LEARNING FROM ON-THE-JOB EXPERIENCES:

A CONCEPTUAL MODEL ON THE INDIVIDUAL AND SITUATIONAL DETERMINANTS

AND THE IMPACT ON CAREER SUCCESS

Paper accepted for the 19th workshop on strategic human resource management, HEC-Paris, April

22-23, 2004

Karen Wouters

ICM Fellow

Ghent University and

Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School

Reep 1, 9000 Gent, Belgium

Phone: +32 9 210 97 77

Fax: +32 9 210 97 57

E-mail: karen.wouters@vlerick.be

Dirk Buyens

Ghent University and

Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School

Reep 1, 9000 Gent, Belgium

Phone: +32 9 210 97 22

Fax: +32 9 210 97 57

E-mail: dirk.buyens@vlerick.be

2

INTRODUCTION

On-the-job learning within organizations

As a result of the ever-increasing rate of technological change, induced by developments such as globalization

and the current “explosion of knowledge”, organizational learning capabilities are pinpointed as the key strategic

factors for organizations (Nonaka, 1991). Accordingly, Kahn (1992) suggests that the management literature

could benefit from the adoption of an approach that is based on the importance of organizational learning to

guide research. This is in contrast with the traditional management research literature, which is primarily based

on the ultimate goal of improving organizational productivity (Karakowsky & McBey, 1999). For this learning

at an organizational level, organizations depend on the learning of their employees, since they embody the

capacity to acquire or create new knowledge, disseminate this knowledge to others and apply the new knowledge

within the organization (Dixon, 1994; Dogson, 1993). Moreover, recent changes in the workplace (e.g. the

flattening of organizational hierarchies, escalating technological innovation and an increased use of teams) have

given rise to the idea that learning is a continuous process, in which employees must actively pursue

development activities and which requires an active involvement of the self (Senge, 1990; Nonaka, 1991).

Individuals need to play an active role in their learning process and in defining their own learning opportunities

(Gherardi,Nicoloni & Odella, 1998). Both in the literature on adult development and career development authors

indicate a shift in responsibility for learning away from organizations towards the individual: learning to learn

(Smith, 1990); participation in development activities (Noe & Wilk, 1993); and self-management of careers

(Hall, 1996). Although employee learning in itself is not enough to ensure learning at an organizational level

(Argyris and Schön, 1978; Nonaka, 1991; Senge, 1990), insight in individual learning processes is a necessary

step in understanding organizational learning (Miner & Mezias, 1996; Richter 1998). The assertion that

organizational learning is facilitated through, and requires, individual learning underscores the importance of

more fully addressing the issue at the individual level.

Historically most research in the area of learning on the individual level has focused on formal training

(McCauley & Brutus, 1998; Wexley & Baldwin, 1986) which is typically institutionally-sponsored, classroom-

based and highly structured (Marsick & Watkins, 1997). There is however an increasing recognition that most

development of employees may occur on the job itself (Davies & Easterby-Smith, 1984; Ellinger & Bostrom,

2002; Hunt, 1991; McCall, Lombardo & Morrison, 1988; Mumford, 1997; Wick, 1989). Moreover, research

indicates that on-the-job learning not only leads to the development of knowledge and skills, but also has an

impact on performance and other organization-valued outcomes (Arnold, 1997; Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998). The

assertion that on-the-job learning has advantages for both individual and organization (Arnold, 1997)

underscores the importance of more fully addressing the issue of on-the-job learning. This on-the-job learning is

the focus of our research. We are interested in what Burgoyne & Hodgon (1983) have called “natural learning”,

which takes place on the job and may not always be planned or what Marsick & O’Neill (1999) and what

Marsick & Watkins (1997) have called “informal and incidental learning”, defined as a by-product of some other

activity, such as task accomplishment and interpersonal interaction, of which the control rests primarily in the

hands of the learner. Following Gherardi, et al. (1998) and McCauley, Ruderman, Ohlott & Morrow (1994), we

3

define individual on-the-job learning as learning that takes place through participation in some actual practices in

the workplace.

Research objectives

Considering the current state of the research, we have formulated three research objectives. The first objective

addresses the conceptualization of the on-the-job experience construct. The second objective addresses the

influence of individual difference variables and situational variables on on-the-job learning. The third objective

focuses on the influence of on-the-job learning on career-related outcome variables. In order to deal with these

research objectives a conceptual model was constructed (cf. exhibit 1). Before presenting the model, we

elaborate below on the current state of the research and needs for further research in order to clarify the three

research objectives.

First, although several authors recognize the importance of individual learning processes gleaned from on-the-

job experiences, little systematic research has been done on this subject. This may be due to how the construct of

on-the-job experience has been conceptualized (Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998). These authors argued that a common

language must be developed if research findings are to be used to make conclusions about the effects of work

experience. Relationships between work experience and outcomes will be enhanced by treating work experience

as a multidimensional, multilevel construct. Furthermore, both Quiñones, Ford & Teachout (1995) and Tesluk &

Jacobs (1998) argued that special attention should be paid to the qualitative dimension, as it has received

relatively little attention in the literature in contrast to the quantitative aspects. Therefore, the first part of our

paper addresses the conceptualization of the on-the-job experience construct, with focus on the qualitative

dimension.

Second, from the literature two main approaches to explain differences in learning in general, and on-the-job

learning in particular, can be derived, respectively stressing individual and situational determinants. The

person-centered approach stresses the importance of personal factors in affecting learning. Cognitive learning

theory, followed from this approach, conceptualizes learners as individual actors processing information or

modifying their mental structures, separated from their social, historical and cultural context (Reynolds, 1997).

Contrary, the situation-centered learning approach emphasizes the influence of the situational context (Gherardi,

et al., 1998; Cheetham & Chivers, 2001). Social construction theory, which can be situated within this approach,

conceptualizes learning as a social activity within specific contexts. More recently, theorists subscribe to some

form of interaction model of causality that portrays learning as a product of personal and situational influences

(for a review see Gherardi et al., 1998; Richter, 1998). Although several researchers have stressed the need for

integrating both individual and organizational characteristics (Hall & Mirvis, 1995; McCauley et al., 1994;

Miner & Mezias, 1996; Reynolds, 1997; Spreitzer, McCall & Mahoney, 1997; Van der Sluis & Hoeksema,

2001; Van Maanen, 1977) literature has provided little evidence to support this (Buyens, Martens, Meganck,

Wouters & De Vos, 2002; Richter, 1998). Therefore, this research attempts to provide more insight into the

interactionistic approach, combining insights from both cognitive learning theory and social construction theory.

