Noe 2014

ANNUAL
REVIEWS Further Learning in the Twenty-First-

Click here for quick links to
Annual Reviews content online,
including:
Century Workplace
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2014.1:245-275. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
• Other articles in this volume

• Top cited articles Raymond A. Noe, Alena D.M. Clarke, and
• Top downloaded articles
• Our comprehensive search Howard J. Klein
Access provided by 182.72.180.238 on 01/24/15. For personal use only.
Department of Management and Human Resources, The Ohio State University,

Columbus, Ohio 43210; email: noe_22@fisher.osu.edu
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2014. Keywords

1:245–75
training, development, informal learning, human capital resources,
First published online as a Review in Advance on
January 9, 2014 knowledge sharing, continuous learning
The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology Abstract
and Organizational Behavior is online at
orgpsych.annualreviews.org Human capital resources are key for organizations to gain a competi-
This article’s doi: tive advantage. Learning based on formal training and development
10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091321 programs, informal learning, and knowledge sharing influences the
Copyright © 2014 by Annual Reviews. development of human capital resources. This article provides a selec-
All rights reserved tive review of research on learning that occurs in many different forms
and at the individual, team, and organizational levels. It is organized
around five themes—thinking differently about learning, reconsider-
ing the form and design of learning, facilitating learning in the
workplace, expanding the scope of learning outcomes, and improving
methodology in learning research. These themes provide a framework
for understanding how learning can contribute to the development of
human capital resources and organizations’ competitive advantage.
For each theme, relevant research is reviewed, and limitations and
future research directions are provided.
245
INTRODUCTION
Today, organizations face economic, global, technological, and labor market challenges to their
competitiveness. Economic challenges include uncertainty about growth and how to position
Competitiveness: an
organization’s ability themselves in a global and services-dominated economy and the necessity of satisfying multiple
to maintain and gain stakeholders (shareholders, employees, community, and environment) (Meister & Willyerd
market share in the 2010). Technological challenges include deciding whether and how to use mobile computing and
industry in which it social media, which provide unprecedented access, connectivity, and immediacy to communi-
operates
cations for employees, managers, customers, and suppliers.
Competitive Labor market and workforce characteristics pose another set of challenges. Organizations
advantage: an
are having difficulties finding employees with suitable skill sets for open positions and are un-
organization’s ability
certain about how to best manage and capitalize on the talents of a workforce that is increasingly
to generate above-
normal returns as diverse in terms of age, race, and national origin (Galagan 2010, SHRM Found. 2010, Toossi
compared with its 2009). Employees’ expectations about work are also changing. They value feedback about
competitors their job performance, opportunities to develop their skills, and work that is challenging and
Strategy: the way an personally fulfilling yet contributes to their organizations’ goals. However, they also want
organization positions flexibility to decide when and where to work to effectively balance work and life demands (Butts
itself against its
et al. 2013).
competitors and uses
its resources to gain An important way that an organization attempts to turn competitive challenges into com-
a competitive petitive advantage is through its business strategy. According to resource-based theory, a resource
advantage is anything that can potentially provide an organization with a competitive advantage (Barney
1991). Resources include tangible assets, such as financial capital (e.g., monetary assets and cash)
and physical capital (equipment, technology, delivery systems), and intangible assets or human
capital. A meta-analysis by Crook et al. (2011) found that human capital resources are signifi-
cantly related to firm performance. Although most research has shown that firm-specific human
capital has a stronger relationship to firm performance than general human capital does, the
findings of Campbell et al. (2010) suggest that general human capital may also be a source of
competitive advantage under certain circumstances. Human capital resources contribute to
competitive advantage when they are valuable (i.e., wield influence on firm’s strategic goals),
unique (i.e., are not commonly held by competitors), inimitable (i.e., are difficult to imitate), and
nonsubstitutable (i.e., an alternative resource cannot be substituted to achieve the same strategy)
(Acedo et al. 2006, Barney & Wright 1998).
Human capital resources are unit-level resources that emerge through the interaction of
employees’ knowledge, skills, abilities, and other resources (KSAOs) (Ployhart & Moliterno
2011). Employees’ explicit and implicit knowledge may be the most important source of
competitive advantage (Grant 1991, Kogut & Zander 1992). Explicit knowledge is knowledge
that is well documented and easily articulated. Tacit knowledge, which is arguably more
important, is knowledge that is subconsciously understood based on experience (Nonaka &
Takeuchi 1995). For example, policies and procedures can be taught, but learning through
experience plays a critical role in determining when and how to apply, adopt, or abandon those
practices. It is important to emphasize that human capital resources are likely not simply the
aggregation of individual characteristics to the organizational level, but rather are emergent,
that is, they are influenced by interactions among individual characteristics and team- and
organizational-level factors (Barney & Felin 2013, Ployhart & Moliterno 2011). This means
that organizations’ human resource policies and talent management practices, including
training and development initiatives, as well as the organizational context (e.g., structure,
culture, and work design) play an important role in the utilization and development of human
capital resources.
246 Noe Clarke Klein

Goal and Scope of This Review
The goal of this review is to increase our understanding of how learning contributes to the strategic
development of human capital resources for organizations to gain a competitive advantage. It
Learning: the process
focuses on practically relevant and academically important microlevel learning, training, and of employees
development research, as well as emerging work on human capital and how learning contributes to enhancing their human
its development. This review is selective and illustrative. It complements several recent, excellent, capital through
exhaustive, and comprehensive reviews of learning, training, and development published in the acquiring knowledge,
skills, abilities, and
Annual Review of Psychology and elsewhere (see Aguinis & Kraiger 2009, Brown & Sitzmann
other characteristics
2011, Salas et al. 2012). We build on these reviews by focusing on research conducted in the fields
Formal training and
of education, industrial and organizational psychology, strategic management, and organizational
development: training
behavior as well as related disciplines that furthers our understanding of how learning is evolving
and development
in today’s workplace, with a specific emphasis on the strategic role of learning. Although we focus programs, courses, and
on research conducted since Aguinis & Kraiger (2009), we also include older research that either events that are
may not have been cited in previous reviews or deserves repeating because it is relevant to our developed and
organized by an
organizing themes. These themes include thinking differently about learning, reconsidering the
organization to help its

form and design of learning, facilitating learning in the workplace, expanding the scope of learning employees acquire
outcomes, and improving methodology in learning research. Below we describe each theme, KSAOs
related research, and recommendations for future research. Continuous learning:
the process of
employees’ changing
their behavior based on
THINKING DIFFERENTLY ABOUT LEARNING
a deepening and
Traditionally, organizations have relied upon, and researchers focused on, learning that occurs broadening of their
through formal training and development programs. US organizations spent approximately skills, knowledge, and
worldviews
$164.2 billion on formal training and development in 2012 (Miller 2013). Participation in these
programs is often mandatory. Development may include some forms of training but typically Informal learning:
learning that may be
refers to formal education, job experiences, relationships, and personality and skill assessments
intentional or
that help employees prepare for future jobs or positions. Increasingly, the majority of formal incidental, is not highly
training and development initiatives are, and should be, strategic in the sense that they emphasize structured, and is
acquiring the KSAOs necessary to help organizations increase their ability to detect change, adapt, a volitional behavior
and anticipate trends (Kraiger & Ford 2006).
However, time and workload demands, budget constraints, and a geographically dispersed
workforce make it hard for organizations to offer, and employees to attend, formal programs.
Even when employees do attend formal programs, it is difficult for them, owing to the demands
of their roles, to bring the level of energy and attention needed to learn. One way that organi-
zations are attempting to overcome the difficulties of learning in today’s workplace is through
providing formal training and development programs using online delivery and instructional
methods. In 2012, technology-based learning, which includes e-learning, online learning,
and mobile learning, was used on average in 39% of organizations’ formal learning hours
(Miller 2013).
Continuous learning, which occurs outside the realm of formal training and development, may
be more important for the development of human capital resources (Sessa & London 2006).
Continuous learning includes informal learning (Marsick & Watkins 1990), deliberate practice
(Ericsson et al. 1993), incidental learning (Marsick et al. 1999), workplace learning (Raelin 1997),
and self-development (Orvis & Leffler 2011). It is estimated that informal learning accounts for up
to 75% of learning within organizations (Bear et al. 2008). Informal learning includes both
cognitive activities and behaviors, including learning from oneself through self-reflection; learning
from others such as peers, supervisors, and mentors; and learning from noninterpersonal sources,
www.annualreviews.org Learning in Today’s Workplace 247

such as reading print or online material (Doornbos et al. 2008, Lohman 2005). Informal learning
enables individuals to acquire knowledge and skills on the job, providing the potential for more
meaningful learning experiences than formal training and development allow (Benson 1997,
Knowledge sharing: Tannenbaum et al. 2010).
the provision of task
The development of human capital also requires consideration of how to transfer expertise and
information and know-
how to collaborate and knowledge from experts who have it to novices who need it (Connelly et al. 2012, Hinds et al.
help others to solve 2001). One way to do so is through knowledge sharing. Knowledge sharing can occur directly
problems, develop new through face-to-face or technology-aided interactions with experts, or it can occur indirectly
ideas, or implement through documenting, organizing, and capturing knowledge for others (Cummings 2004, Pulakos
policies
et al. 2003). Knowledge sharing between employees and across teams allows an organization to
exploit existing knowledge-based resources (Cabrera & Cabrera 2002, 2005; Damodaran &
Olphert 2000). Knowledge sharing can contribute to an organization’s competitive advantage in

a number of ways, including cost reduction, faster completion of new product development,
increases in innovation capabilities, and enhanced sales growth and revenue from new products
and services (e.g., Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch 2009). Studies in the information systems and
organizational behavior literatures have examined knowledge sharing at different levels of

analysis (Wang & Noe 2010). Table 1 summarizes the trends in thinking differently about learning
and their implications for research and practice.
RECONSIDERING THE FORM AND DESIGN OF LEARNING

The traditional form and design of learning have tended to emphasize employees as passive agents
acquiring knowledge and skills deemed appropriate by the organization for direct transfer to their
jobs. However, learning is becoming more learner controlled, socially affected, and recognized as
naturally occurring in the workplace.
Table 1 Workplace trends and their implications for research and practice
Trends Research questions Implications for practice
The realities of the workplace What antecedents and conditions Organizations should develop human
constrain the use and effectiveness facilitate continuous learning, capital resources using a broader
of formal training and development especially informal learning, and perspective of learning, including
programs. knowledge sharing? continuous learning, informal learning,
What aspects of human capital and knowledge sharing.
resources are influenced by
continuous learning and
knowledge sharing?
Although investment in formal training and How do cognitive, emotional, and Organizations should pay more attention
development continues, there is increased interpersonal job demands and to facilitating learning and transfer both
use of online delivery and instructional interruptions influence the inside and outside a training and/or
methods and mobile learning that provide effectiveness of online delivery development event or program.
learners more control over what, where, and instructional methods and
and when they learn. mobile learning?
Face-to-face or technology-aided What contributes to knowledge Organizations should facilitate
knowledge sharing is necessary for hoarding rather than sharing? knowledge sharing among individuals,
transferring expertise and knowledge. How can human resource practices teams, departments, and divisions to
facilitate knowledge sharing? capitalize on existing knowledge-based
resources.

