet somewhat unlikely explanation is that pay increases were not
commensurate with organizational promotions. A more likely explanation
for both the OFJT and refresher outcomes is that these individuals started
with lower salaries. Although these individuals might have been receiving
pay increases with their promotions, the increases only served to bring
them in line with other individuals. If this were the case, it would make
sense that although these individuals were more senior, they were not
projecting more longevity in the organization than those who were not
receiving refresher training.
Educational Level. Hypotheses 17 (pay), 18 (promotion), and 19 (seniority) were all supported by t-tests, but none were supported by regressions.
One reason for this lack of significance may be that the education variable,
which was collected as a continuous variable, was split for the purpose of
this analysis into a dichotomized variable of either high (eleven years or
more), or low (ten years or less) education. This blurring of educational
distinctions may have also blurred the results.

Summary and Conclusions
In the current human resource and organization behavior literature, training
has not been considered a specific facet of job satisfaction. The results of
this study confirm that this should remain the case, since none of the
training/satisfaction hypotheses was confirmed. Lack of support for most
of the pay hypotheses is somewhat disconcerting, particularly in light of
the recent findings by ASTD regarding the link between training/education
and lifetime earnings. The key here may be that the data in the current
study are based on self-report information collected at one time rather
than longitudinally. Suggested future research should study the same variables longitudinally to observe possible trends for the training, education,
and pay variables. Archival data (such as actual promotions or performance
ratings) and self-report data would also have utility.
The results of the present study are interesting and potentially useful to
organizations that provide a variety of training opportunities to their
employees. However, the results need to be considered in light of certain
limitations that may exist. First, it is possible that some of the results reflect

172

zyxwvuts
Kovach, Cohen

general changes in organizations (such as the flattening of organizational
hierarchies, aging work force, and so on) that may translate into fewer
promotion opportunities and extended projections of longevity. In addition, since this study was confined to the service-retail sector, the results
may not be totally generalizable to other sectors or industries. Hence, other
organizations should be careful in interpreting the results.
Promotion and seniority were the two variables that seemed to have the
most support. Although predictions in these two areas do not seem any
more logical than predictions for pay or satisfaction, it may be that differences in these areas are simply more discernible than they are for satisfaction (which will always rely on self-report data) or pay (which may be
dictated by market factors as well as individual qualifications).
Projected longevity is a difficult self-report variable to explore. In reality,
this variable reflects organizational commitment. Future research should
include a brief measure of organizational commitment and archival data
collections to determine respondents’ associated tenures.
As stated earlier, it was predicted that employees who received neither
OFJT nor refresher training and possessed more education would be more
satisfied, paid higher salaries, promoted more often, have more seniority,
and have a lower projected longevity. The results indicated that OFJT,
refresher training, and educational level do predict promotions and seniority, that OUT does relate to lower projected longevity, and finally that
education was related to higher pay. Given these results, future research
needs to explore the impact of multiple training sources on individual
employees. The interaction of two (or three) sources of training may
account for these counterintuitive results.
Finally, research needs to determine if self-reported predicted longevity
actually translates into turnover. In addition, research needs to determine
if senior employees receiving more promotions also possess promotable
performance ratings-or whether accumulated training dictates the promotions. The fact that these employees are not more satisfied and are not
(with the exception of those hired with higher education) paid more indicates that performance may not account for the differences. If this is the
case, then organizational policy makers must ask themselves whether it is
wise to invest in training. Conversely, if training is not related to satisfaction or income, it may be related to organizational commitment and therefore be a better indicator of tenure with a company. For this and previously
mentioned reasons, organizational commitment needs to be explored with
the three training variables and one educational-level variable.
The present study attempts to fill a gap in the training literature with
an exploration of the relationship between training and education and
outcome variables such as pay, promotions, and so on. While much
remains to be done in this area, the present study should be viewed as a
necessary first step.

zyx

On-thejob, Off-the-Job, and Refresher Training

zyxw
zy
173

zyx
zyx
zyx
zyxwvuts

References

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimentul social psychology: Vol. 2 (pp. 267-300). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
American Society for Training and Development Symposium. (1988, October 12). Washington, DC: Author.
Arvey. R. D., & Cole, D. A (1989). Evaluating change due to training. In I. L. Goldstein
(Ed.). Training and development in organizations (pp. 89-1 17). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Campbell. J. P (1971). Personnel training and development. Annual Reviews in Psychology,
22, 565-602.
Carnevale. A. P. (1986, January). The learning experience. Training and Development journal,
18-26.
Carnevale. A. P., & Gainer, L. J. (1988). The learning enferprtse. Washington, DC: American
Society for Training and Development, U S . Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration.
Dirtrich, J. E.. & Carrell, M. R. (1979). Organizational equity perceptions, employee job
satisfaction, and developmental absence and turnover rates. Organizational Behavior and
H u m u n Performance, 24, 29-40.
Gillcy. J. W.. & Eggland. S. A. (1989). Principles oJhurnun resource development. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Goldstein, 1. L. (1980). Training in work organizations. Annual Reviews in Psychology, 31,
229-272.
Goldstein. 1. L. (1986). Training in organizations: Needs assessment, developmenf, and evaluation
(2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Heneman, R. L. (1984). Pay and performance: Exploring the merif system. Elmsford, N Y Pergamon Press.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York:
Wiley.
h t h a m . G .P. (1988). Human resource training and development. Annual Reviews in Psychol00,
39, 545-582.
Locke. E. A. (1976). The nature and causes ofjob satisfaction. In M. Dunnetre (Ed.). Handbook
oJ industriul and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1350). Chicago: Rand-McNally.
Locke. E. A,. & Whiting. R. J. (1974). Sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction among solid
waste management employees. journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 145-156.
Mangum. S. L. (1990, July). What do we know and need to know about employer-sponsored
training in the United States? (working paper series 90-95). Columbus: Ohio State
University.
March. J.. & Simon, S. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.
Martin, T. N. (1979). A contextual model of employee turnover intentions. Academy oJ Managmrnt lournul, 22, 313-324.
Michael. S. R. (1982, Summer). Organization change techniques: Their present, their future.
Orgunizution Dynamics, 67-80.
Mobley. W. (1982). Employee turnover: Causes, consequences, and control. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Rothwell. W. J.. & Kazanas, H. C. (1990. October). Planned OJT is productive OJT. Training
and Development journal, 44, 53-56.
Saari. L. M..Johnson, T. R.. McLaughlin.S. D.. & Zimmerle. D. M. (1988). A survey of management
training and education practices in U S . companies. Personnel Psychology. 41, 731-743.
Sonnenfeld, J. A.. & Ingols. C. A. (1986). Working knowledge: Charting a new course for
training. Organization Dynumics, 15, 63-79.
Wexley, K. N., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Developing and training human resources in organizations. Glenview, 1L: Scott, Foresman.

zyxwvut
zy

174

zyxwvutsrq
zy
zyxwvutsr
zyxwvu
zyx
zyxwvuts
zyxwvu
Kovach, Cohen

Wcxlty, K. N.. & iarharn, G. P. (1984). Personnel training. Annual Rrvlcws in Psychology, 35,
5 19-55 1.
Wexley. K. N.,
& Latham. G. P. (1991). Developing and lraining human resources In organizucctlons
(2nd. ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foreman.

zyxwvut

Kenneth A. Kovach is professor of management, Department of Management,
George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia.

Debra /. Cohen is QSSiStQfll professor of management, Department of Management, George Mason University, Fuirfu, Virginia.

&