The second part of this paper addresses the individual and situational factors, influencing on-the-job learning.

4

Third, as to date, research on on-the-job learning has primarily included knowledge and skill development as

outcome variables (Morrison & Branter, 1992). However, some authors (Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998; Hoeksema,

1995; Noe, 1996) suggest that on-the-job learning also has an impact on career outcomes. Furthermore, literature

on career development increasingly pays attention to learning from on-the-job experiences. Several authors

argue that at the heart of today’s careers lies the upsurge and interest in continuous learning (Hall, 1996; Hall &

Mirvis, 1995; Howard & Bray, 1988; Rousseau, 1989; Rousseau & Wade-Benzoni, 1995; Robinson & Miner,

1996; Schalk & Freese, 1997; Sullivan, 1999). This continuous growth process is centered around on-the-job

learning. As stated by Morrison & Hoch (1986): “The major source of individual career development is the

learning that occurs through experience in work activities, roles and contexts.” Following these authors, we can

conclude that theories on on-the-job learning are a relevant perspective to look at individuals’ careers. Therefore,

the third part of the paper addresses the influence of on-the-job learning on career success.

-Insert Figure 1 about here-

CONCEPTUALIZATION OF THE ON-THE-JOB EXPERIENCE CONSTRUCT

Several areas of research, like for instance management development and career development, attest to the

importance of on-the-job learning. Although off-the-job management education and training have dominated the

management and leadership development literature, recent work refocused attention to learning that takes place

on the job (Wexley & Baldwin, 1986). Approaches like action learning (Revans, 1980; Marsick & O’Neill,

1999), more self-control by the individual (Smith, 1990) and mentoring (Kram, 1988) have been suggested for

structuring and improving the developmental strength of on-the-job experiences. Also research on career

development has indicated ample evidence that people learn and grow over the course of their careers as a result

of their experiences (Howard & Bray, 1988). Career development can refer to a broad range of activities and

processes, but providing employees with varied work experiences is one important component (Campion,

Cheraskin & Stevens, 1994). Beside the area of on-the-job learning, the experience construct is also a central

variable of interest in research on work performance, selection, promotion, compensation and training.

Nonetheless, research and practice in these areas has progressed largely without any guiding theoretical

framework. This may be due to the lack of consistency in the definition and measurement of the construct of

experience (Quiñones et. al, 1995; Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998). In line with previous research (Hofmann, Jacobs &

Gerras, 1992), Quiñones et al. (1995) and Tesluk & Jacobs (1998) argued that most studies have measured

experience in terms of tenure or by the number of times an individual has completed a certain task or operation.

The latter type of studies does not provide an adequate consideration of the qualitative aspects of experience

(Hofmann, et al., 1992). Based on the conceptual framework for the measurement of experience from Quiñones,

et.al (1995), Tesluk & Jacobs (1998) provided an important attempt to bring the qualitative and quantitative

dimension of experience together in a comprehensive model.

In the following paragraphs Tesluk & Jacobs’ (1998) conceptualization of the work experience construct and a

further elaboration of McCauley et al. (1994) on the qualitative dimension of the construct will be discussed. In

5

the last paragraph, we formulate some remarks on these conceptualizations in order to delineate our conceptual

model and formulate the related research questions.

Before discussing the conceptualizations, it is important to notice that Quiñones et al. (1995) and Tesluk &

Jacobs (1998) focused their theoretical framework on the domain of work experience, as but one delineated

domain of the broader experience construct, because according to the authors any systematically investigation of

experience must be context-bound (Quiñones, et al., 1995). Work experiences are those events that are

experienced by an individual that relate to the performance of some job. This is still a broad domain of research

consisting of formal work experiences, like continuing vocational training courses, informal work experiences,

like working groups, and incidental or on-the-job work experiences, that occurs in learner’s natural setting

(Merriam & Caffarella, 1999; Marsick & Watkins, 1997). As mentioned in the introduction, our research

attempts at understanding latter form of on-the job work experiences1.

Tesluk & Jacobs’ (1998) conceptualization of the work experience construct

Tesluk & Jacobs (1998) have described work experience in terms of three components (quantitative component,

qualitative component and interaction component) and four levels of specification (task, job, workgroup and

organization). By integrating qualitative aspects the authors have better captured the richness of the experience

construct, in comparison with the traditional line of theorizing that has used experience almost interchangeably

with tenure or seniority. Furthermore quantitative and qualitative components not only combine in an additive

fashion to form experience, but also may interact. Adding levels of specification to work experience enhances its

conceptualization, improves operationalization, and establishes more direct and clear relationships with factors

that contribute to the development of work experiences and its outcome.

The quantitative dimension includes time-based as well as amount-based measures. Time-based measures

reflect the time working on a task, in a job or in an organization and are operationalized in various measures of

tenure. Amount-based measures reflect the number of times that a task or duty has been performed. The

advantage of latter type is that it reflects important qualities that impact work experience, such as opportunity to

perform and practice. However, both measures provide little information regarding the nature of experience and

thus, are not able to take into account the fact that not all experiences have the same developmental power for all

people (Hofmann, et al. 1992).

Therefore, it is important to also integrate a more qualitative dimension, or the specific nature of work situations

(Campion, et al. 1994). Tesluk & Jacobs (1998) were able to find a few studies in which the qualitative

dimension was used, sometimes described in terms of variety of work experiences (DuBois & McKee, 1994) and

sometimes in terms of the amount of challenge provided in different work situations (McCauley et al., 1994).

Based on these findings, the authors conclude that the specific modes of quality are domain and context specific.

Certain modes are more appropriate for relating work experience to particular variables of interest. Variety,

complexity and challenge are listed as possible modes to describe the qualitative component. However, as to date

the mode of challenge has received most attention Research has suggested that individuals develop primarily

1 For practical reasons we will use in the following the term on-the-job experience instead of on-the-job work experience.

6

through confrontations with challenging situations in the work context (Fleishman & Mumford, 1989; Hall,

1991; McCall et al., 1988; McCauley et. al, 1994; Morrison & Brantner, 1992).