Evolution of Learning Design
The most prevalent instructional system design (ISD) model takes a systematic approach for
designing learning, including conducting a needs assessment, identifying training objectives and
Instructional system
evaluation criteria, creating a learning environment, and insuring transfer of training and eval- design (ISD):
uation (Gagne 1992). The ISD model has been invaluable for both practitioners and academics by a systematic step-by-
serving as an organizing framework for identifying gaps in training and development research and step approach for
stimulating the study of academically and practically significant research questions (Salas & designing training and
development programs
Cannon-Bowers 2001). However, the ISD model needs to be adapted to fit the emerging emphasis
on person-centered rather than instructor-centered learning, particularly for technology-based Transfer of training:
the use of learned
learning methods. For example, the active-learning model is composed of three primary design
knowledge, skills, and
elements—exploratory learning, error-encouragement framing, and emotional control—that
abilities on the job

along with several individual differences (cognitive ability, trait learning goal orientation, and trait
Self-directed learning:
anxiety) influence the cognitive, motivational, and emotional processes during learning and thus learners’ active and
the transfer of trained skills (Bell & Kozlowski 2008). The third-generation learning model volitional approach to
incorporates the components of the active-learning model yet places an emphasis on social in- conceptualize, design,
teraction, particularly as it occurs in an online learning environment (Kraiger 2008a,b). Inherent conduct, and evaluate
a learning project
in the third-generation model is the assumption that knowledge is socially constructed with
shared meaning based on instructor–learner interactions and learner–learner interactions. The
implications of active-learning and third-generation models are that learning design needs to (a)
focus on creating conditions in which the learner is both actively participating and socially
embedded with other learners and the instructor, (b) define broad content areas to allow the
learner choice in what to learn, and (c) create instructional strategies to facilitate collaborative
learning. The principles of active-learning and third-generation instructional design have
stimulated research on the learning processes and learning methods, as discussed below. Table 2
highlights current trends in the form and design of learning and their implications for research
and practice.
Self-Regulation and Self-Directed Learning

Self-regulated learning is the amalgamation of affective, cognitive, and behavioral processes
during learning, in an effort to reach a desired goal (Sitzmann & Ely 2011). Regulatory mecha-
nisms used during self-regulated learning include planning, monitoring, metacognition, attention,
persistence, and time management. Alignment of learner goals with learning objectives, learner
perceptions that goals are attainable, and maintenance of learner motivation are important for
both self-regulation of goals and self-directed learning. Self-regulation failure in the form of either
goal abandonment or goal switching may result if goals are misaligned or deemed unattainable or
if learner motivation is low (Schunk & Zimmerman 2012). Goal abandonment has been in-
vestigated as a cause of attrition from voluntary online training. Sitzmann (2012) found that the
self-regulatory process fully mediated the relationship between conscientiousness and attrition
from training. Conscientiousness moderated the effects of commitment and self-efficacy on at-
trition. That is, a high level of conscientiousness seemed to serve as a buffer against learners
dropping out of training, especially for those who were less committed or less confident. Inter-
ventions in which learners are reminded of self-regulation appear to help them effectively manage
their time during training and to counteract attrition, a common disadvantage of volitional online
learning (Sitzmann et al. 2009, Sitzmann & Ely 2010).
Self-directed learning may occur formally or informally, online, or in the context of social
learning. Self-directed learning has been discussed in the literature for decades, but research on its

antecedents and consequences has been anecdotal or based on case studies. Gureckis & Markant
(2012) suggest that the benefit of self-directed learning may result from enhanced encoding and
retention of information by learners because they are active in the learning process.
Communities of
practice: groups of
people with a shared Social Learning and Communities of Practice
interest who frequently
interact to learn, share It is well established that social learning occurs through observation, imitation, and reinforcement
knowledge, and (Bandura 1962). Social learning remains relevant, but the social context for learning has drastically
practice skills changed with advancements such as social media providing access to a greater number of models
or social others to learn from. This suggests that our traditional model of social learning should be
revisited. One emerging area of research focuses on the effectiveness of learning from others from
an evolutionary perspective. Using a computer-simulated tournament, Rendell et al. (2010)

showed that social learning was the most effective mode of learning when compared with asocial
forms of learning (trial and error learning, a combination of social and asocial learning) because it
is an adaptive process. Adaptation during social learning may occur through the adoption of either
explicit behavioral innovations or new behavior having resulted from error. To the extent that
these errors are imitated and passed on, they may remain in the population. Although this study
focused only on individual adoption and adaptation of behavior, the evolutionary perspective may
be useful for understanding how human capital emerges from the individual level to the team,
organization, and industry levels.
Social learning has also recently been studied in the context of communities of practice (Lave &
Wenger 1991, Wenger 1998). Communities of practice have been used by organizations in an
attempt to facilitate informal learning specifically relevant to a desired area of expertise (Li et al.
2009). Research on communities of practice has been criticized for its lack of theoretical grounding
and the use of the construct to describe many kinds of social learning (Storberg-Walker 2008,
Li et al. 2009).
Recent work by Kirkman et al. (2011) is illustrative of the theory-driven approach needed for
understanding communities of practice. The authors showed how organizational communities of
practice (OCoP) are important for development of human capital resources through knowledge
sharing at the organizational level. Their model included leadership, empowerment, the structure
of tasks, and OCoP relevance for organizational effectiveness. They found that external com-
munity leaders play an important role in enhancing OCoP empowerment, particularly to the
extent that task interdependence was high. Empowerment, in turn, was positively related to OCoP
effectiveness. OCoP designated as core by the organization, that is, working on critical issues, were
more effective than those that were noncore.
E-learning: Gaming, Simulations, Massive Open Online Courses, and Social Media
The use of technology for delivering and facilitating learning is becoming increasingly popular
because traditional face-to-face learning methods are expensive and difficult to bring to geo-
graphically dispersed employees. Although e-learning has high development costs, organizations
can potentially reduce their overall learning costs compared with face-to-face instruction through
reduced travel and lodging costs, recurring instructional costs, and lost wages by learners. These
cost savings come from learners’ ability to access e-learning anywhere and anytime from a personal
computer, tablet, or smartphone, thus eliminating the need for an instructor (Bedwell & Salas
2010). However, e-learning is not inherently more effective than other instructional methods.
Emerging research suggests that for organizations to develop human capital from e-learning, they
must insure that it facilitates learning and transfer of training through the use of practice, feedback,

Table 2 Advances in the form and design of learning and their implications for research and practice
Advances Research questions Implications for practice
The social embeddedness of learning has What role does social learning play in Organizations should acknowledge the
increased and is recognized as human capital development, and what importance of social learning in the
naturally occurring in the workplace. are the implications for human capital workplace and consider how to best
of adaptation during learning? manage or facilitate it so that it
In what ways is social learning different contributes to human capital resource
from other modes of learning in terms of development aligned with strategic
what is learned and when and how goals.
learning transfers?
What types of knowledge and skills are
learned most effectively in the various

forms of social learning (social
networks, OCoP, MOOC forums, etc.)?
Do learner characteristics such as self-
efficacy and openness to experience

influence the extent of learning that
occurs from MOOCs, OCoP, and social
networks?
Learning has become increasingly Do individual differences explain Organizations should encourage
controlled by the learner and frequently variations in the learning of individuals learners to engage in self-regulation
occurs outside of a formal classroom, engaging in self-regulated learning or during online learning.
and its effectiveness depends on the blended learning? Can self-regulation Simulation games are most effective as
active involvement of the learner. of learning strategies be cultivated? a supplement to another instructional
What role should the instructor have to method.
maximize the effectiveness of blended Effective simulation games actively
learning? For example, do enthusiastic, engage the learner with the content
participation-oriented instructors and allow unlimited learner access.
combined with meaningful and
engaging online learning facilitate
better learning outcomes?
Are there certain circumstances or
learning experiences that may be more
effective using instructor-led training,
compared with self-regulated or
blended learning?
How does self-regulated learning differ in
both formal and informal contexts?
What are the antecedents and
consequences of informal learning?
Does it influence organizational
outcomes, and if so, what are the
mechanisms through which this occurs?
Is informal learning an incidental or
deliberate process? What are its starting
and ending points?
(Continued )

Table 2 (Continued )
Advances Research questions Implications for practice
Learning is leveraging advances in How do the characteristics of various The use of online and mobile technology
technology and social media. technologies used for learning delivery for learning delivery and instruction
and instruction influence what is can reduce training costs for
learned, the time spent learning, learning geographically dispersed employees.
difficulty, and transfer of training? However, to realize benefits, designers
What are the mechanisms through which and managers must focus on how to
simulations, games, and social media maximize learning and transfer of
contribute to learning? training considering the learning
How should social media tools be objectives.
designed to maximize learning?

What learning outcomes are influenced by
social media?
Prelearning interventions and design What are the appropriate timing and Organizations should adopt prelearning
elements can facilitate learning and intensity of transfer of training interventions and AARs to facilitate
transfer of training. interventions? learning and transfer of training.
How does the structure of after action
reviews (AARs) influence their
effectiveness, especially with respect to
knowledge acquisition?
meaningful content, engagement of multiple senses, action planning, follow-up, and manager and
organizational support.
Learning through gaming and simulation can be done on- or off line, with single or multiple
players (Castranova 2005, Malaby 2006). It deeply engages the learner while providing a fun and
stimulating way to learn from meaningful scenarios that approximate reality (Kriz 2009). Recent
taxonomies of game attributes can help researchers investigate the characteristics of effective
gaming and simulations. Wilson et al. (2008) proposed varying relationships between game
attributes (adaptation; assessment; challenge; conflict; control; fantasy; equipment, interpersonal,
or social interaction; language/communication; location; mystery; pieces or players; progress and
surprise; representation; rules/goals; safety; sensory stimuli) and learning outcomes (cognitive,
skill-based, or affective learning). Based on the judgments of subject matter experts who were
serious gamers, Bedwell et al. (2012) developed a more parsimonious taxonomy of gaming
attributes including action language, assessment, conflict/challenge, control, environment, game
fiction, human interaction, immersion, and rules/goals.
In a meta-analysis of computer-based simulation games, Sitzmann (2011) found that learners’
self-efficacy and knowledge were higher for those trained using simulation games compared with
those trained using other methods. Simulation games were most effective when the learners were
actively engaged with the content, they could access the simulation as many times as they wanted,
and the simulation was supplemental rather than the primary instruction method.
Social media, including Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, has merged online context with
a social element, providing a potential catalyst for learning through opportunities to network,
meet new people, and interact with consumers. Individuals who have grown up in the social media
revolution may actually learn in a different way than do those from previous generations
(Dabbagh & Kitsantas 2012). The heightened interest in how learning can occur through social
media has been augmented by the increased availability of smartphones and tablet computers.
Lewis et al. (2010) argue that it is not just faster technology, offering continuously accessible social

information, but rather the social media tools themselves that allow individuals to participate in the
conversation and to share with each other. Dabbagh & Kitsantas (2012) suggest that we may be able
to gain insight about self-regulation of learning in both formal and informal contexts through the
integration of social media and personal learning environments—that is, online media where Massive open online
courses (MOOCs):
information can be created, organized, or shared and learners can regulate the content and speed
open enrollment
of learning. courses that integrate
Although some companies have banned the use of social media by their employees, arguing that social and online
it diminishes productivity, others have encouraged its use and attempted to leverage it to manage learning
social and professional connections internal to the firm (Robert Half Technol. 2011). Ravenscroft Blended learning:
et al. (2012) provide insight into how to design social media for learning. They suggest that the learning that includes
design of social learning should be an iterative process that considers the knowledge maturation instructor-led learning
and technology-aided
process and the goal of linking individual informal learning, organizational learning, and
learning methods such
knowledge management. Knowledge maturation is how knowledge becomes less contextualized as online learning
and more explicit, and as a result becomes easier to communicate.
The knowledge maturing process includes expression of ideas, distribution in communities,
formalization, ad hoc learning, and standardization. Wodzicki et al. (2012) investigated using
StudiVZ, an educational social media tool in Germany. They found that students used the tool to
discuss scholastically relevant material, but the tool was most often used as a means for social
integration. It would be beneficial to conduct similar research in the workplace. Because the social
context is often an important factor for other types of learning (Jarvis 2012), we may gain insight
from evaluating social learning as a possible antecedent or enabler of other types of learning that
occur in organizations.
Massive open online courses (MOOCs) have been lauded in the media as revolutionizing online
learning and as the “door to the Ivy League for the masses” (Ripley 2012). MOOCs use traditional
teaching tools, such as readings, problems, videos, and lectures, but also have an interactive forum
in which students and professors can ask and answer questions, start discussions, and share ideas.
MOOCs’ most attractive features include their flexible structure and collaborative environment.
Students can choose their level of participation, schedule their course time at their will, and interact
through social media to further their peer-to-peer and social learning. MOOCs are also almost
universally affordable. As of early 2013, 325 MOOCs were offered with class sizes of up to
300,000 people (Waldrop & Nature 2013). It should also be noted that there are other forms of
online education that have contributed to the enthusiasm and demand for online learning, in-
cluding ALISON, Khan Academy, Coursera, Peer to Peer University, Udacity, edX, and Udemy.
There is limited published research on the effectiveness and impact of MOOCs. Some reports show
low course-completion rates, ranging from 20% to less than 10%, suggesting that the effectiveness
of MOOCs may be limited (Jordan 2013).
Instructor-Led Learning, Blended Learning, and the Role of the Instructor

Despite the increased interest in and use of technology-based instructional methods, instructor-led
training remains the most frequently used method of instruction (Miller 2013). Although much of
the previous discussion focuses on a movement toward informal and self-directed learning, the
formal training context, both in pure and blended forms, remains a relevant field of study. Blended
forms of learning were created to extract the best of both worlds: the face-to-face social context of
classroom learning and the cost-effectiveness and flexibility of online learning (Bonk & Graham
2012). However, blended forms of learning may still be susceptible to negative factors associated
with both types of learning, including disengagement due to self-regulation, failure in the online
portion of learning, or a lack of interest in lecture or other passive forms of learning.

