Researchers have consistently advocated for clearer concepts and better operational definitions of measures of training transfer. To clarify what trainees actually do on the job, we defined transfer as use on the job of what was learned in training and developed a prototype taxonomy of use. To form the taxonomy we asked, “How do relatively autonomous workers, taught open skills, use in their work what they have learned from training?” To create categories of use, we analyzed, defined, and reorganized former trainees’ stories of application from studies by Yelon and others (Yelon, Reznich, & Sleight, 1997; Yelon, Sheppard, Sleight, & Ford, 2004; Yelon, Ford, & Golden, 2013). We identified, as part of the prototype taxonomy the actions, content, conditions, tasks, purposes, and beneficiaries of different types of use. We discuss how this multidimensional framework provides a way of conceiving of and measuring transfer as use and the implications for practice and research.

Members of teams are often prone to interpersonal communication patterns that can undermine the team's capacity to engage in self-learning processes that are critical to team adaptation and performance improvement. We argue that team leader coaching behaviors are critical to ensuring that team discussions that may foster learning new teamwork skills and strategies are unfettered by the tendency of two or more members to exhibit contentious interpersonal communications. We accordingly test a model in which team contentious communication moderates the mediated relationship of team leader coaching behaviors on team innovation effectiveness and team task performance. In a study of 82 work teams, team leader coaching behaviors exhibited indirect, positive relationships with both team innovation effectiveness and team task performance through team learning, but only among teams with an average or higher (Burke et al., 2008;Shaw et al., 2011). Researchers have placed considerable emphasis on the benefits to team learning and adaptation that derive from the ability and willingness of members to share diverging perspectives about team tasks and priorities (Behfar et al., 2008). Yet, many teams may not reap these benefits when contentious patterns of interaction between two or more members impede collective learning. Such teams may face difficulties in adapting to change, improving their processes, and creating innovative products or services (Lovelace et al., 2001).The potential for disruptive interpersonal communication in team discussions suggests an important role for team leaders. Team leaders can mitigate the extent to which existing frictions between particular team members impact the quality of team discussions, and they may thereby better ensure higher team functioning. Yet, although scholars have begun to appreciate the role of team leaders in facilitating group processes (Morgeson, 2005), the potential beneficial role that adept team leaders may play in teams prone to dysfunctional communication patterns has received only limited attention (Schippers et al., 2008). We advance a novel theoretical perspective by focusing on team leader coaching (TLC) (Carson et al., 2007;Edmondson 1999Edmondson , 2003 and conceptually differentiating the context of team discussion that is vital to team learning from the interpersonal tendencies among members (i.e. levels of interpersonal contentious communication between members).Edmondson and her colleague (Cannon and Edmondson, 2001;Edmondson, 1999; formulated the construct of TLC in terms of a relatively narrow set of behaviors. From their perspective, effective TLC involves initiating team discussions about how to improve team processes and learn new skills, actively facilitating these discussions, and being readily available for help and consultation about team and interpersonal issues. TLC may play an important role in enabling group learning in teams that struggle with contentious communication. Contentious communication refers to a pattern of unproductive interac...

No abstract

Multinational organizations are increasingly looking to deploy assessments on a global basis. However, the social desirability of different personality characteristics may vary as a function of culture, yet limited research has explored this idea. Based on the GLOBE cultural dimensions and the theory of purposeful behavior, we examined potential connections between cultural practice dimensions and the desirability of personality aspects with a large personality item bank, utilizing raters across 34 countries. Findings indicated few connections of societal level cultural practices and social desirability perceptions for particular aspects. An exception to this was the finding that higher social desirability ratings were given for cooperativeness, sensitivity, and assertiveness in Confucian Asian, South Asian, and Sub-Saharan contexts compared with Germanic Europe, Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Latin Europe contexts. Limitations of the study as well as implications for development and use of personality assessments globally in high stakes contexts are discussed.

Understanding influence on and effects of retesting is important to the selection practitioner. This article examines retesting effects on a series of selection measures for mechanically related positions to extend research that has been conducted in more controlled environments. While validity was not significantly different on retesting, time between test attempts and score increase on Spatial Reasoning were positively related, indicating the possibility of learning effects. Lower score increases were found for highly g‐loaded measures, and individuals who showed an increase scored more highly on average on their first attempt. Men tended to increase their scores more than women. We close with a discussion of the practical implications of our findings and how to build on them with future research.