Quantitative and qualitative components not only combine in an additive fashion to form experience, but may

also interact (Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998). For instance, repeated exposure to certain work situations that comes with

greater tenure is likely to provide gains in the qualitative aspects of experience such as receiving challenging

assignments. According to the authors, the interaction dimension can be described in terms of various types of

acquired work experiences that depend on a particular dimension of time. They make a further distinction

between the density-mode and the timing-mode. Former mode refers to the intensity of experiences, whilst latter

refers to the moment on which a work event occurs relative to a longer sequence of successive experiences (e.g.

a particular career stage).

Next to taking into account several dimensions, Tesluk & Jacobs (1998) included four levels of specification

(task, job, work group and organization) to describe the work experience construct. Research of Quiñones et al.

(1995) indicated that the definition and operationalization in terms of level of specificity had a moderating effect

on the relationship between experience and performance. More concrete, the strongest relationship between

experience and performance occurred when work experience was measured on task level. Based on these

findings, the authors concluded that it is important to appropriately select and match the level of specification of

work experience to enhance the predictive power of the construct.

McCauley et al. ‘s (1994) conceptualization of the qualitative component of the on-the-job work

experience construct

In following paragraph we further elaborate and specify Tesluk & Jacobs’ (1998) qualitative component of on-

the-job experience. Although Campion, Cheraskin & Stevens (1994), Quiñones et al. (1995) and Tesluk &

Jacobs (1998) pointed out the fact that relatively little attention has been paid at the qualitative modes of

measuring experience, they also recognized that several scholars in the area of management development have

taken into account the extent to which on-the-job experiences stimulate learning. Those experiences have been

labeled developmental on-the-job experiences (Dechant, 1990; McCall et al. 1988; McCauley et al., 1994).

More concrete, three kinds of studies have contributed to delineate the characteristics of more developmental on-

the-job experiences (McCauley & Brutus, 1998): (1) Studies retrospectively asking managers to describe

developmental experiences in their careers (Davies & Easterby-Smith, 1984; McCall et al., 1988; Valerio, 1990);

(2) Studies asking managers to rate characteristics of their current job and then correlate these ratings with some

measure of learning (Kelleher, Finestone & Lowy, 1986; McCauley, Ohlott & Ruderman, 1989; McCauley et al.,

1994; Ruderman, Ohlott & McCauley, 1990; Pearson & McCauley, 1991) and; (3) Studies that examine how

transitions to new jobs or work roles affect personal change or development (Brett, 1984; Nicholson & West,

1988). Across these studies, the common feature of developmental experiences is the degree of challenge

offered necessary to stimulate learning (Robinson & Wick, 1992).

7

Especially McCauley and her colleagues’ work has set the tone in the area of developmental on-the-job

experiences. They have done the most comprehensive review of literature in the field of on-the-job experiences

important for management learning and development. Based on this review they have distinguished among

several developmental components of a job situation (cf. infra) and developed an instrument (Developmental

Challenge Profile)2 to measure those components (McCauley et al., 1989; McCauley, et al. 1994; Ohlott,

McCauley & Ruderman, 1995; Ruderman, et al. 1990). Across several studies developmental McCauley et al.

(1994) and McCauley & Young (1993) assert that each of these developmental job components stimulate

learning by providing individuals with the opportunity to learn and acting as a motivator for learning. In their

later work (McCauley & Douglas, 1998; McCauley, 2001; Van Velsor, McCauley & Moxley, 1998) they argue

that the opportunity and motivation to learn stems from respectively the challenge and the assessment element

offered in on-the-job experiences. In other words, opportunities to learn may exist when one has the chance to

take in new information, reframe the way one thinks about old information, or try out different behaviors or

actions and see their consequences. Motivation may stem from a desire to close the gap between one’s actual and

desired level of competency, to avoid a negative outcome, or to reduce the discomfort of a painful situation.

Five developmental components have been identified: transitions, creating change, high levels of responsibility,

managing interfaces and dealing with diversity (McCauley et al., 1994). In the following the components, and

how they can provide opportunity and motivation for learning (i.e. developmental characteristics), are described

in more detail.

Transitions that put the employee in new situations with unfamiliar responsibilities have been identified as

developmental by multiple sources (Davies & Easterby-Smith, 1984; Hall, 1991; McCall, et al., 1988; Nicholson

& West, 1884: Stewart, 1984). More concrete, following transitions have been identified as developmental:

switches from line to staff; changes in employer or; increases in the scope of responsibility. The developmental

power of those transitions varies with the degree of unfamiliarity that the job problems, responsibilities and

choices pose for the particular manager. Therefore, we agree on the suggestion of Tesluk et al. (internal

document) to label this component “unfamiliar responsibilities”. Unfamiliar responsibilities are developmental

because employees are confronted with novel situations rendering existing routines and behaviors inadequate

and requiring the development of new ways of coping with problems and opportunities. Furthermore, those

experiences motivate employees to prove themselves all over again to their peers, subordinates and superiors.

(McCauley et al., 1994)

Task or projects that require the manager to bring about change are a second developmental source (Dechant,

1990; Kelleher et al., 1986; McCall, et al., 1988; Valerio, 1990). More concrete, the developmental

characteristics may stem from the need to develop new directions, to address inherited problems or to react on

problems with employees (e.g. resistance to change, incompetence). Creating change is developmental because

the combination of a desired goal and ambiguity about how to achieve it gives rise to willingness to try new

behaviors and attitudes in order to adapt and an opportunity to innovate. Further, the outcomes of change efforts

2 The Developmental Challenge Profile (DCP) has been revised and updated to create the Job Challenge Profile. As a shorter (50 instead of 133 items) self-score assessment the JCP is more accessible and user-friendly while maintaining the power and insight of its predecessors.

8

help to either reinforce newer reinforced approaches to problems or suggest revision or modifications (McCauley

et al., 1994)

High level of responsibility has been pointed out as a third developmental component (Davies & Easterby-

Smith, 1984; Kelleher, et al., 1986; Kotter, 1988; McCall et al., 1988). This component includes a high visibility

to higher management in combination with a large scope and scale of responsibilities, resulting in a strong push

to enhance skills and abilities and a forum for making an impact (McCauley, 1994).