A number of important questions about blended learning need to be investigated, including the
optimal mix of face-to-face and online instruction, the role of the instructor, and the types of
knowledge, skills, or competencies best learned online, face-to-face, or with a blended approach.
Experiential learning: Researchers have only started to address these questions. Beaudoin (2013) reflects on the role of
learning that occurs
the instructor in the context of growing blended and online forms of learning, acknowledging that
through engaging in
challenging owing to increasing reliance on technology, instructors have in some cases assumed a more
experiences, reflecting ancillary role, serving as a contact for questions and clarifications and less often as a facilitator of
on those experiences, knowledge. Although some individuals welcome the self-directed nature of such learning, others
and through subjective find it overwhelming and an impediment to their development. For example, those who have
reasoning
higher self-efficacy and who experience higher loci of control will persist in the face of challenge
extrapolating new
knowledge and may be better equipped to engage in online and self-directed learning than those who do not
(Beaudoin 2013, Sitzmann & Ely 2011). These individuals (those with less self-efficacy and loci of
control) may find additional value in classroom-based learning where the instructor can provide
coaching should the individual get off track.
Informal Learning
Research has illustrated that informal learning can occur through employees’ voluntary partic-
ipation in formal training activities and through being a team member (Kukenberger et al. 2012,
Milia & Birdi 2010). Some studies have investigated how individual differences and the context
affect informal learning. Choi & Jacobs (2011) found that personal learning orientation and
participation in formal training positively influenced informal learning. Noe et al. (2013) found
that zest was the only significant predictor of informal learning when considered along with the Big
Five traits and generalized self-efficacy. Based in positive psychology, zest is a character strength
defined as one’s approaching life with eagerness, energy, and anticipation (Peterson & Seligman
2004). Furthermore, Doornbos et al. (2008), Ellinger (2005), and Kyndt et al. (2009) found that
informal learning was influenced by contextual factors including commitment of management to
learning, an internal culture committed to learning, work tools and resources, and access to
people to form webs of relationships. Informal learning at the team level is influenced by
members’ shared beliefs of psychological safety (Edmondson 1999, 2002). Studies focused on
outcomes of informal learning have provided initial evidence that it is positively related to
contentment, overall job satisfaction, and self-rated measures of job performance (Bear et al.
2008, Rowden & Conine 2005).
Finally, informal learning may be equally important to or even more important than other
forms of learning for the development of human capital resources (Birdi et al. 1997, Roy 2010).
Van der Heijden et al. (2009) found that employability was highest in the presence of both formal
and informal learning. Their findings suggest that organizations should consider not only whether
or not to facilitate formal or informal learning but also how to determine an optimal mix. Also,
their results suggest that there may be an interactive effect between forms of formal and informal
learning such that informal learning experiences may be leveraged or enhanced by formal training
opportunities.
Experiential Learning
Experiential learning is valuable for acquiring both tacit and explicit knowledge (Armstrong &
Mahmud 2008, Willingham et al. 1989). Experiential learning has several distinguishing features,
including challenging the learner and providing a deeper, more engaging learning experience that
provides contextualization and nuanced learning (Moon 2004, Nonaka 1994). How learners

appraise and cope with challenging experiences determines whether or not learning occurs (LePine
et al. 2004, Webster et al. 2011). Experiential learning may also be beneficial for teams, resulting in
higher levels of creativity (Gino et al. 2010).
Some types of experiential learning emphasize learning from errors. Research that has in- After action reviews
(AARs): learning
vestigated the influence of individual differences such as emotionality on error learning is in-
experiences in which
conclusive (Beier & Kanfer 2010, Zhao 2011). learners analyze their
behavior and review
their performance on
Prelearning Interventions and Transfer of Training tasks and events that
occur during training
Researchers have considered interventions to facilitate learning or to insure that learning is
transferred or applied in the work setting. Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran (2010) found that
attentional advice and goal orientation that direct learners’ attention, set expectancies, inform
training goals and objectives, activate memory, and stimulate recall of prior knowledge were most
effective for learning gains. The voluminous body of research on transfer of training has focused on
three areas beyond the design of the formal learning experience to promote transfer: individual
differences, organizational climate and culture, and specific transfer enhancement interventions.
Blume et al.’s (2010) meta-analysis of this literature supported relationships between transfer and
predictors such as cognitive ability (r ¼ .37), conscientiousness (r ¼ .28), motivation (r ¼ .29), and
a supportive work environment (r ¼ .36). Interestingly, most predictor variables had stronger
relationships with transfer when the focus of training was on open skills, or those needed to
respond to variable stimuli with a number of acceptable responses (e.g., leadership development),
compared with closed skills, or those needed to provide correct defined responses to predictable
stimuli (e.g., computer software skills).
After-action reviews (AARs) are a design element that can facilitate learning and transfer of
training. AARs have traditionally been part of military training and operations but are fre-
quently used in training and leadership development programs as well. AARs have been found
to increase leadership behavior following a leadership development program, especially for
learners who have had challenging work experiences and are high in conscientiousness,
openness to experience, and emotional stability (DeRue et al. 2012b). Villado & Arthur (2013)
found that student teams who used AARs, compared with those who did not, had enhanced
team performance, team efficacy, openness of communication, and cohesion, but not team
declarative knowledge. AARs were equally effective regardless of whether the feedback given
was subjective or objective.
FACILITATING LEARNING IN THE WORKPLACE

Individual differences and situational factors influence employees’ motivation and opportunity to
participate in learning. Although we discuss individual differences and situational factors sepa-
rately, adopting a person-in-situation perspective can help us better understand learning because
such a perspective emphasizes how situational factors (such as developmental challenges, learning
design characteristics, or organizational support) work as moderators by amplifying or con-
straining the influence of individual differences on learning outcomes (Tett & Burnett 2003).
Many studies focused on learning have supported the person-in-situation perspective (e.g.,
Gully & Chen 2010, Kraimer et al. 2011).
Below we discuss the roles of the work environment, social exchanges, and individual differ-
ences in facilitating learning. Research questions and implications for practice for each facilitating
factor are presented in Table 3.

Table 3 Factors facilitating learning and their implications for research and practice
Facilitating
factor Research questions Implications for practice
Work–family How does an organization’s support for work–life Meeting work–family balance needs allows
climate balance influence learning? employees to better identify and take advantage of
discretionary learning opportunities.
Teams What team characteristics have the greatest impact A team work structure can facilitate learning of team
on social and self-directed learning? members through member interactions.
How can learning be better facilitated among team
members that are not colocated?
How can the different types of learning required

by different types of team-based knowledge work
best be supported?
Task Are there key boundary conditions or moderators Providing greater accountability and autonomy helps
characteristics of the relationships between autonomy and facilitate informal and self-directed learning.
accountability on informal learning? Providing employees in demanding jobs with
learning opportunities may help reduce strain.
Providing feedback is important for developing
leadership skills, especially in highly challenging
developmental assignments.
Job crafting How do job characteristics influence job crafting Job crafting can create a push for learning if it
behaviors and learning intentions? expands the job to stretch an employee, but it can
also impede learning if it restricts the job to
previously mastered tasks.
Social networks What factors best help facilitate learning from Leaders need to be architects and orchestrators of
relationships? social interaction and communication, providing
the context and culture to support social learning,
without intruding into the actual exchange process.
Mentoring Is learning an important outcome of development Organization should use mentoring relationships to
networks, or does it serve as a mediator between facilitate informal and personal learning.
such networks and career outcomes?
Personality What situational factors can prime, activate, Organizations should prime a learning goal
traits or help compensate for traits shown to predispose orientation state and provide support and
individuals to engage in learning? opportunity for learning and self-development.
Are personality traits related to some learning
and transfer of training outcomes but
not others?
Emotions How do learning methods evoke different Instructors and learning methods can influence
emotions among learners? learners’ emotions toward learning and thus
How do learner emotions impact different subsequent knowledge and skill acquisition.
learning outcomes?
How do emotional states impact decisions
to engage in learning activities?

Work Environment
Beginning with contextual factors, we specifically review recent evidence regarding the impact of
culture and climate, team structures, job characteristics, and job crafting in facilitating workplace
Engagement: full
learning. involvement in one’s
work and commitment
Culture/climate. Several studies have demonstrated the importance of a supportive learning to the job and
culture in facilitating engagement in learning and knowledge-sharing behaviors. Choi & Jacobs organization
(2011) found that a supportive learning environment had a significant positive indirect effect on
informal learning through its influence on employees’ participation in formal learning courses and
programs. A supportive learning culture also has a positive and direct influence on team outcomes
such as creativity and collaborative knowledge creation practices as well as an indirect effect on
team performance (Yoon et al. 2010).

Research has also focused on the role of psychological safety for facilitating learning. Estab-
lishing a safe climate is important for learners’ willingness to try new things, take risks, or oth-
erwise step out of their comfort zones without fear of negative repercussions for errors (Noe et al.
2010). Kostopoulos & Bozionelos (2011) found psychological safety to be linearly and non-
linearly related to team exploitative and exploratory learning, respectively; exploratory and
exploitative learning were additively related to team performance and mediated the relationship
between psychological safety and performance.
Only one study has examined the effects of climate on work–family balance, specifically the
moderating role of work–family conciliation, the degree to which an organization creates con-
ditions for employees to reconcile their work and family lives, on the relationship between op-
portunities for learning and development and well-being (Rego & Cunha 2009). The study’s
results showed that when work–family conciliation was low, opportunities for learning and
development did not lead to greater well-being. Studies based on conservation of resources theory,
which addresses the balance between one’s resources and the demands that require those resources
(Hobfoll 1989), may be a useful starting point for future research in this area.
Teams. A team work structure can facilitate learning simply through member–member inter-
actions. Kostopoulos et al. (2013) developed and tested a model in which learning originated in
individual intuitions, was amplified through interpretation and integration, and manifested
itself at the team level via the codification of collective cognition and action to affect team
performance. Erhardt (2011) provided a typology of team-based knowledge work (TBKW) to
describe specific processes of working with knowledge: teamwork that requires knowledge
sharing (Gilson & Shalley 2004), knowledge creation (Jordan et al. 2009), and ongoing learning
(Raelin 2001). Four types of TBKW were delineated—standardized, modular, integrative, and
collaborative—based on the structure of the team’s tasks or problems (ill- versus well-structured)
and knowledge composition (heterogeneous versus homogeneous) within the team. These
different types of TBKW require different types of knowledge processing and sharing within
the team.
Fang et al. (2010) examined structure as a mechanism for balancing the trade-off between
exploration and exploitation. They concluded that moderate levels of cross-team linking lead to
the highest equilibrium performance by enabling superior ideas to diffuse across teams without
reducing organizational diversity. Andres (2011) found face-to-face collaboration to be superior
to technology-mediated collaboration in facilitating team-level cognitive functions such as team
learning, team reflexivity, and shared mental model development.

Task characteristics. The design of jobs performed individually or in teams can also facilitate
learning. Task characteristics such as accountability, autonomy, and the amount of challenge or
demands appear to be important for facilitating learning. A lack of accountability has been
identified as one of the most frequent barriers to managerial learning (Longenecker 2010). This is
likely because when managers are not held accountable for their own growth and do not receive
support in their efforts to learn and improve, their development is stifled.
Research on autonomy has shown that it can have both a direct and an indirect influence on
learning. Providing more team structure (specialization, hierarchy, and formalization) was posi-
tively related to learning, and more organizational-level structure had an adverse influence on
learning (Bresman & Zellmer-Bruhn 2013). Psychological safety mediated the positive re-
lationship between team structure and learning, and task autonomy constraints mediated the
negative relationship between organizational structure and learning. Liu & Fu (2011) showed that
an autonomy-supportive team climate, mentors’ autonomy support, and protégés’ autonomy
orientation were all positively related to protégé learning. In addition, an autonomy-supportive
team climate augmented the effects of the mentors’ autonomy support and protégés’ autonomy
orientation. Fagerlind et al. (2013) found that active jobs, low-strain jobs, high degrees of social
capital, and innovative learning climates all increased the likelihood of experiencing work-related
flow. For employees in jobs with high decision latitude, regardless of demands, there was an
increased likelihood they would benefit from social capital and an innovative learning climate.
These results emphasize the importance of autonomy and skill utilization to enable employees to
use additional job resources in order to promote engagement and well-being.
A number of studies have investigated how job demands influence learning. Weststar (2009)
provided a more nuanced picture of the role of job demands in formal, informal, and nontaught
learning. Job demands were positively associated with all three learning activities, social control
was associated with both informal and nontaught learning, and technical control was associated
with only nontaught learning. Panari et al. (2010) found that the job demands–strain relationship
was stronger when learning opportunities and development were low.
Several studies have enhanced our understanding of the conditions needed for challenging
assignments, which are often part of employee development efforts, to result in learning and other
positive outcomes. Preenen et al. (2011) found that challenging assignments were negatively
related to turnover intentions and job search behaviors and that these relationships were mediated
by on-the-job learning. Van Ruysseveldt & Van Dijke (2011) found that the positive relationship
between workload and workplace learning opportunities occurred only at moderate levels of
autonomy, whereas at both low and high levels of autonomy, the relationship was negative. DeRue
& Wellman (2009) found that the relationship between developmental challenge and leadership
skill development exhibited a pattern of diminishing returns, which could be offset by access to
feedback. Access to feedback likely offsets the diminishing returns in leadership skill development
by enhancing self-awareness, reducing individuals’ uncertainties regarding performance and
success, and helping reduce the stress associated with challenging work experiences. A similar
pattern of results was observed for individuals high in learning goal orientation.
Job crafting. Job crafting, which emphasizes the active role employees play in the design of their
jobs by shaping the physical, emotional, relational, and/or cognitive aspects of their job tasks
(Grant & Parker 2009, Wrzesniewski & Dutton 2001), may motivate learning. To meet their
needs, individuals may job craft in a variety of ways, but through increasing structural job
resources, social resources, and challenging job demands, individuals are likely to learn both
informally, through social interactions, and formally, through participation in formal training and
development programs (Daniels et al. 2009, Tims & Bakker 2010).

