EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS ABOUT SELF-EFFICACY AND TRAINING SATISFACTION

Open Access
Author:
Schroth, Stephenie S.
Graduate Program:
Learning, Design, and Technology
Degree:
Doctor of Philosophy
Document Type:
Dissertation
Date of Defense:
March 15, 2017
Committee Members:
  • Kyle L. Peck, Dissertation Advisor
  • Kyle L. Peck, Committee Chair
  • Gabriela T. Richard, Committee Member
  • Mark D. Threeton, Committee Member
  • Edgar P. Yoder, Outside Member
Keywords:
  • collective efficacy
  • self-efficacy
  • social learning theory
  • survey
  • training satisfaction
Abstract:
An expanding convenience store company with over 530 locations in six states implemented a Trainer Store/Performance Development Specialist (TPDS) model as part of a pilot program to reduce turnover. The data from the pilot program demonstrated that the TPDS model was effective in reducing turnover. The purpose of this study was to better understand how employees perceived self-efficacy and training satisfaction through the lens of social learning theory which states that individuals learn in a social context through observation, modeling, and reinforcement. An online survey was administered to employees who were recently hired for the role of salesperson to determine the parallel to social learning theory, self-efficacy, and training satisfaction, particularly with the training session, training content, trainer, and transfer of learning from training to work. The study surveyed 98 employees who completed their training in one of three models (Home Store/Mentor (HM), Trainer Store/Mentor (TM), or TPDS). The researcher investigated whether the TPDS model was perceived by trainees as better aligned with social learning theory than the other models. The researcher also examined the Trainer Store model compared with the Home Store model. The results indicate that overall there were no apparent differences between the three models (HM, TM, or TPDS) or the two models (Home Store or Trainer Store) in terms of the training session, trainer, or transfer of learning from training to work. However, the results indicate that there may have been a difference between the models with regard to the trainee’s perceptions of the training content. Based on the relatively small amount of data that was gathered, the training content of the TM model appears to have been perceived as better than content in the other models, HM and TPDS. However, the results of this research should be considered tentative, given the low number of respondents. More research is warranted. There were several limitations with this research study. One limitation was the demographics and locations of the Trainer Stores. The Trainer Stores were selected based on historical data of areas of high turnover. Another limitation was the use of a survey tool as the primary instrument, particularly the use of Likert scales for measuring satisfaction. There is the potential for measurement error by having wrong, or inappropriately worded, anchors. And, a third limitation was the low number of respondents. Out of approximately 328 employees, 98 completed the survey in its entirety, which resulted in a 30% response rate. The TPDS model had approximately a 5% response rate. The TM model had approximately an 8% response rate. And, the HM model had approximately a 44% response rate. The Trainer Store response rate was approximately 45% and the Home Store response rate was approximately 55%. The limitation and reduction of the population to only 20% of the eligible employees and lower than expected response and completion rates has reduced the validity of the study.