Managing interfaces are another developmental component (Dechant, 1990; McCall et al., 1988). This

component consists of job situations that require the employee to handle external pressure or to influence

situations with little formal authority over others. Those situations can be developmental because they require

use of negotiation and influence skills, building relationships, thinking other’s perspective, being straightforward

with others, and getting parties to work collaboratively. (McCauley, et al., 1994).

The final developmental component of on-the-job experience is managing diversity (Tesluk et al., internal doc.).

Although this component was not included in the McCauley et al. (1994) study, it was added in their subsequent

work because of the important lessons managers gain from being in situations when they are responsible for

leading diverse work groups and working with others from different backgrounds and cultures. These type of

work experiences require managers to develop an understanding and appreciation of cross-cultural differences

and diversity and improve their interpersonal skills such as communicating with those from different cultures.

Remarks and research questions on the conceptualization of the on-the-job experience construct

To conclude, some final remarks have to be made. First, McCauley and colleagues elaborated in their later work

on the different kinds of developmental experience (McCauley, 2001; McCauley, Moxley & Van Velsor, 1998).

Historically, the major focus of research has been on developmental job assignments or components, as they are

central to the process of on-the-job learning (Fleishman & Mumford, 1989; Hall, 1991; McCall et al., 1988;

McCauley et al., 1994; Morrison & Brantner, 1992). However, experiences can also occur on the job through

relationships with others (McCauley & Douglas, 1998) and through hardships (Moxley, 1998). In line with

authors suggesting to include contextual dynamics underlying the developmental on-the-job experiences (e.g.

mentoring and organizational structure) (Higgins & Kram, 2001; Higgins & Thomas, 2001; Kram, 1988;

McCauley & Young, 1993; Merriam & Heuer, 1996; Morrison & Branter, 1992), we consider developmental

relationships as one aspect of support delivered by the context (cf. infra). Hardships are suggested to be

developmental because they cause people to stop and reflect and produce psychological discomfort and as such,

motivate to change and learn (McCauley et al., 1994; Moxley, 1998). However, recent empirical research has

failed to find a significant relationship with perceived challenge and growth (McCauley et al, 1994). Therefore,

this kind of experiences will not be included in our research.

Second, Tesluk & Jacobs (1998) have further developed the work experience construct, introduced by Quiñones

et al. (1995), by elaborating on the dimensionality of work experience. They suggested including the different

This shorted version was created by eliminating items and scales that were identified as less effective in McCauley et al.’s original validation

9

components of experience, as each measure captures a somewhat unique portion of an individual’s overall level

of work experience. They argued that relationships between work experience and outcomes will be enhanced by

treating work experience as consisting of three components (qualitative, quantitative and interaction) and by

specifying the appropriate level of analysis (task, job, work group or organization). However, as mentioned

before, these authors also argued that special attention should be paid to the qualitative dimension.

Third, Tesluk et al.’ study (internal doc.) indicated, consistent with McCauley et al.’s view of developmental

experiences, the five components are best understood and represented as forming an aggregate higher-order

developmental on-the-job work experience construct (Law, Wong & Mobley, 1998). The five developmental

components themselves are not considered to be constructs, but are specific components (first-order factors) of

developmental on-the-job work experiences (Tesluk et al., internal doc.).

Finally, the terms challenging and stretching have been used to describe assignments that are particular

developmental. However, previous research has not directly assessed the degree of challenge experienced

(Tesluk et al., …). Research (McCauley et al., 1994) has indicated that some challenging situations (e.g. lack of

support) were negatively related to development. It is possible that the stress of coping with conflict is so great

that a manager does not reflect on what has been learned from the negative situation until later on when it has

been terminated or otherwise resolved (Hall, 1991). Therefore, several authors point out the importance to

integrate the degree of challenge as potential mediating mechanism (Bunker & Webb, 1992; McCauley et al.,

1994; Tesluk et al., …; Hall, 1991).

Considering the need for further research, our study focuses on the qualitative dimension, as an aggregate

higher–order construct taking into account the degree of challenge. More concrete, with regard to the

conceptualization of the on-the-job work experience construct, we formulate two research questions:

Research question 1: Can the on-the-job experience construct be considered as an aggregate higher-

order construct consisting of the five developmental job components: unfamiliar responsibilities,

creating change, high levels of responsibility, managing interfaces and managing diversity?

Research question 2: What is the mediating effect of the degree of challenge experienced?

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE VARIABLES AND SITUATIONAL VARIABLES INFLUENCING ON-

THE-JOB LEARNING

As argued by the interactionistic approach, future research needs to consider individual and situational factors to

further our understanding in on-the-job learning. “Learning does not often automatically follow from experience;

it requires reflection and a desire to learn from what has occurred as well as an environment that provides

opportunities for reflection and learning” (Seibert, 1996). In McCauley, Ohlott & Ruderman’s study (1989), job

demands and transitions accounted for less than one-third of the variance in the measures of development,

suggesting that additional factors impact learning. They concluded that in order for experience to lead to learning

and growth, the individual manager has to recognize and accept the challenge, and react adaptively. Also the

study (1994).

10

organization has to provide feedback, support and reinforcement (McCauley et al., 1989). Tesluk & Jacobs

(1998) have added that individual and situational factors need to be considered together in how they produce

experience. And, next to directly contributing to the development of work experiences, these factors facilitate

what is gained from experience (Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998). In the following paragraphs we elaborate on these

individual difference variables and the situational variables. At the end of each paragraph, we indicate the focus

of our research and formulate research questions with regard to the variables of interest.