Job crafting behaviors may differ based on individual perceptions of challenge or hindrance.
Whereas one individual may find a work stressor to be a hindrance, another may appraise the same
work stressor as a challenge (Webster et al. 2011). This differential appraisal may influence the
relationships between job crafting, learning, and well-being and engagement (Tims et al. 2012,
2013). Petrou et al. (2012) found that jobs that are perceived as both highly demanding and
providing high job control provide opportunities for learning through facilitating mastery feelings
that help employees cope with job demands. In turn, mastery feelings enhance employees’ capacity
to learn and develop. Increasing job control in high-demand jobs may be an effective way to create
an active-learning environment to foster personal initiative, but only to the extent that jobs are
perceived as intended.
Social Exchange
Employees often learn through interacting with others (e.g., peers, mentors, supervisors, and
customers). Below we discuss research on the role of social networks, development networks and
mentoring, supervisor support, and trust and fairness perceptions in facilitating learning.
Social networks. Recent research emphasizes that learning and the transfer of training occur
through social networks. Korte (2009) concluded that relationship building was the primary driver
of socialization for new hires and that the work group, not the organization, was the primary
context for socialization. Van den Bossche et al. (2010) found that transfer of training was
positively associated with the number of ties in trainees’ social networks. Researchers have also
begun to examine ways to facilitate the building of relationships as well as the factors that foster
learning from those relationships. Lawson et al. (2009) investigated cross-organizational re-
lationship building with supplier organizations. They found that informal socialization mecha-
nisms (e.g., communication guidelines, social events) played an important role in facilitating
interorganizational knowledge sharing, whereas formal socialization mechanisms (e.g., cross-
functional teams, matrix reporting structures) acted indirectly through informal socialization to
influence knowledge sharing.
Climate, structure, leadership, resources, and experience have also been shown to facilitate
learning from relationships. Carmeli et al. (2009) demonstrated that high-quality relationships
contributed to perceptions of psychological safety, which in turn related to learning behavior.
Hannah & Lester (2009) suggest that dense and well-defined learning networks are needed to
facilitate the diffusion of knowledge but that to promote creativity, innovation, and exploration,
network clusters should be kept semiautonomous from other clusters. Larsson et al. (2011) found
knowledge brokering (i.e., connecting various knowledge sources) was a primary function of
informal leaders who gained authority from expert knowledge and access to important in-
formation. Finally, Gardner et al. (2012) examined a team’s relational and experiential resources
and found that the distribution of both resources aided in the development of the team’s knowledge
integration capability for simpler tasks, but it created dysfunctional assumptions with more
dynamic uncertain tasks.
Development networks and mentoring. Prior research has demonstrated that learning occurs
from mentoring relationships. Recent research has examined factors that directly or indirectly
influence learning from mentoring relationships and the role of nontraditional forms of mentoring
on learning. Pan et al. (2011) found that self-efficacy moderated the mediated effects of supervisory
mentoring on job performance and career satisfaction through personal learning. The mediating
effects on performance were strongest when self-efficacy was high, and the effects on satisfaction

were highest when self-efficacy was low. Kraimer et al. (2011) demonstrated that providing career
mentoring facilitated perceptions of organizational support for development. Williams et al.
(2009) found that leader–member exchange (LMX) and the amount of peer mentoring in a team
influenced the amount of career mentoring the leader provided to team members. Team leader
mentoring had a positive relationship with informal learning that occurred among team members.
Mentoring research has also broadened from its traditional dyadic focus to examine the support
provided by development networks, that is, a constellation of people from different life domains
(Dobrow et al. 2012).
Supervisor support. Social support from supervisors has long been recognized as important for
both learning and transfer of training. Research has incorporated the use of leadership theories
including transformational leadership and LMX to further our understanding of the role of social
support in informal learning and knowledge sharing (Ouweneel et al. 2009, Zhang et al. 2011).
Employees with high-quality LMX relationships with their supervisors engaged in more voluntary
learning behaviors (Walumbwa et al. 2009) and perceived greater organizational support for
development (Kraimer et al. 2011). Sluss & Thompson (2012) showed that the relationships
between supervisory socialization tactics (i.e., supervisory job–focused advice, guidance, and role
modeling), newcomer occupational identification, and perceived person–organization fit were
mediated by perceptions of LMX.
Trust and fairness. Trust is a necessary condition for creating psychological safety and in turn
enhancing learner engagement (Noe et al. 2010). In a study examining top management team
member trust, Carmeli et al. (2012) found that trust was related to team learning from failures.
Swift & Hwang (2013) found that affective trust was more important than cognitive trust in
sharing interpersonal knowledge but that cognitive trust was more important in creating an
organizational learning environment. Fairness and justice perceptions have been shown to be
important in understanding organizational behavior but have received little research attention in
the learning literature. In one of the few studies investigating justice perceptions in learning
contexts, Zoogah (2010) found that they were related to intentions to participate in development
activities but not to actual participation.
Individual Differences
Recent research has focused on better understanding the role of several traits in facilitating
learning, notably, the Big Five traits, goal orientation, proactive personality, and learning agility.
In addition, we also note some recent work on affective states and emotions.
Big Five traits and proactive personality. Blume et al.’s (2010) meta-analysis shows that con-
scientiousness had a moderate relationship with transfer of training (r ¼ .28). Neuroticism
(r ¼ .19), learning goal orientation (r ¼ .14), agreeableness (r ¼ .03), extraversion (r ¼ .04), and
openness to experience (r ¼ .08) had weaker relationships with transfer of training. Komarraju et al.
(2011) demonstrated that a reflective learning style partially mediated the relationship between
openness and learning. Based on a meta-analysis of research examining the proactive personality–
career success relationship, Fuller & Marler (2009) concluded that proactive personality was related
to a variety of factors that contribute to career success, including psychological empowerment
(r ¼ .45), networking (r ¼ .31), career initiative (an aspect of career planning) (r ¼ .35), career self-
efficacy (r ¼ .56), organizational knowledge (r ¼ .31), political knowledge (r ¼ .27), and job
performance (r ¼ .38). This suggests that individuals with proactive personalities may be more
likely to engage in broad problem-solving and improvement-related activities such as informal

learning than more passive individuals are. More proactive employees are also likely to engage in
greater information exchange, which facilitates the building of trust relationships (Gong et al. 2012).
Goal orientation. Research on the role of goal orientation has broadened its focus by considering
different types of learning-related cognition and behaviors. For example, Wong et al. (2012)
suggest that individuals with a high learning goal orientation should be more likely to reflect on
experiences (a key activity in informal learning) in a useful manner and learn more from them.
Matzler & Mueller (2011) found that a learning orientation positively influenced knowledge
sharing, whereas a performance orientation negatively influenced it.
Also, recent studies have added to our understanding of how goal orientation influences
learning by adopting a person-in-situation perspective. Orvis & Leffler (2011) found three sig-
nificant person–situation interactions were related to self-development participation. Specifically,

workplace support for self-development interacted with learning goal orientation, openness to
experience, and conscientiousness. Individuals with high levels of these traits also had high levels of
self-development regardless of support. When dispositions were low, however, support com-
pensated for low levels of these traits. Hirst et al. (2009) found that creativity was related to the
interaction between learning goal orientation and team learning behavior (i.e., collective problem
solving and reflection). For individuals with high levels of learning goal orientation, team learning
behavior appeared to activate their creative dispositions.
Affect and emotion. Aguinis & Kraiger (2009) highlight that research has focused on the re-
lationship between training reactions (such as satisfaction with the instructor) and learning
outcomes but has paid less attention to relationships between the affective states learners ex-
perience during training and learning outcomes. Since Aguinis and Kraiger’s review, a few studies
have begun to examine the role of affective states, emotions, and learning. Daniels et al. (2009)
indeed found learning to be associated with pleasant affect but not anxious affect. Gondim &
Mutti (2011) looked at the affective states experienced by course participants using time sampling.
In general, the course generated affective states such as joy, excitement, pleasure, and pride. The
authors also found that training activities that were more direct and realistic generated greater
emotional impact and that team-based activities were associated with lower levels of anxiety than
individual training activities were.
EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF LEARNING OUTCOMES

By examining the effectiveness of organizations’ human capital resource development demands,
we expand focus beyond program- or individual-level outcomes to include organizational-level
outcomes that are considered critical for competitive advantage. Recent research and practice have
begun, and need to continue, to examine a broader set of outcomes, including multilevel per-
formance, employment branding and social responsibility, employee engagement, and well-being.
Multilevel Performance
Performance as a learning outcome needs to be examined from a multilevel perspective, including
unit and firm performance. In addition, the performance domain needs to be expanded to include
innovation and financial outcomes.
Cross-level perspective. Research on learning outcomes has typically been conducted at either
a micro, group or team, or macro level of analysis. However, because the development of human

capital resources depends on the linkages between learning at the micro (individual), group or
team, and macro levels, human capital development must also be examined from a cross-level or
mesolevel perspective. Typically, strategy research focuses on identifying organizational-level
phenomena that generate above-normal returns. However, strategy research is beginning to
recognize that microlevel phenomena, including individual knowledge, preferences, and beliefs,
can also have important influences on firm performance (e.g., Foss 2011, Mollick 2012). Con-
currently, there has been a push for industrial and organizational psychology research to study the
psychological basis for a firm’s competitive advantage, including the development of multilevel
theory to understand how microlevel and macrolevel phenomena and their interaction contribute
to competitive advantage (Ployhart 2012).
Strategic learning and financial performance. Training for the sake of training is not aligned with
today’s business reality (Aguinis & Kraiger 2009). Learning initiatives need to be designed,
delivered, and evaluated, and their benefits clearly documented relative to strategic priorities.
Learning must be evaluated in terms of the resulting economic gains relative to costs, recognizing
that such relationships may not be linear, as there may well be points of diminishing returns (e.g.,
Bunderson & Sutcliffe 2003). There are a number of different ways learning can impact an
organization’s financial performance by improving revenue or reducing costs, some more direct
than others, including improved efficiency, innovation, motivation, retention, and reputation. For
example, Van Iddekinge et al. (2009) examined how training procedures impacted different
aspects of unit or organizational performance over time. Using a sample of units of a fast-food
organization, they found that variation in the use of training was related to unit performance and
that changes in the use of training over time was related to change in unit performance over time
including service performance, unit retention, and unit financial performance.
The field could benefit from more macrolevel research investigating questions that relate to the
strategic role of learning, such as how to best structure the learning function (e.g., university
model, business-embedded model), how training activities should vary by employees’ strategic
value, and learning’s relative importance for firm performance compared with other human
resource management (HRM) practices such as selection and compensation. Tannenbaum’s
(2002) model of the strategic training and development process could be a useful framework for
such research. Tannenbaum’s model suggests that effective learning practices are based on the
linkages between the business strategy and metrics, strategic training and development goals, and
specific training and development activities. Strategic HRM scholars provide another potentially
useful perspective for macrolevel research. They suggest that because the strategic impact of
human resources is contingent on its contribution to the effectiveness of strategic business pro-
cesses, the value of this impact can be best realized by focusing on strategic jobs or the strategic core
of the workforce related to critical business processes (e.g., Becker & Huselid 2006). A number of
questions need to be addressed to understand the development of human capital as a strategic
resource. We need to identify and examine those knowledge-related factors that contribute to the
strategic nature of certain jobs. Also, research is needed to identify the types of learning that
facilitate the acquisition of tacit and other types of knowledge necessary for effectiveness in
strategic roles.
Creativity and innovation. Lopez-Cabrales et al. (2009) demonstrated that collaborative HRM
practices increased the uniqueness of knowledge. Uniqueness of knowledge mediated the re-
lationship between collaborative HRM practices and innovative activity, with innovation in turn
contributing positively to firm performance. In contrast, knowledge-based HRM practices
contributed to the value of knowledge (the extent to which employee knowledge can improve the

efficiency and effectiveness of the firm, exploit market opportunities, and/or neutralize potential
threats) (Lepak & Snell 2002). However, the value of knowledge, that is, the degree to which the
human capital lowers costs or provides increased services or product features that matter to
customers, had no influence on innovation. Maurer et al. (2011) showed that knowledge transfer
(conceptualized as the mobilization, assimilation, and use of knowledge resources) mediated the
relationship between organization members’ intraorganizational social capital and organizational
performance outcomes of growth and innovation performance. Finally, Sung & Choi (2012)
found that efforts by team members to effectively utilize their knowledge base stimulated proactive
learning. Team knowledge utilization, but not team knowledge stock, was positively related to
team creativity, which in turn predicted team financial performance. In addition, these results were
stronger for teams facing high environmental uncertainty.
Employment Branding and Social Responsibility

