Reactions to Assessment 1 REACTIONS TO SKILL ASSESSMENT: THE FORGOTTEN FACTOR IN EXPLAINING MOTIVATION TO LEARN

This study examined the effects of trainees’ reactions to skill assessment on their motivation to learn. A model was developed that suggests that two dimensions of trainees’ assessment reactions – distributive justice and utility – influence training motivation and overall training effectiveness. The model was tested using a sample of individuals (N = 113) enrolled in a truck driving training program. Results revealed that trainees’ who perceived higher levels of distributive justice and utility had higher motivation to learn. Training motivation was found to significantly predict several measures of training effectiveness. Trainees’ performance on the pre-training assessment and trait goal orientation exhibited direct and interactive effects on their reactions to the skill assessment. Implications of these findings for future research on reactions to skill assessments are identified along with the practical implications for the design and conduct of training needs assessment. Reactions to Assessment 3 In recent years, a number of significant demographic, technological, socio-cultural, and economic forces have combined to create a work environment characterized by rapid change and increasing complexity (Goldstein & Gilliam, 1990; Howard, 1995; Thayer, 1997). As the changing nature of work requires employees to continually develop and change, many organizations have recognized the potential for workplace learning and continuous improvement to serve as a source of sustained competitive advantage (Hall & Mirvis, 1995; Salas & CannonBowers, 2001). Indeed, recent research suggests that organizational training is one of the most pervasive and potentially potent methods of enhancing individual productivity and organizational effectiveness (Arthur, Bennett, Edens, & Bell, 2003). It is well acknowledged that one of the keys to developing a systematic approach to training that can lead to improved productivity and effectiveness is a thorough assessment of needs (Goldstein, 1986; McGehee & Thayer, 1961). It is not surprising then that the growing emphasis on employee development as a strategic organizational priority has been accompanied by greater interest in assessing employees’ development needs (Herriot & Anderson, 1997). For example, American College Testing (ACT) has identified basic foundational and advanced skill competencies for the workplace and has developed an extensive testing and assessment process called WorkKeys that measures an individual’s level of competency (McLarty & Vansickle, 1997). Training and developmental opportunities are then provided to individuals to address key skill gaps (e.g., see Nash & Korte, 1997). A similar model has been followed by many Corporate Universities. Meister (1994), for example, highlighted a skill inventory program at IBM that identified employee skill gaps relevant to the functional skill requirements of the company. To close this gap, an employee Individual Education Plan is developed to provide Reactions to Assessment 4 each employee with a road map of instructional modules, training courses, and individual learning activities. Skill assessments and the development of skill inventories make sense from an organizational perspective to link developmental learning activities to the organization’s strategic plan. Yet, as noted by Ryan, Brutus, Greguras and Hakel (2000), the effectiveness of these assessments rest in part on the assumption that individuals want to be assessed and that they are motivated to gain insight into their skill gaps. Farr (1993) contends that organizations should be concerned about how individual’s perceive the feedback from skill assessment as these perceptions can impact what insights are gained from the assessments. However, little is known about individuals’ responses to skill assessment feedback and how those responses impact subsequent motivation to address the identified skill gaps through organizationally sponsored training programs (Noe, Wilk, Mullen, & Wanek, 1997). Consequently, it is important to ask not only how we can assess trainee skills in order to determine appropriate training placement but also what impact the assessment process can have on a trainees’ motivation to learn (Goldstein & Ford, 2002). For example, Noe’s (1986) model of training motivation posited that motivation to learn would be impacted by trainees’ reactions to skill assessments and feedback on those assessments given prior to training. Yet, very few empirical studies have been conducted on person analysis or the implications of individuals’ reactions to skills assessments (Colquitt, LePine, & Noe, 2000). As Salas and Cannon-Bowers (2001, p. 477) note, “. whereas most training researchers believe and espouse that trainingneeds analysis is the most important phase in training, this phase remains largely an art rather