Individual difference variables

In general, there is less systematic research on the role of individual differences in on-the-job learning than there

is on the kinds of experiences that are developmental (McCauley & Brutus, 1998). Most research has tended to

focus on a limited number of variables, in absence of any guiding theoretical framework. Based on a review of

previous empirical and theoretical work (Wouters & Buyens, internal document), a distinction can be made

among four streams of research on individual variability in on-the-job learning. First, research on the way in

which individuals learn, i.e. their learning strategy (Biggs, 1988; Entwistle, 1988; Hoeksema, 1995; Marton &

Saljo, 1976; Megginson, 1996; Pask, 1988; Sadler-Smith, 2001; Spreitzer et al., 1997). This stream of research

originated in the field of education, but induced by Kolb’s work, has also been introduced in the literature on

adult development. Second, researchers in the field of management development have examined the

characteristics of individuals who are particularly adept at learning from job experiences, i.e ability to learn

(Bunker & Webb, 1992; Kelleher et al., 1986; McCauley, Ruderman & Ohlott, 1996; Spreitzer et al., 1997; Van

Velsor & Guthrie, 1998). Third, researchers in the field of education have also had an interest in the processes by

which individuals become more self-directed, effective learners, i.e. learning to learn (Brookfield, 1995; Candy,

1990; Gibbons, 1990; Knowles, 1974; Smith, 1990). Finally, based on the Human Capital Theory (Tharenou,

1997) the impact of socio-demographic variables and occupation type (background variables) on developmental

on-the-job experiences have been examined (Campion et al., 1994; Cianni & Romberger, 1995; Gattiker &

Larwood, 1988; Horgan, 1989; Lyness & Thompson, 1997; Ohlott, Ruderman & McCauley, 1994; Tharenou,

1997; Van Velsor & Hughes, 1990)

Research on on-the-job learning needs an overarching theory that would help explain why individuals with

particular preferences, personalities, abilities, and demographic characteristics are more likely to learn from on-

the-job experiences (McCauley & Brutus, 1998; McCauley, 2001). Such a theory should first articulate what it

means to learn from experience, followed by indicating what individual variables play a role in those behaviors

(Hall, 1991). In the literature a few attempts to come to a more integrating theory can be found (Wouters &

Buyens, internal doc.). First, Tesluk & Jacobs (1998) made a distinction between two broad categories of

activities related to on-the-job learning: development of experiences and extracting lessons from these

experiences. Also Van Velsor & Guthrie (1998) indicated what it might mean to learn from experience. “The

ability to learn from experience involves being able to: (1) Recognize when new behaviors, skills, or attitudes are

called for, which involves being able to see when current approaches are not working; (2) Engage in a variety of

development experiences to learn new skills or test skills that are previously untested, and to try new approaches

or reframe points of view (as opposed to avoiding the situation or denying the need, and; Develop and use a

variety of learning tactics to acquire the new skills, approaches, or attitudes (Van Velsor & Guthrie, 1998, p.

11

243).” This definition is in line with the distinction made by Tesluk & Jacobs (1998). The first activity of

recognizing corresponds with what Tesluk & Jacobs (1998) have called pursuing and developing on-the-job

experiences. The other two activities refer to gaining lessons from the experiences in order to enhance one’s

knowledge and skills.

Individual characteristics enabling each of these activities can be selected (Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998). Based on a

comprehensive review, McCauley & Brutus (1998) detected four individual difference variables that are

important in influencing who actively pursues challenging assignments and/or who gains the critical lessons of

experience from those assignment.

Several researchers have found learning orientation to be critical to on-the-job learning (Bunker & Webb, 1992;

Hofmann et al., 1993; Kelleher et al., 1986; McCall, 1994; Merriam & Caffarella, 1999; Noe & Wilk, 1993;

Spreitzer et al., 1997). Learning is a central concept in these individuals’ approach to work. They see life as a

series of ongoing learning experiences. They accept responsibility for learning and seek experiences that will

enhance their personal development (McCauley & Brutus, 1998, Van Velsor & Guthrie, 1998). Those with a

strong learning orientation are also more likely to gain lessons from developmental experiences, which can be

explained by the tendency to perceive feedback as an opportunity to learn (VandeWalle, Cron & Slocum, 2001)

and to demonstrate persistence in mastering new skills and knowledge (Dweck, 1986, Van Velsor & Guthrie,

1998).

A second variable that is considered to play a role in the ability to learn from on-the-job experiences is a

proactive stance toward problems and opportunities (Bunker & Webb, 1992; Dechant, 1990; Marsick &

Watkins, 1990; McCall, 1994). These managers tackle problems head-on; they are biased toward action. They

also have a sense of adventure; they like to experience new things, try out new ideas, and meet new people.

When they find themselves in a new situation or identify a learning deficit in themselves, they demonstrate a

readiness to take initiative and are very self-directed in their efforts to satisfy their learning needs. (McCauley &

Brutus, 1998). Individuals with a proactive stance toward problems and opportunities tend to have positive

attitudes toward unfamiliar experiences in general and a greater willingness to engage in them (Barrick &

Mount, 1991).

Third, critical reflection has been pointed out as a relevant individual difference characteristic in influencing on-

the-job learning (Bunker & Webb, 1992; Dechant, 1990; Kelleher et al., 1986; Marsick & Watkins, 1990;

McCall, 1994; Spreitzer et al., 1997). Critical reflection refers to a tendency to reflect, not just on the events, but

on one’s underlying assumptions (Marsick & Watkins, 1990). There are various ways in which individuals may

engage in critical reflection (McCauley & Brutus, 1998). They pay attention to surprising results and try to

understand them. They explore how things work, why things are the way they are. They see patterns and

connections between seemingly unconnected variables. They ask many questions and look at questions from

different perspectives. They seek out feedback, comparison points, benchmarks, and role models. They try to

understand their own strengths and weaknesses and diagnose the gaps between their current skills and what is

needed in a situation. (McCauley & Brutus, 1998, p. 46-47).

12

A last variable included in the review of McCauley & Brutus is openness (Bunker & Webb, 1992; Kelleher et

al., 1986; McCall, 1994; Spreitzer et al., 1997). Openness mainly influences the lessons gained from

experiences. Those individuals with an open personality are open to other points of view, to feedback and

criticism from others, and to shifting their strategies. In their work they emphasize being open to information

from the environment and they are sensitive and react adaptively to cultural differences. (McCauley & Brutus,

1998).

Within the literature, some authors focus on challenge as the common feature of developmental on-the-job

experiences. Here, learning is considered as overcoming the stress and inertia when confronted with a new

experience (Bunker & Webb, 1992; Van Velsor & Guthrie, 1998). As a result, with respect to the individual

variability, variables that have been mentioned are a positive attitude towards learning (learning goal

orientation), a strong self-concept (self-efficacy) and a sense of personal control (locus of control, coping

abilities). These three categories of individual difference variables are expected to moderate the extent to which

work experiences, that present obstacles and initial failures, translate into motivation development and

knowledge and skill acquisition (Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998). With exception to learning orientation, which has been

described above, we elaborate on each of these individual difference variables.