One way that learning can contribute to creating a valuable, rare, and hard-to-imitate workforce is
through employment branding, which influences the types of employees (skill sets, motivation,
personalities) who are attracted to join and stay with the organization. Research to date on em-
ployment brands has largely focused on talent acquisition issues (e.g., job seekers’ reactions and
attraction based on recruitment practices; Collins 2007). Yet, organizations do have distinct images
and reputations related to learning policies and practices as well. For example, General Electric’s
reputation and image as an employer are partly based on its $1 billion investment in employee
training and education and its management development center in Crotonville, New York (see
http://www.ge.com/company/culture/leadership_learning.html). Research needs to investigate
how image, reputation, and familiarity with learning practices and policies influence an organi-
zation’s ability to attract, motivate, and retain employees who contribute to competitive advantage.
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is an important part of both the employment and con-
sumer brand image for many organizations. CSR represents an organization’s actions and policies
that impact not just economic performance, but also performance with respect to social and
environmental impact (Aguinis & Glavas 2012). Garavan & McGuire (2010) concluded that there
is a pressing need to examine the ways in which knowledge and expertise can be developed for the
benefit of individuals, groups, organizations, communities, and humanity as a whole. Many
organizations, including IBM, United Parcel Service, PwC, and General Mills, seek to enhance
their brands through CSR by providing opportunities for employees to work on projects that
help underdeveloped, underserved, and impoverished local and global communities and, at the
same time, broaden employees’ skill sets (for example, see http://www.community.ups.com/
Community/Community1Internship1Program). Pless et al. (2012) found that a leadership de-
velopment program that incorporated international service-learning assignments helped managers
to develop the knowledge, skills, and mind-set to support the firm’s global sustainability and CSR
efforts. Additional research is needed to better understand the benefits of development programs
that have a CSR focus, how to maximize those benefits, and the role that learning can play in
motivating employees to initiate or participate in such CSR efforts (Aguinis & Glavas 2012).
Engagement
Learning enhances knowledge and skills, but it can also lead to important individual and orga-
nizational outcomes by enhancing motivation, engagement, and commitment through enhanced
job confidence and the desire to reciprocate for the investment and opportunities provided. Sev-
eral studies have demonstrated positive associations between learning opportunities and work

engagement (e.g., Albrecht 2010, Bakker 2011), but more are needed. For example, Minhas
(2010) found that having employees focus on developing their strengths led to increases in work
engagement as well as in psychological well-being, life satisfaction, and self-esteem. The re-
lationship between learning and engagement also appears to be reciprocal. Bakker and colleagues
(Bakker 2011, Bakker et al. 2012) found that engaged workers, particularly those with high levels
of conscientiousness, were more open to new information and more likely to engage in active
learning.
Well-Being
Developing human capital resources can improve organizational effectiveness and the well-being
of organizational members. This protects human capital investments and lowers health-care costs
related to stress, dissatisfaction, and an unsafe work environment. Training programs or learning
initiatives that build efficacy and/or increase perceived control could have a positive impact on
employee well-being. Researchers have indirectly addressed growth and well-being by studying
the role of stress on learning and by examining learning outcomes such as self-efficacy, learners’
reactions, and satisfaction (LePine et al. 2004, Sitzmann et al. 2008). There has, however, been
limited examination of employee growth and well-being from a learning and development per-
spective. Thomas & Lankau (2009) found that high-LMX supervisors and nonsupervisory men-
tors served as resources that minimized emotional exhaustion through increased socialization. That
learning in turn decreased role stress and subsequent burnout. Studies using convenience samples
have shown that perceptions of opportunities for learning and personal development positively
related to affective well-being (Rego & Cunha 2009) and psychological work adjustment, which in
turn was related to lower rates of use of alcohol and tobacco (Wilson et al. 2004). Finally, in a nine-
year ethnographic study, Michel (2011) documented the negative physiological consequences of
organizations that control employees’ hearts, minds, and energy. Negative effects did surface but
not immediately. However, once employees attended to what their bodies were telling them,
reducing the control of the organization, they were able to rebound and provide the organization
with more positive consequences, including increased creativity, ethics, and judgment.
Another way to broaden the focus on well-being is to consider the role of learning on positive
psychological capital (or PsyCap). PsyCap is an individual’s positive psychological state of de-
velopment characterized by self-efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience (Luthans et al. 2007).
Luthans et al. (2010) have shown that a specific type of training (psychological capital in-
tervention) can enhance PsyCap. However, future research needs to investigate if increases in
PsyCap also occur as a result of employee involvement in learning activities.
IMPROVING METHODOLOGY IN LEARNING RESEARCH

There are several methodological issues that we believe deserve attention. First, there is a need to
establish the validity of new constructs that may help us better understand how human capital
resources develop. For example, conceptual clarity is needed on learning agility, which is charac-
terized as the capacity to learn from experiences with speed and flexibility (DeRue et al. 2012a).
Learning agility is believed to be important for learning from developmental experiences. However,
learning agility must be distinguished from similar constructs such as adaptability, informal learning,
and general mental ability (Wang & Beier 2012) for it to be useful. Noe et al. (2010) proposed that
learner engagement can help us better understand learner motivation and knowledge and skill
acquisition. Learner engagement is based on the work engagement literature (Kahn 1990). Research
is needed to determine the distinctiveness of learning engagement as well as to identify which

conceptualization of work engagement is most applicable to learning contexts. Salanova et al.
(2005) might be a useful starting point for the development of a measure of learning engagement.
There are a variety of constructs that capture proactive learning behaviors, which are key for
human capital resource development in today’s business environment. These include human
capital, social capital, informal learning, continuous learning, workplace learning, deliberate
practice, and self-development (Ericsson et al. 1993, London & Smither 1999, Orvis & Leffler
2011). Some of these constructs are broad (human capital, social capital), and others are unique yet
likely overlap (informal learning and self-development). For example, does informal learning
include voluntary participation in formal training activities as well as face-to-face or online in-
teraction with others, learning through reflection or experimentation, and learning through
reading or seeking knowledge and information online (Dabbagh & Kitsantas 2012, Monaghan
2011)? The constructs have also been operationalized at different levels of analysis (informal
learning, human capital, social capital). Additional research needs to help us understand the
uniqueness, similarities, and nomological network of these constructs across the micro, team, and
macro levels. Also, it will be important to determine if these constructs adequately capture the full
range of employees’ proactive learning behaviors or additional constructs are necessary.

Second, it is unlikely that a one-size-fits-all approach to human capital resource development
will be effective across cultures. Research with an international focus has contributed to our
understanding of training, development, and learning in non-US samples, as well as the prepa-
ration of expatriates for successful cross-cultural assignments. However, more studies in-
vestigating learning from a comparative perspective are needed to provide insight into how today’s
organizations, competing in the global marketplace, can design effective training practices and
facilitate learning and transfer of training. For example, research is needed to address whether
ideas such as knowledge sharing and informal learning are similar across cultures (etic) or are
culturally specific (emic) (Conlon 2004). Also, research needs to examine the extent to which
differences in power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term orientation across cultures
influence the adoption or effectiveness of different types of instructor characteristics, learning
design, and learning climates (Gelfand et al. 2007).
Third, there is a need to conduct more multilevel research and develop multilevel theory.
Mathieu & Tesluk (2010) provide an excellent primer on the role of training and development
from micro-, macro-, and cross-level perspectives. They argue that mesolevel research is necessary
but challenging because learning systems and their components likely combine and interact in
many differ ways across situations. They are not easily measured with indexes that sum the
presence or absence of systems or their components. For example, understanding an organi-
zation’s human capital and how it develops requires more than an assessment of employees’
learning behaviors. Yet, mesolevel research on learning practices likely has a high payoff for
research and practice. Case studies and qualitative research should provide initial insights into how
learning practices influence organizations from a top-down or bottom-up perspective. This will
also help us understand how an organization’s human capital resources are developed through
compilation processes involving a combination of learning practices and other HRM practices
(Kozlowski & Klein 2000). A good example of the type of theory work needed is the multilevel
theory developed by Chadwick & Raver (2013), which helps us understand how individuals’ goal
orientations influence the way that they individually and collectively engage in organizational
learning.
Our understanding of several areas of learning, especially informal learning and transfer of
training, has been limited by the use of cross-sectional designs and self-report measures of ante-
cedent and outcome variables (e.g., see Blume et al. 2010). We encourage researchers to use de-
signs that minimize common method variance and recognize that learning and human capital

development involve change over time. In their study on the development of social and human
capital, Ng & Feldman (2010) provide a good example of how latent growth modeling can be used
to assess change. Many researchers have been unable to evaluate change in their assessments of the
effectiveness of learning interventions because of an inability to randomly assign study partici-
pants to conditions. Connelly et al. (2013) show how propensity scoring can be used in quasi-
experimental designs to improve causal inference.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
We agree with Salas et al. (2012, p. 358), who concluded that “overall, a well-developed science of
training has arisen in the last several decades.” However, we believe that the increasing importance
of knowledge and skills for the employability and well-being of employees and the role that the
development of human capital resources plays in organizations gaining a competitive advantage
should shift the focus of training and development research. This means adopting a broader
perspective of the study of learning as it relates to human capital resource development, including
formal training and development, and an increased emphasis on the social aspect of learning,
including informal learning and knowledge sharing. Many important and practically relevant
research questions need to be addressed in the areas of new forms and designs of learning, fa-
cilitation of learning in the workplace, and consideration of different learning outcomes. For
example, research that addresses the use of social media and blended learning in today’s workplace
is especially needed owing to employees’ and organizations’ increased use and demand for
technology-aided instruction. Also, construct validity work at the micro, team, and organizational
levels is needed to better understand proactive learning behaviors such as informal learning, self-
development, and development of social and human capital. A key challenge for researchers is to
try to integrate micro and macro research from strategy, industrial and organizational psychology,
and organizational behavior to understand how individual learning contributes to the de-
velopment of human capital resources. This will require new theory development and empirical
studies using cross-level and longitudinal research designs.
SUMMARY POINTS
1. To contribute to understanding how to develop human capital resources, we need to
consider learning from a broader, more strategic perspective that includes formal
training and development; self-directed, informal learning; continuous learning; and
knowledge management.
2. The ISD model needs to be modified or adapted to better fit the learner-centered rather
than the instructor-centered emphasis that has developed in learning design, particularly
for technology-based learning methods.
3. Social media, simulations, games, and MOOCs are increasingly being used in practice,
but we need a better understanding of their effectiveness.
4. Research has shown that AARs are a design element that can facilitate learning and
transfer of training.
5. Studies of the effectiveness of the development of an organization’s human capital
resource need to include important organizational-level outcomes that are considered
critical for competitive advantage, such as multilevel performance, employment brand-
ing and social responsibility, and employee engagement and well-being.

6. Construct validity work is needed to better understand the nomological network of
proactive learning behaviors, including informal learning, continuous learning, self-
directed learning, and self-development.
7. The development of human capital resources depends on the linkages between learning
at the micro or individual, group or team, and macro or organizational levels. There is
a need to examine human capital development from a cross-level or mesolevel perspec-
tive based on strategic management and industrial and organizational psychology theory
and empirical research.
FUTURE ISSUES
1. How do individual and team learning combine (compilation) to create human capital
resources?
2. What are the antecedents and consequences of informal learning?
3. What is the role of social media in learning?
4. How effective are MOOCs?
5. What is the role of the context (job demands, work–life balance, social network) in the
use and effectiveness of technology-based learner-driven methods?
6. How can training and development activities, learning, and the organization of the
learning function best support an organization’s business strategy?
7. Job crafting will provide a context for increasing our understanding of how job
characteristics influence learning intentions and behaviors.
8. Human capital resource development will be studied from a cross-level or mesolevel
perspective.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors are not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that
might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
LITERATURE CITED
Acedo FJ, Barroso C, Galan JL. 2006. The resource based theory: dissemination and main trends. Strateg.
Manag. J. 27:621–36
Aguinis H, Glavas A. 2012. What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: a review and
research agenda. J. Manag. 38:932–68
Aguinis H, Kraiger K. 2009. Benefits of training and development for individuals, teams, organizations, and
society. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 60:451–74
Albrecht SL. 2010. Employee engagement: 10 key questions for research and practice. In Handbook of
Employee Engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research and Practice, ed. SL Albrecht, pp. 1–19.
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
Andres HP. 2011. Team learning and reflexivity in technology-mediated collaboration. Int. J. Knowl. Manag.
7:22–36

Armstrong S, Mahmud A. 2008. Experiential learning and the acquisition of managerial tacit knowledge.
Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 7:189–208
Bakker AB. 2011. An evidence-based model of work engagement. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 20:265–69
Bakker AB, Demerouti E, ten Brummelhuis LL. 2012. Work engagement, performance, and active learning:
the role of conscientiousness. J. Vocat. Behav. 24:555–64
Bandura A. 1962. Social learning through imitation. In Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, ed. MR Jones,
pp. 211–74. Lincoln: Univ. Neb. Press
Barney JB. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manag. 17:99–120
Barney JB, Felin T. 2013. What are microfoundations? Acad. Manag. Perspect. 27:138–55
Barney JB, Wright PM. 1998. On becoming a strategic partner: the role of human resources in gaining
competitive advantage. Hum. Resour. Manag. 37:31–46
Bear DJ, Tompson HB, Morrison CL, Vickers M, Paradise A, et al. 2008. Tapping the Potential of Informal
Learning: An ASTD Research Study. Alexandria, VA: Am. Soc. Train. Dev.
Beaudoin M. 2013. The evolving role of the instructor in the digital age. In Learning Management Systems and
Instructional Design: Metrics, Standards, and Applications, ed. Y Katz, pp. 233–262. Hershey, PA:
Inf. Sci.
Becker BE, Huselid MA. 2006. Strategic human resources management: Where do we go from here? J. Manag.
32:898–925
Bedwell WL, Pavlas D, Heyne K, Lazzara EH, Salas E. 2012. Toward a taxonomy linking game attributes to
learning: an empirical study. Simul. Gaming 43:729–60
Bedwell WL, Salas E. 2010. Computer-based training: capitalizing on lessons learned. Int. J. Train. Dev.
14:239–49
Beier ME, Kanfer R. 2010. Motivation in training and development: a phase perspective. See Kozlowski &
Salas 2010, pp. 65–97
Bell BS, Kozlowski SWJ. 2008. Active learning: effects of core training design elements on self-regulatory
processes, learning, and adaptability. J. Appl. Psychol. 93:296–316
Benson G. 1997. Informal training takes off. Train. Dev. 51:93–94
Birdi K, Allen C, Warr P. 1997. Correlates and perceived outcomes of four types of employee development
activities. J. Appl. Psychol. 82:845–57
Blume BD, Ford JK, Baldwin TT, Huang JL. 2010. Transfer of training: a meta-analytic review. J. Manag.
36:1065–105
Bonk CJ, Graham CR. 2012. The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs. San
Francisco: Pfeiffer
Bresman H, Zellmer-Bruhn M. 2013. The structural context of team learning: effects of organizational and
team structure on internal and external learning. Organ. Sci. 24:1120–39
Brown KG, Sitzmann T. 2011. Training and employee development for improved performance. In APA
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 2, ed. S Zedeck, pp. 469–503. Washington,
DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc.
Bunderson JS, Sutcliffe KM. 2003. Management team learning orientation and business unit performance.
J. Appl. Psychol. 88:552–60
Butts MM, Casper WJ, Yang TS. 2013. How important are work–family support policies? A meta-analytic
investigation of their effects on employee outcomes. J. Appl. Psychol. 98:1–25
Cabrera A, Cabrera EF. 2002. Knowledge-sharing dilemmas. Organ. Stud. 23:687–710
Cabrera EF, Cabrera A. 2005. Fostering knowledge sharing through people management practices. Int. J.
Hum. Resour. Manag. 16:720–35
Campbell BA, Coff R, Kryscynski D. 2010. Rethinking sustained competitive advantage from human capital.
Acad. Manag. Rev. 37:376–95
Carmeli A, Brueller D, Dutton JE. 2009. Learning behaviours in the workplace: the role of high quality
interpersonal relationships and psychological safety. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 26:81–98
Carmeli A, Tishler A, Edmondson AC. 2012. CEO relational leadership and strategic decision quality in top
management teams: the role of team trust and learning from failure. Strateg. Organ. 10:31–54

Castranova E. 2005. Synthetic Worlds: The Business and Culture of Online Games. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Press
Chadwick IC, Raver JL. 2013. Motivating organizational to learn: goal orientation and its influence on
organizational learning. J. Manag. In press. doi: 10.1177/0149206312443558
Choi W, Jacobs RL. 2011. Influences of formal learning, personal learning orientation, and supportive learn-
ing environment on informal learning. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 22:239–57
Collins CJ. 2007. The interactive effects of recruitment practices and product awareness on job seekers’
employer knowledge and application behaviors. J. Appl. Psychol. 92:1696–708
Conlon TJ. 2004. A review of informal learning literature, theory and implications for practice in developing
global professional competence. J. Eur. Ind. Train. 28:283–95
Connelly BS, Sackett PR, Waters SD. 2013. Balancing treatment and control groups in quasi-experiments: an
introduction to propensity scoring. Pers. Psychol. 66:407–42
Connelly CE, Zweig D, Webster J, Trougakos JP. 2012. Knowledge hiding in organizations. J. Organ. Behav.
33:64–88
Crook TR, Todd SY, Combs JG, Woehr DJ, Ketchen DJ Jr. 2011. Does human capital matter? A meta-analysis Demonstrates that human
of the relationship between human capital and firm performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 96:443–56 capital is related positively
Cummings JN. 2004. Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. to firm performance.
Manag. Sci. 50:352–64

Dabbagh N, Kitsantas A. 2012. Personal learning environments, social media, and self-regulated learning:
a natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. Internet High. Educ. 15:3–8
Damodaran L, Olphert W. 2000. Barriers and facilitators to the use of knowledge management systems. Behav.
Inf. Technol. 19:405–13
Daniels K, Boocock G, Glover J, Holland J, Hartley R. 2009. An experience sampling study of learning, affect,
and the demands control support model. J. Appl. Psychol. 94:1003–17
DeRue DS, Ashford SJ, Myers CG. 2012a. Learning agility: in search of conceptual clarity and theoretical
grounding. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 5:258–79
DeRue DS, Nahrgang JD, Hollenbeck JR, Workman K. 2012b. A quasi-experimental study of after-event Shows the effectiveness of
reviews and leadership development. J. Appl. Psychol. 97:997–1015 AARs for leadership
DeRue DS, Wellman N. 2009. Developing leaders via experience: the role of developmental challenge, learning development.
orientation, and feedback availability. J. Appl. Psychol. 94:859–75
Dobrow SR, Chandler DE, Murphy WM, Kram KE. 2012. A review of developmental networks: incorporating
a mutuality perspective. J. Manag. 38:210–42
Doornbos AJ, Simons RJ, Denessen E. 2008. Relations between characteristics of workplace practices and
types of informal work-related learning: a survey study among Dutch police. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q.
19:129–51
Edmondson AC. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm. Sci. Q. 44:350–83
Edmondson AC. 2002. The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: a group-level perspective.
Organ. Sci. 13:128–46
Ellinger AD. 2005. Contextual factors influencing informal learning in a workplace setting: the case of
“reinventing itself company.” Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 16:389–415
Erhardt N. 2011. Is it all about teamwork? Understanding processes in team-based knowledge work. Manag.
Learn. 42:87–112
Ericsson KA, Krampe RT, Tesch-Romer C. 1993. The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert
performance. Psychol. Rev. 100:363–406
Fagerlind AC, Gustavsson M, Johansson G, Ekberg K. 2013. Experience of work-related flow: Does high
decision latitude enhance benefits gained from job resources? J. Vocat. Behav. 83:161–70
Fang C, Lee J, Schilling MA. 2010. Balancing exploration and exploitation through structural design: the
isolation of subgroups and organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 21:625–42
Foss NJ. 2011. Why micro-foundations are necessary for resource-based theory and what they may look like.
J. Manag. 37:1413–28
Fuller JB, Marler LE. 2009. Change driven by nature: a meta-analytic review of the proactive personality
literature. J. Vocat. Behav. 75:329–45

Gagne RM. 1992. Principles of Instructional Design. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace
Galagan P 2010. Bridging the skills gap: new factors compound the growing skills shortage. TþD 64:44–49
Garavan TN, McGuire D. 2010. Human resource development and society: human resource development’s
role in embedding corporate social responsibility, sustainability, and ethics in organizations. Adv. Dev.
Hum. Resour. 12:487–507
Gardner HK, Gino F, Staats BR. 2012. Dynamically integrating knowledge in teams: transforming resources
into performance. Acad. Manag. J. 55:998–1022
Gelfand MJ, Erez M, Aycan Z. 2007. Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 58:479–514
Gilson LL, Shalley CE. 2004. A little creativity goes a long way: an examination of teams’ engagement in
creative processes. J. Manag. 30:453–70
Gino F, Argote L, Miron-Spektor E, Todorova G. 2010. First, get your feet wet: the effects of learning from
direct and indirect experience on team creativity. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 111:102–15
Gondim SMG, Mutti C. 2011. Affections in learning situations: a study of an entrepreneurship skills de-
velopment course. J. Workplace Learn. 23:195–208
Gong Y, Cheung SY, Wang M, Huang JC. 2012. Unfolding the proactive process for creativity: integration of
the employee proactivity, information exchange, and psychological safety perspectives. J. Manag.
38:1611–33
Grant AM, Parker SK. 2009. Redesigning work design theories: the rise of relational and proactive per-
spectives. Acad. Manag. Ann. 3:317–75
Grant RM. 1991. The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation.
Calif. Manag. Rev. 33:115–35
Gully S, Chen G. 2010. Individual differences, attribute-treatment interactions, and training outcomes. See
Kozlowski & Salas 2010, pp. 3–64
Gureckis TM, Markant DB. 2012. Self-directed learning: a cognitive and computational perspective. Perspect.
Psychol. Sci. 7:464–81
Hannah ST, Lester PB. 2009. A multilevel approach to building and leading learning organizations. Leadersh.
Q. 20:34–48
Hinds PJ, Patterson M, Pfeffer J. 2001. Bothered by abstraction: the effect of expertise on knowledge transfer
and subsequent novice performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 86:1232–43
Hirst G, Van Knippenberg D, Zhou J. 2009. A cross-level perspective on employee creativity: goal orientation,
team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Acad. Manag. J. 52:280–93
Hobfoll SE. 1989. Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am. Psychol. 44:513–24
Jarvis P. 2012. Adult Learning in the Social Context. New York: Routledge
Jordan K. 2013. MOOC completion rates: the data. Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) Database,
accessed Oct. 16, 2013. http://www.katyjordan.com/MOOCproject.html
Jordan N, Becker R, Gunsolus J, White S, Damme S. 2009. Knowledge networks: an avenue to ecological
management of invasive weeds. Weed Sci. 51:271–77
Kahn WA. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Acad. Manag.
J. 33:692–724
Kirkman BL, Mathieu JE, Cordery JL, Rosen B, Kukenberger M. 2011. Managing a new collaborative entity in
business organizations: understanding organizational communities of practice effectiveness. J. Appl.
Psychol. 96:1234–45
Kogut B, Zander U. 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology.
Organ. Sci. 3:383–97
Komarraju M, Karau SJ, Schmeck RR, Avdic A. 2011. The Big Five personality traits, learning styles, and
academic achievement. Personal. Individ. Differ. 51:472–77
Korte RF. 2009. How newcomers learn the social norms of an organization: a case study of the socialization of
newly hired engineers. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 20:285–306
Kostopoulos KC, Bozionelos N. 2011. Team exploratory and exploitative learning: psychological safety, task
conflict, and team performance. Group Organ. Manag. 36:385–415
Kostopoulos KC, Spanos YE, Prastacos GP. 2013. Structure and function of team learning emergence:
a multilevel empirical validation. J. Manag. 39:1430–61

Kozlowski SWJ, Klein KJ. 2000. A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: contextual,
temporal, and emergent processes. In Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations:
Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions, ed. SWJ Kozlowski, KJ Klein, pp. 3–90. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass
Kozlowski SWJ, Salas E, eds. 2010. Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations, Vol. 1. New York:
Routledge
Kraiger K. 2008a. Third-generation instructional models: more about guiding development and design than
selecting training methods. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 1:501–7
Kraiger K. 2008b. Transforming our models of learning and development: Web-based instruction as enabler of
third-generation instruction. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 1:454–57
Kraiger K, Ford JK. 2006. The expanding role of workplace training: themes and trends influencing training
research and practice. In Historical Perspectives in Industrial and Organizational Psychology, ed. LL
Koppes, pp. 281–309. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