First, self-efficacy has been found to influence the likelihood that individuals pursue opportunities to update their

skills and the acquisition of new knowledge and skills through on-the-job experiences (Morrison & Brantner,

1992; Noe & Wilk, 1993). Self-efficacy stands at the very core of the social-cognitive learning theory and is

defined as people’s beliefs about their capabilities to exercise control over challenging situations (Bandura,

1989). These expectations of personal efficacy can enhance human function in several ways. First, they influence

the choices people make; people tend to select tasks and activities in which they feel competent and confident

and avoid those in which they do not. Second, self-efficacy beliefs help determine how much effort people will

expend on an activity, how long they will persevere when confronting obstacles, and how resilient they will be in

the face of adverse situations. Finally, they influence an individual’s thought pattern and emotional reactions

(Bandura, 1977; 1989; Wood & Bandura, 1989; Pajares). Not surprisingly, research has shown that high levels

of self-efficacy are related to high levels of task performance (Gist, Schwoerer & Rosen, 1989; Mathieu,

Martineau & Tannenbaum, 1993). With respect to the influence on developmental activity, some preliminary

results have shown that individuals with high levels of self-efficacy are more likely to choose to participate in

challenging assignments and take responsibility for personal development than individuals with low levels of

self-efficacy (Morrison & Brantner, 1992; Noe & Wilk, 1993).

Second, locus of control has been mentioned as a relevant variable in creating a sense of personal control (Van

Velsor & Guthrie, 1998; McCauley, 2001). This individual variable refers to a person’s view as responsible for

and able to effect outcomes (Ilgen & Klein, 1988; Van Velsor & Guthrie, 1998). A further distinction has been

made between internal and external locus of control. Former implies a belief that outcomes are a direct result of

their own efforts. Contrary, people with an external locus of control outcomes as resulting more from luck, fate,

or other factors not under their control. Locus of control might influence people’s reaction to assessment

feedback, what they believe about the relation between effort and mastery, and how they feel about rewards they

13

can expect from a learning effort. Trainees with internal locus of control are more likely to act on feedback and

remain committed to difficult goals longer because they see themselves as in control of their own development

and are likely to believe that their efforts will bring improvement (Van Velsor & Guthrie, 1998, p. 250).

Finally, several authors suggest to consider coping strategies as factors in predicting on-the-job learning (Bunker

& Webb, 1992; McCauley et al., 1989; McCauley et al., 1994). Emotion-focused coping, i.e. coping aimed at

reducing or managing the emotional stress, has been contrasted with problem-focused coping, i.e. coping aimed

at problem solving to alter the source of stress (McCauley et al., 1994). Van Velsor & Guthrie (1998) argue that

understanding feelings and managing anxiety are critical to learning from experiences. Contrary, McCauley et al.

(1994) stressed the role of problem-focused coping strategies. Emotion-focused coping engages the manager in

controlling feelings about the problem rather than trying to take action and learn from the consequences of those

actions, resulting in less a sense of control. And, the less control a manager feels over some problem or painful

situation in his or her job, the less likely he or she will approach that situation as a learning opportunity

(McCauley et al., 1994, p. 558).

In summary, it can be concluded that ability to learn has been considered as a complex combination of

motivational and personality factors. Previous research failed to clearly conceptualize and operationalize the

construct. To overcome the lack of consistency, future research might begin by developing a better

understanding of ability to learn by grounding it in an overarching theory and considering it as an

multidimensional construct (McCauley, 2001; Spreitzer et al., 1997). Considering the shortcomings of current

research, our research examines the individual variability by looking at the effects of individual difference

variables on both pursuing and extracting lessons from developmental on-the-job experiences. Furthermore, as

the degree of challenge is included in our focal on-the-job experience construct, we also include those variables

that are expected to have an impact on the degree of challenge experienced.

With regard to the individual difference variables influencing on-the-job learning, we formulate following

research questions:

Research question 3: What are the effects of individual difference variables on the development of on-

the-job experiences?

Research question 4: What are the effects of individual difference variables on the lessons gained from

on-the-job experiences?

Research question 5: What are the effects of individual difference variables on the degree of challenge

experienced?

Situational variables

Research has indicated that although developmental assignments stretch people and point out their strengths and

weaknesses, the assignments that are most developmental also incorporate an element of support (Van Velsor et

al., 1998; Ohlott, 1998). McCauley et al.’s study (1994) conceptualized lack of support as an obstacle from

which managers learn. Their data however, suggested that development is perceived as stronger when lack of

support is low rather than high. Furthermore, Morrison (1992) argued that there is such a thing as too much

14

challenge stemming from obstacles and that support is needed to balance this out. Without such safeguards and

support developmental experiences, like for instance new assignments, could be overwhelming rather than

developmental (McCauley & Hezlett, 2001; Merriam & Heuer, 1996). Support can be situated on different levels

(societal level, occupational level, organizational level and immediate work environment level) and is important

both in influencing participation in developmental experiences and in facilitating the extent to which knowledge

and skills result from work experience (Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998). Below, we elaborate on the immediate work

environment level, as primarily this level has an impact on or supports learning from on-the-job experiences

(Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998). Moreover, in line with the major focus of current research (Wouters & Buyens, internal

doc.), our research focuses on developmental relationships.

The typical research focused on the primary mentoring relationships (McCauley & Young, 1993; Higgins &

Kram, 2001; Higgins & Thomas, 2001). Within this traditional approach mentoring is mainly conceptualized as

the developmental assistance provided by an individual who holds a higher-level or more senior organizational

position (e.g. Fagenson, 1989; Hunt & Michael, 1984; Kram, 1988; Roche, 1979). Some authors have opposed

this classical view to the idea that individuals look to more than a primary individual (Higgins & Kram, 2001;

Higgins & Thomas, 2001; Kram & Isabella, 1985; McDougall & Beattie, 1997). This idea was first introduced

by Kram (1988), under the label of “relationship constellations”, but received only more recently further

theoretical and empirical attention. Kram (1988) stated that relationships with peers, bosses, subordinates and

friends and family members can also provide a range of developmental functions. More recent theoretical

research has revisited this idea, focusing on the importance of relationships with multiple developers (Higgins &