Kraimer ML, Seibert SE, Wayne SJ, Liden RC, Bravo J. 2011. Antecedents and outcomes of or- Shows that career
ganizational support for development: the critical role of career opportunities. J. Appl. Psychol. mentoring facilitated
96:485–500 perceptions of
Kriz WC. 2009. Bridging the gap transforming knowledge into action through gaming and simulation. Simul. organizational support for
development.
Gaming 40:28–29
Kukenberger MR, Mathieu JE, Ruddy T. 2012. A cross-level test of empowerment and process influences on
members’ informal learning and team commitment. J. Manag. In press. doi: 10.1177/0149206312443559
Kyndt E, Dochy F, Nijs H. 2009. Learning conditions for non-formal and informal workplace learning.
J. Workplace Learn. 21:369–83
Larsson M, Segerstéen S, Svensson C. 2011. Information and informality: leaders as knowledge brokers in
a high-tech firm. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 18:175–91
Lave J, Wenger E. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge Univ.
Press
Lawson B, Petersen KJ, Cousins PD, Handfield RB. 2009. Knowledge sharing in interorganizational product
development teams: the effect of formal and informal socialization mechanisms. J. Prod. Innov. Manag.
26:156–72
Lepak DP, Snell SA. 2002. Examining the human resource architecture: the relationships among human
capital, employment, and human resource configurations. J. Manag. 28:517–43
LePine JA, LePine MA, Jackson CL. 2004. Challenge and hindrance stress: relationships with exhaustion,
motivation to learn, and learning performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 89:883–91
Lewis S, Pea R, Rosen J. 2010. Beyond participation to co-creation of meaning: mobile social media in
generative learning communities. Soc. Sci. Inf. (Paris) 49:351–69
Li LC, Grimshaw JM, Nielsen C, Judd M, Coyte PC, Graham ID. 2009. Use of communities of practice in
business and health care sectors: a systematic review. Implement. Sci. 4:16
Liu D, Fu PP. 2011. Motivating protégés’ personal learning in teams: a multilevel investigation of autonomy
support and autonomy orientation. J. Appl. Psychol. 96:1195–208
Lohman MC. 2005. A survey of factors influencing the engagement of two professional groups in informal
workplace learning activities. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 16:501–27
London M, Smither JW. 1999. Empowered self-development and continuous learning. Hum. Resour. Manag.
38:3–15
Longenecker CO. 2010. Barriers to managerial learning: lessons for rapidly changing organizations. Dev.
Learn. Organ. 24:8–11
Lopez-Cabrales A, Pérez-Luño A, Cabrera RV. 2009. Knowledge as a mediator between HRM practices and
innovative activity. Hum. Resour. Manag. 48:485–503
Luthans F, Avey JB, Avolio BJ, Peterson SJ. 2010. The development and resulting performance impact of
positive psychological capital. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 21:41–67
Luthans F, Youssef CM, Avolio BJ. 2007. Psychological Capital: Developing the Human Competitive Edge.
New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Malaby T. 2006. Parlaying value: capital in and beyond virtual worlds. Games Cult. 1:141–62

Marsick VJ, Volpe M, Watkins KE. 1999. Theory and practice of informal learning in the knowledge era. Adv.
Dev. Hum. Resour. 1:80–95
Marsick VJ, Watkins KE. 1990. Informal and Incidental Learning in the Workplace. New York: Routledge/
Kegan Paul
Mathieu JE, Tesluk PE. 2010. A multilevel perspective on training and development effectiveness. See
Matzler K, Mueller J. 2011. Antecedents of knowledge sharing—examining the influence of learning and
performance orientation. J. Econ. Psychol. 32:317–29
Maurer I, Bartsch V, Ebers M. 2011. The value of intra-organizational social capital: how it fosters knowledge
transfer, innovation performance, and growth. Organ. Stud. 32:157–85
Meister JC, Willyerd K. 2010. The 2020 Workplace: How Innovative Companies Attract, Develop, and Keep
Tomorrow’s Employees Today. New York: HarperCollins
Mesmer-Magnus JR, DeChurch LA. 2009. Information sharing and team performance: a meta-analysis. J.
Appl. Psychol. 94:535–46
Summarizes the Mesmer-Magnus JR, Viswesvaran C. 2010. The role of pre-training interventions in learning: a meta-analysis
relationship between and integrative review. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 20:261–82
pretraining interventions Michel A. 2011. Transcending socialization: a nine-year ethnography of the body’s role in organizational
and learning. control and knowledge workers’ transformation. Adm. Sci. Q. 56:325–68
Milia L, Birdi K. 2010. The relationship between multiple levels of learning practices and objective and
subjective organizational financial performance. J. Organ. Behav. 31:481–98
Miller L. 2013. State of the industry. Rep., Am. Soc. Train. Dev., Alexandria, VA
Minhas G. 2010. Developing realised and unrealised strengths: implications for engagement, self-esteem, life
satisfaction and well-being. Assess. Dev. Matters 2:12–16
Mollick E. 2012. People and process, suits and innovators: the role of individuals in firm performance. Strateg.
Manag. J. 33:1001–15
Monaghan CH. 2011. Communities of practice: a learning strategy for management education. J. Manag.
Educ. 35:428–53
Moon JA. 2004. A Handbook of Reflective and Experiential Learning: Theory and Practice. New York:
Routledge
Exemplifies how latent Ng TW, Feldman DC. 2010. The effects of organizational embeddedness on development of social capital and
growth modeling can be human capital. J. Appl. Psychol. 95:696–712
used to assess the Noe RA, Tews MJ, Dachner A. 2010. Learner engagement: a new perspective for our understanding of learner
development of social and motivation and workplace learning. Acad. Manag. Ann. 4:279–315
human capital.
Noe RA, Tews MJ, Marand A. 2013. Individual differences and informal learning in the workplace. J. Vocat.
Behav. 83:327–35
Nonaka I. 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organ. Sci. 5:14–37
Nonaka I, Takeuchi H. 1995. The Knowledge Creating Company. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Orvis KA, Leffler GP. 2011. Individual and contextual factors: an interactionist approach to understanding
employee self-development. Personal. Individ. Differ. 51:172–7
Ouweneel AP, Taris TW, Van Zolingen SJ, Schreurs PJG. 2009. How task characteristics and social support
relate to managerial learning: empirical evidence from Dutch home care. J. Psychol. 143:28–44
Pan W, Sun LY, Chow IHS. 2011. The impact of supervisory mentoring on personal learning and career
outcomes: the dual moderating effect of self-efficacy. J. Vocat. Behav. 78:264–73
Panari C, Guglielmi D, Simbula S, Depolo M. 2010. Can an opportunity to learn at work reduce stress? A
revisitation of the job demand-control model. J. Workplace Learn. 22:166–79
Peterson C, Seligman ME. 2004. Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification. New York:
Oxford Univ. Press
Petrou P, Demerouti E, Peeters MC, Schaufeli WB, Hetland J. 2012. Crafting a job on a daily basis: contextual
correlates and the link to work engagement. J. Organ. Behav. 33:1120–41
Pless NM, Maak T, Stahl GK. 2012. Promoting corporate social responsibility and sustainable development
through management development: What can be learned from international service learning programs?
Hum. Resour. Manag. 51:873–903

Ployhart RE. 2012. The psychology of competitive advantage: an adjacent possibility. Ind. Organ. Psychol.
5:62–81
Ployhart RE, Moliterno TP. 2011. Emergence of the human capital resource: a multilevel model. Acad. Manag. Provides a multilevel
Rev. 36:127–50 model of human capital
Preenen PT, De Pater IE, Van Vianen AE, Keijzer L. 2011. Managing voluntary turnover through challenging resources.
assignments. Group Organ. Manag. 36:308–44
Pulakos ED, Dorsey DW, Borman WC. 2003. Hiring for knowledge-based competition. In Managing
Knowledge for Sustained Competitive Advantage: Designing Strategies for Effective Human Resource
Management, ed. SE Jackson, A DeNisi, MA Hitt, pp. 155–61. San Francisco: Wiley
Raelin JA. 1997. A model of work-based learning. Organ. Sci. 8:563–78
Raelin JA. 2001. Public reflection as the basis of learning. Manag. Learn. 32:11–30
Ravenscroft A, Schmidt A, Cook J, Bradley C. 2012. Designing social media for informal learning and
knowledge maturing in the digital workplace. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 28:235–49

Rego A, Cunha MP. 2009. Do the opportunities for learning and personal development lead to happiness? It Finds that when
depends on work-family conciliation. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 14:334–48 work–family conciliation
Rendell L, Boyd R, Cownden D, Enquist M. 2010. Why copy others? Insights from the social learning strategies is low, opportunities for
tournament. Science 328:208–13 learning and development
are unrelated to greater

Ripley A. 2012. College is dead. Long live college! Time, Oct. 18. http://nation.time.com/2012/10/18/college-
well-being.
is-dead-long-live-college/
Robert Half Technol. 2011. Social work? More companies permit social networking on the job, Robert
Half Technology survey reveals. PR Newswire, May 26. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/
social-work-more-companies-permit-social-networking-on-the-job-robert-half-technology-survey-reveals-
122650448.html
Rowden RW, Conine CTJ. 2005. The impact of workplace learning on job satisfaction in small US commercial
banks. J. Workplace Learn. 17:215–30
Roy JN 2010. Transforming informal learning into competitive advantage. TþD 10:23–25
Salanova M, Agut S, Peiro JM. 2005. Linking organizational resources and work engagement to em-
ployee performance and customer loyalty: the mediation of service climate. J. Appl. Psychol.
90:1217–27
Salas E, Cannon-Bowers JA. 2001. The science of training: a decade of progress. Annu. Rev. Psychol.
52:471–99
Salas E, Weaver SJ, Shuffler ML. 2012. Learning, training, and development in organizations. In The Oxford
Handbook of Organizational Psychology, ed. SWJ Kozlowski, pp. 330–72. New York: Oxford Univ.
Press
Schunk DH, Zimmerman BJ. 2012. Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning: Theory, Research, and
Applications. New York: Routledge
Sessa V, London M. 2006. Continuous Learning in Organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
SHRM Found. 2010. SHRM Foundation Leadership Roundtable: What’s Next for HR? Alexandria, VA:
SHRM Found.
Sitzmann T. 2011. A meta-analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness of computer-based simu- Provides insights into the
lation games. Pers. Psychol. 64:489–528 effectiveness of
Sitzmann T. 2012. A theoretical model and analysis of the effect of self-regulation on attrition from voluntary simulations and games.
online training. Learn. Individ. Differ. 22:46–54
Sitzmann T, Bell BS, Kraiger K, Kanar AM. 2009. A multilevel analysis of the effect of prompting self-
regulation in technology-delivered instruction. Pers. Psychol. 62:697–734
Sitzmann T, Brown KG, Casper WJ, Ely K, Zimmerman RD. 2008. A review and meta-analysis of the no-
mological network of trainee reactions. J. Appl. Psychol. 93:280–95
Sitzmann T, Ely K. 2010. Sometimes you need a reminder: the effects of prompting self-regulation on regulatory
processes, learning, and attrition. J. Appl. Psychol. 95:132–44
Sitzmann T, Ely K. 2011. A meta-analysis of self-regulated learning in work-related training and educational
attainment: what we know and where we need to go. Psychol. Bull. 137:421–42

Sluss DM, Thompson BS. 2012. Socializing the newcomer: the mediating role of leader–member exchange.
Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 119:114–25
Storberg-Walker J. 2008. Wenger’s communities of practice revisited: a (failed?) exercise in applied com-
munities of practice theory-building research. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 10:555–77
Sung SY, Choi JN. 2012. Effects of team knowledge management on the creativity and financial performance
of organizational teams. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 118:4–13
Swift PE, Hwang A. 2013. The impact of affective and cognitive trust on knowledge sharing and organiza-
tional learning. Learn. Organ. 20:20–37
Tannenbaum SI. 2002. A strategic view of organizational training and learning. In Creating, Implementing,
and Managing Effective Training and Development, ed. K Kraiger, pp. 10–52. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Tannenbaum SI, Beard R, McNall LA, Salas E. 2010. Informal learning and development in organizations. See
Tett RP, Burnett DD. 2003. A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. J. Appl. Psychol.
88:500–17
Thomas CH, Lankau MJ. 2009. Preventing burnout: the effects of LMX and mentoring on socialization, role
stress, and burnout. Hum. Resour. Manag. 48:417–32
Tims M, Bakker AB. 2010. Job crafting: towards a new model of individual job redesign. SA J. Ind. Psy-
chol.36:12–21
Tims M, Bakker AB, Derks D. 2012. Development and validation of the job crafting scale. J. Vocat. Behav.
80:173–86
Tims M, Bakker AB, Derks D. 2013. The impact of job crafting on job demands, job resources, and well-being.
J. Occup. Health Psychol. 18:230–40
Toossi M. 2009. Employment outlook: 2008–18: labor force projections to 2018: older workers staying more
active. Mon. Labor Rev. 132:30–51
Van den Bossche P, Segers M, Jansen N. 2010. Transfer of training: the role of feedback in supportive social
networks. Int. J. Train. Dev. 14:81–94
Van der Heijden B, Boon J, Van der Klink M, Meijs E. 2009. Employability enhancement through formal and
informal learning: an empirical study among Dutch non-academic university staff members. Int. J. Train.
Dev. 13:19–37
Examines how training Van Iddekinge CH, Ferris GR, Perrewé PL, Blass FR, Heetderks TD, Perryman AA. 2009. Effects of selection
procedures impacted and training on unit-level performance over time: a latent growth modeling approach. J. Appl. Psychol.
different aspects of unit 94:829–43
and organizational Van Ruysseveldt J, Van Dijke M. 2011. When are workload and workplace learning opportunities related in
performance over time.
a curvilinear manner? The moderating role of autonomy. J. Vocat. Behav. 79:470–83
Villado AJ, Arthur JW. 2013. The comparative effect of subjective and objective after-action reviews on team
performance on a complex task. J. Appl. Psychol. 98:514–28
Waldrop MM, Nature. 2013. Massive open online courses, aka MOOCs, transform higher education and
science. Scientific American, Mar. 13
Walumbwa FO, Cropanzano R, Hartnell CA. 2009. Organizational justice, voluntary learning behavior, and
job performance: a test of the mediating effects of identification and leader-member exchange. J. Organ.
Behav. 30:1103–26
Wang S, Beier ME. 2012. Learning agility: Not much is new. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 5:293–96
Wang S, Noe RA. 2010. Knowledge sharing: a review and directions for future research. Hum. Resour. Manag.
Rev. 20:115–31
Webster JR, Beehr TA, Love K. 2011. Extending the challenge-hindrance model of occupational stress: the role
of appraisal. J. Vocat. Behav. 79:505–16
Wenger E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York: Cambridge Univ.
Press
Weststar J. 2009. Worker control and workplace learning: expansion of the job demand control model. Ind.
Relat.: J. Econ. Soc. 48:533–48

Williams EA, Scandura TA, Gavin M. 2009. Understanding team-level career mentoring by leaders and
its effects on individual team-source learning: the effects of intra-group processes. Hum. Relat.
62:1635–66
Willingham DB, Nissen MJ, Bullemer P. 1989. On the development of procedural knowledge. J. Exp. Psychol.
Learn. Mem. Cogn. 15:1047–60
Wilson KA, Bedwell WL, Lazzara EH, Salas E, Burke CS, et al. 2008. Relationships between game attributes
and learning outcomes: review and research proposals. Simul. Gaming 40:217–66
Wilson MG, Dejoy DM, Vandenberg RJ, Richardson HA, McGrath AL. 2004. Work characteristics and
employee health and well-being: test of a model of healthy work organization. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol.
77:565–88
Wodzicki K, Schwämmlein E, Moskaliuk J. 2012. “Actually, I wanted to learn”: study-related knowledge
exchange on social networking sites. Internet High. Educ. 15:9–14
Wong EM, Haselhuhn MP, Kray LJ. 2012. Improving the future by considering the past: the impact of upward
counterfactual reflection and implicit beliefs on negotiation performance. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48:403–6
Wrzesniewski A, Dutton JE. 2001. Crafting a job: revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Acad.
Manag. Rev. 26:179–201
Yoon SW, Song JH, Lim DH, Joo BK. 2010. Structural determinants of team performance: the mutual
influences of learning culture, creativity, and knowledge. Hum. Resour. Dev. Int. 13:249–64
Zhang AY, Tsui AS, Wang DX. 2011. Leadership behaviors and group creativity in Chinese organizations: the
role of group processes. Leadersh. Q. 22:851–62
Zhao B. 2011. Learning from errors: the role of context, emotion, and personality. J. Organ. Behav. 32:435–63
Zoogah DB. 2010. Why should I be left behind? Employees’ perceived relative deprivation and participation in
development activities. J. Appl. Psychol. 95:159–73
RELATED RESOURCES
Aguinis H, Boyd BK, Pierce CA, Short JC. 2011. Walking new avenues in management research methods and
theories: bridging micro and macro domains. J. Manag. 37:395–403
Argote L, Miron-Spektor E. 2011. Organizational learning: from experience to knowledge. Organ. Sci.
22:1123–37
London M, ed. 2011. The Oxford Handbook of Lifelong Learning. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Molloy JC, Ployhart RE. 2012. Construct clarity: multidisciplinary considerations and an illustration using
human capital. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 22:152–56
Nyberg AJ, Moliterno TP, Hale D, Lepak DP. 2014. Resource-based perspectives on unit-level human capital:
a review and integration. J. Manag. 40:316–46
Salas E, Tannenbaum SI, Kraiger K, Smith-Jentsch K. 2012. The science of training and development in
organizations: what matters in practice. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 13:74–101

Annual Review of
Organizational
Psychology and
Organizational Behavior
Volume 1, 2014 Contents

What Was, What Is, and What May Be in OP/OB

Lyman W. Porter and Benjamin Schneider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Psychological Safety: The History, Renaissance, and Future of an
Interpersonal Construct
Amy C. Edmondson and Zhike Lei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Personality and Cognitive Ability as Predictors of Effective
Performance at Work
Neal Schmitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Perspectives on Power in Organizations
Cameron Anderson and Sebastien Brion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Work–Family Boundary Dynamics
Tammy D. Allen, Eunae Cho, and Laurenz L. Meier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Coworkers Behaving Badly: The Impact of Coworker Deviant
Behavior upon Individual Employees
Sandra L. Robinson, Wei Wang, and Christian Kiewitz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
The Fascinating Psychological Microfoundations of Strategy and
Competitive Advantage
Robert E. Ployhart and Donald Hale, Jr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Employee Voice and Silence
Elizabeth W. Morrison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
The Story of Why We Stay: A Review of Job Embeddedness
Thomas William Lee, Tyler C. Burch, and Terence R. Mitchell . . . . . . . . 199
Where Global and Virtual Meet: The Value of Examining the
Intersection of These Elements in Twenty-First-Century Teams
Cristina B. Gibson, Laura Huang, Bradley L. Kirkman,
and Debra L. Shapiro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
viii
Learning in the Twenty-First-Century Workplace
Raymond A. Noe, Alena D.M. Clarke, and Howard J. Klein . . . . . . . . . . 245
Compassion at Work
Jane E. Dutton, Kristina M. Workman, and Ashley E. Hardin . . . . . . . . . 277
Talent Management: Conceptual Approaches and Practical Challenges
Peter Cappelli and JR Keller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
Research on Workplace Creativity: A Review and Redirection
Jing Zhou and Inga J. Hoever . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
The Contemporary Career: A Work–Home Perspective

Jeffrey H. Greenhaus and Ellen Ernst Kossek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361
Burnout and Work Engagement: The JD–R Approach
Arnold B. Bakker, Evangelia Demerouti, and Ana Isabel Sanz-Vergel . . . 389

The Psychology of Entrepreneurship
Michael Frese and Michael M. Gielnik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413
Delineating and Reviewing the Role of Newcomer Capital in
Organizational Socialization
Talya N. Bauer and Berrin Erdogan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439
Emotional Intelligence in Organizations
Stéphane Côté . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459
Intercultural Competence
Kwok Leung, Soon Ang, and Mei Ling Tan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489
Pay Dispersion
Jason D. Shaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 521
Constructively Managing Conflicts in Organizations
Dean Tjosvold, Alfred S.H. Wong, and Nancy Yi Feng Chen . . . . . . . . . . 545
An Ounce of Prevention Is Worth a Pound of Cure: Improving
Research Quality Before Data Collection
Herman Aguinis and Robert J. Vandenberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 569
Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and

Organizational Behavior articles may be found at http://www.annualreviews.org/
errata/orgpsych.
Contents ix
Annual Reviews
It’s about time. Your time. It’s time well spent.
New From Annual Reviews:

Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application
Volume 1 • Online January 2014 • http://statistics.annualreviews.org
Editor: Stephen E. Fienberg, Carnegie Mellon University

Associate Editors: Nancy Reid, University of Toronto
Stephen M. Stigler, University of Chicago

The Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application aims to inform statisticians and quantitative methodologists, as
well as all scientists and users of statistics about major methodological advances and the computational tools that
allow for their implementation. It will include developments in the field of statistics, including theoretical statistical
underpinnings of new methodology, as well as developments in specific application domains such as biostatistics
and bioinformatics, economics, machine learning, psychology, sociology, and aspects of the physical sciences.
Complimentary online access to the first volume will be available until January 2015.
table of contents:
• What Is Statistics? Stephen E. Fienberg • High-Dimensional Statistics with a View Toward Applications
• A Systematic Statistical Approach to Evaluating Evidence in Biology, Peter Bühlmann, Markus Kalisch, Lukas Meier
from Observational Studies, David Madigan, Paul E. Stang, • Next-Generation Statistical Genetics: Modeling, Penalization,
Jesse A. Berlin, Martijn Schuemie, J. Marc Overhage, and Optimization in High-Dimensional Data, Kenneth Lange,
Marc A. Suchard, Bill Dumouchel, Abraham G. Hartzema, Jeanette C. Papp, Janet S. Sinsheimer, Eric M. Sobel
Patrick B. Ryan • Breaking Bad: Two Decades of Life-Course Data Analysis
• The Role of Statistics in the Discovery of a Higgs Boson, in Criminology, Developmental Psychology, and Beyond,
David A. van Dyk Elena A. Erosheva, Ross L. Matsueda, Donatello Telesca
• Brain Imaging Analysis, F. DuBois Bowman • Event History Analysis, Niels Keiding
• Statistics and Climate, Peter Guttorp • Statistical Evaluation of Forensic DNA Profile Evidence,
• Climate Simulators and Climate Projections, Christopher D. Steele, David J. Balding
Jonathan Rougier, Michael Goldstein • Using League Table Rankings in Public Policy Formation:
• Probabilistic Forecasting, Tilmann Gneiting, Statistical Issues, Harvey Goldstein
Matthias Katzfuss • Statistical Ecology, Ruth King
• Bayesian Computational Tools, Christian P. Robert • Estimating the Number of Species in Microbial Diversity
• Bayesian Computation Via Markov Chain Monte Carlo, Studies, John Bunge, Amy Willis, Fiona Walsh
Radu V. Craiu, Jeffrey S. Rosenthal • Dynamic Treatment Regimes, Bibhas Chakraborty,
• Build, Compute, Critique, Repeat: Data Analysis with Latent Susan A. Murphy
Variable Models, David M. Blei • Statistics and Related Topics in Single-Molecule Biophysics,
• Structured Regularizers for High-Dimensional Problems: Hong Qian, S.C. Kou
Statistical and Computational Issues, Martin J. Wainwright • Statistics and Quantitative Risk Management for Banking
and Insurance, Paul Embrechts, Marius Hofert
Access this and all other Annual Reviews journals via your institution at www.annualreviews.org.
Annual Reviews | Connect With Our Experts

Tel: 800.523.8635 (us/can) | Tel: 650.493.4400 | Fax: 650.424.0910 | Email: service@annualreviews.org

Noe 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Noe 2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Noe 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANNUAL

REVIEWS Further Learning in the Twenty-First-

• Other articles in this volume

Department of Management and Human Resources, The Ohio State University,

Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2014. Keywords

246 Noe Clarke Klein

organization to help its

www.annualreviews.org Learning in Today’s Workplace 247

Olphert 2000). Knowledge sharing can contribute to an organization’s competitive advantage in

organizational behavior literatures have examined knowledge sharing at different levels of

RECONSIDERING THE FORM AND DESIGN OF LEARNING

Trends Research questions Implications for practice

248 Noe Clarke Klein

abilities on the job

Self-Regulation and Self-Directed Learning

www.annualreviews.org Learning in Today’s Workplace 249

an evolutionary perspective. Using a computer-simulated tournament, Rendell et al. (2010)

250 Noe Clarke Klein

Advances Research questions Implications for practice

learned most effectively in the various

efficacy and openness to experience

www.annualreviews.org Learning in Today’s Workplace 251

Advances Research questions Implications for practice

designed to maximize learning?

252 Noe Clarke Klein

Instructor-Led Learning, Blended Learning, and the Role of the Instructor

www.annualreviews.org Learning in Today’s Workplace 253

254 Noe Clarke Klein

FACILITATING LEARNING IN THE WORKPLACE

www.annualreviews.org Learning in Today’s Workplace 255

How can the different types of learning required

256 Noe Clarke Klein

team performance (Yoon et al. 2010).

www.annualreviews.org Learning in Today’s Workplace 257

258 Noe Clarke Klein

www.annualreviews.org Learning in Today’s Workplace 259

260 Noe Clarke Klein

nificant person–situation interactions were related to self-development participation. Specifically,

EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF LEARNING OUTCOMES

www.annualreviews.org Learning in Today’s Workplace 261

262 Noe Clarke Klein

Employment Branding and Social Responsibility

www.annualreviews.org Learning in Today’s Workplace 263

IMPROVING METHODOLOGY IN LEARNING RESEARCH

264 Noe Clarke Klein

range of employees’ proactive learning behaviors or additional constructs are necessary.

www.annualreviews.org Learning in Today’s Workplace 265

266 Noe Clarke Klein

www.annualreviews.org Learning in Today’s Workplace 267

268 Noe Clarke Klein

Manag. Sci. 50:352–64

www.annualreviews.org Learning in Today’s Workplace 269

270 Noe Clarke Klein

Koppes, pp. 281–309. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

www.annualreviews.org Learning in Today’s Workplace 271

272 Noe Clarke Klein

knowledge maturing in the digital workplace. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 28:235–49

are unrelated to greater

www.annualreviews.org Learning in Today’s Workplace 273

Editor: Stephen E. Fienberg, Carnegie Mellon University