Kram, 2001). Higgins & Kram (2001) defined an individual’s developmental network as the set of people a

protégé names as taken an active interest in and action to advance the protégé’s career by providing

developmental assistance (p. 268). In accordance to the underlying social network perspective the relationships

are simultaneously held, as opposed to a sequence of developmental relationships (e.g. Turban & Dougherty,

1994; Whitely & Coetsier, 1993). The authors expect the diversity and the strength of such networks to have an

impact on individual’s career. Finally, it is important to notice that these authors go beyond the discussion

between primary and secondary mentors. They provide one overarching term for people who provide

developmental assistance, namely “developers”. Only few studies have examined sources of support beyond a

traditional or primary source. Kram, (1988) and Kram & Isabella (1985) examined peer relationships and their

influence on development. These two studies indicated that peer relationships appear to have the potential to

serve some of the same critical functions as mentoring relationships. Moreover, peer relationships may have the

advantage that this kind of relationship is more likely to be available to individuals. Furthermore, Burke, Bristor

& Rothstein (1995) examined the role of interpersonal networks in women’s and men’s career development.

Building on Kram’s notion of a relationship constellation, all potentially supportive relationships of a focal

person, both inside and outside the organization were considered. The findings indicated that the presence of

supportive interpersonal relationships is associated with valued work and career outcomes. Finally, Higgins &

Thomas (2001) empirically tested the effects of an individual’s developmental constellation in comparison with

an individual’s primary mentoring relationship. The results showed that the constellation perspective explained

as much if not more variance than the primary developer perspective on mentoring.

15

Historically, research has also focused on the existence of a mentor on the one hand and relevant outcome

variables (e.g. career attainment, salary and retention) on the other hand (Fagenson, 1989; Fagenson, 1994; Hunt

& Michael, 1983; Kram, 1988; Roche, 1979; Turban & Dougherty, 1994; Whitely, Dougherty & Dreher, 1991).

In more recent research on multiple developmental relationships a similarly tendency can be found, as this

research has tended to look at the number of developers offering developmental support (Higgins &Thomas,

2001). In terms of Tesluk & Jacobs’ (1998) conceptual framework of work experience (cf. supra) it can be

concluded that previous research conceptualized and operationalized the mentoring relationship in quantitative

terms. Contrary, Higgins & Thomas (2001) and Mullen (1998) suggested that research not only needs to address

the question of whether or not having one or more developers influences employees’ development. Rather,

research should focus on the conditions under which having such developers are indeed helpful, or in Tesluk &

Jacobs’ terms, on the qualitative components of developmental relationships. On a theoretical level, both the

mentoring literature, the literature on social support and on management development elaborated on the

qualitative dimensions (Wouters & Buyens, internal doc.). Although there has been an extensive theoretical

discussion on what exactly makes developmental relationships developmental, little empirical evidence can be

found to clarify the underlying mechanisms of the positive effects of developmental relationships. Only research

on the distinct functions of mentoring, introduced by Kram and colleagues (1988), forms an exception.

Research by Kram and her colleagues (1988) attempted to explain how mentoring enhances both an individual’s

growth and advancement (Fagenson, 1989; Mullen, 1998). These studies resulted in a distinction between career

functions and psycho-social functions, which are considered to be the essential characteristics that differentiate

developmental relationships from other work relationships. A number of studies supported Kram’s original

work, and have documented the functions that mentors provide to protégés (e.g. Noe, 1988; Schokett & Haring-

Hidore, 1985). Career functions are those aspects of the relationship that enhance learning the ropes and

preparing for advancement in de organization. These functions aid the protégé’s career development and include

sponsorship, exposure-and-visibility, coaching, protection, and challenging assignments. Sponsorship involves

actively nominating an individual for desirable lateral moves and promotions

The exposure-and-visibility function involves assigning responsibilities that allow a lower-level manager to

develop relationships with key figures in the organization who may judge his or her potential for further

development (visible). These assignments also allow a junior manager to learn about parts of the organization

that he aspires to enter (expose to future opportunities). The coaching function enhances the junior person’s

knowledge and understanding of how to navigate effectively in the corporate world. The protection function

shields the junior person from untimely or potentially damaging contact with other senior officials. The mentor

supports career advancement by reducing unnecessary risks that can threaten an emerging reputation as a

potential manager. The assignment of challenging work, supported with technical training and ongoing feedback,

enables the junior manager to develop specific competencies and to experience a sense of accomplishment in a

professional role. The ongoing support and feedback on performance enable the junior person to meet the

challenges presented. Without critical feedback and support, the junior person might feel overwhelmed by the

degree of complexity of assignments or angry for being asked to do so much at this point. Kram (1988) argues

that while sponsorship, exposure-and-visibility, coaching and protection open avenues for advancement,

challenging work assignments equip the individual with the skills to take advantage of these opportunities.

16

Psychosocial functions are those aspects of a relationship that enhance a sense of competence, clarity of identity

and effectiveness in a professional role. Psychosocial functions help in the development of the self-concept and

include role modeling, acceptance-and-confirmation, counseling and friendship. Role modeling involves the

senior person setting a desired example, and the junior person identifying with it. A senior colleague’s attitudes,

values and behavior provide a model for the junior colleague to emulate. Through the function of acceptance and

confirmation the individual derive a sense of self from the positive regard conveyed by the other; provide

support and encouragement; has a basic trust that encourages the adult to take risks; tolerates differences and

allows self-differentiation. This enables the junior manager to experiment with new behaviors. Counseling

implies that the more experienced senior colleague provides a sounding board for self-exploration, offers

personal experience as an alternative perspective, and helps resolve problems through feedback and active

listening. This enables an individual to explore personal concerns that may interfere with a positive sense of self

in the organization. The friendship function is characterized by social interaction that results in mutual liking and

understanding and enjoyable informal exchanges about work and outside work experiences. This enhances work

on the difficult tasks of early and middle career years.

Kram (1988) argued that relationships that provide both kinds of functions are characterized by greater intimacy

and strength of interpersonal bond and are viewed as more indispensable, more critical to development and more

unique than other relationships. Relationships that provide only career functions are characterized by less

intimacy and are valued primarily for the instrumental ends that they serve in the organizational context. In line

with Kram’s the more is better assumption, much of the prior research on mentoring has assumed that the

effectiveness of a mentoring relationship lies in the amount of mentoring assistance provided (Higgins & Kram,

2001). More concrete, previous studies (e.g. Turban & Dougherty, 1994; Cianni & Romberger, 1995; Thomas,

1990) have often focused on the amount of mentoring support provided as the dependent variable of interest, and

have examined the influence of for example protégé-characteristics and relationship-characteristics on the

strength of the support offered (Higgins & Kram, 2001). As stated by Higgins and Thomas (2001), both the

amount and type of support should be considered as relevant indicators of the quality of the relationship.

Furthermore, implications of the relationship quality in influencing on-the-job learning need further empirical

study (Scandura, 1992).

Considering the needs for further research, as discussed above, our research project focuses on multiple

developmental relationships, with special attention for the qualitative components (amount and type of support)

of the relationships. Furthermore, like with regard to the individual difference variables, we are interested in the

role of support in pursuing and extracting lessons from developmental on-the-job experiences. Finally, as the

degree of challenge is included in our focal on-the-job experience construct, we are interested in the effect of

support from the context on the degree of challenge experienced.

With regard to the situational variables influencing on-the-job learning, we formulate following research

questions:

Research question 6: What are the effects of multiple developmental relationships on the development

of on-the-job experiences?

17

Research question 7: What are the effects of multiple developmental relationships on the lessons gained

from on-the-job experiences?

Research question 8: What are the effects of multiple developmental relationships on the degree of

challenge experienced?

ON-THE-JOB LEARNING INFLUENCING CAREER SUCCESS

As stated in the introduction, theories on on-the-job learning are a relevant perspective to look at individuals’

careers. However, empirical evidence on the impact of on-the-job learning on individuals’ careers is scarce. In

this research project career success will be looked at as outcome variable. Career success is defined in terms of

the positive psychological and work-related outcomes accumulated as a result of one’s work experiences

(Boudreau, Boswell & Judge, 1999; Bretz & Judge, 1994; Dreher & Bretz, 1991; Judge, Cable, Boudreau &

Bretz, 1995; London & Stumpf, 1982; Seibert, Crant & Kraimer, 1999; Seibert & Kraimer, 2001). Two types of

career success can be distinguished. First, intrinsic career success, mostly measured in terms of job satisfaction

and career satisfaction, refers to factors that are inherent in the job itself and is dependent on the incumbent’s

subjective evaluation relative to his or her own goals and expectations (Boudreau et al., 1999; Judge et al., 1995;

London & Stumpf, 1982). Second, extrinsic career success, most often measured in terms of salary and

promotions, refers to outcomes that are instrumental rewards from the job and which are objectively observable

(Boudreau et al., 1999; Judge et al., 1995; London & Stumpf, 1982;). Because these two aspects of career

success are conceptually and empirically distinct (Bretz & Judge, 1994; Seibert et al., 1999; Seibert & Kraimer,

2001) it is important to consider them both in order to provide a broad measure of career success.

With regard to the impact of on-the-job learning on career success, we formulate following research questions:

Research question 9: What are the effects of on-the-job learning on intrinsic career success?

Research question 10: What are the effects of on-the-job learning on extrinsic career success?

CONCLUSION

Obtaining insight in individual learning processes is a necessary step in understanding and managing

organizational learning (Miner & Mezias, 1996; Richter, 1998). Furthermore, there is an increasing recognition

that most learning and development of employees may occur on the job itself (Davies & Easterby-Smith, 1984;

Ellinger & Bostrom, 2002; Hunt, 1991; McCall, et al., 1988; Mumford, 1997; Wick, 1989; Wick & Leon, 1993).

Despite the emergence of on-the-job learning in research and practice, we have no “theory of experience”

(Merriam & Caffarella, 1999). To further develop a theory of on-the-job learning, we have build on the

frameworks provided by Quiñones, Ford & Teachout (1995) and Tesluk & Jacobs (1998). In line with the

research objectives, discussed in the introduction, our study contributes to the theory development in several

ways.

First, in line with McCauley & Hezlett’s (2001) suggestion for further research, our theoretical framework on

on-the-job learning integrates both the adult development lens and the self-directed learning lens. This implies

18

on the one hand that experience is the central variable of interest. On the other hand, both individual difference

and situational variables are taken into account, influencing both the development of on-the-job experience and

how experience translates into leaning and career outcomes (Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998). Second, we elaborate on

the qualitative component of on-the-job experience by including the five developmental job components and by

including the mediating effect of the degree of challenge experienced. Third, research on individual difference

variables is integrated, as we attempt to explain why people with particular preferences, personalities, abilities

are more likely to seek out developmental on-the-job experiences and to learn from these experiences. Fourth,

research on situational variables is elaborated on, as our model includes multiple developmental relationships.

More concrete, the model focuses on the influence of the quality of support provided on the development of on-

the-job experiences and the lessons gained from those experiences. Finally, our framework integrated a career

perspective to consider the impact of on-the-job learning.

19

REFERENCES

Argyris, C., & Schön, D.A. (1978). Organisational learning: a theory of action perspective. Reading: Adisson-

Wesley.

Arnold, J. (1997). Managing careers into the 21st century. London: Loughborough University.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2),

pp. 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), pp. 1175-1184.

Barrick, M.R. & Mount, M.K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-

analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, pp. 1-26.

Biggs, J.B. (1988). Approaches to learning and to essay writing. In R.R. Scmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and

learning styles. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 186-228

Boudreau, J.W., Boswell, W.R., & Judge, T.A. (1999). Effects of personality on executive career success in the

U.S. and Europe. Working Paper Series 99-12. New York: Cornell University.

Brett, J.M. (1984). Job Transitions and Personal and Role Development. In K.M. Rowland & G.R. Ferris (Eds.),

Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management. Greenwich: JAI Press, pp. 155-188.

Bretz, R.D., & Judge, T.A. (1994, February). Person organization fit and the theory of work adjustment:

Implications for satisfaction, tenure and career succes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44, pp. 32-54.

Brookfield, S. (1995). Adult Learning: An Overview. In A. Tuinjman (Ed.). International Encyclopedia of

Education. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Bunker & Webb (1992). Learning How to Learn From Experience: Impact of stress and coping. Greensboro:

Center for Creative Leadership.

Burke, R.J., Bristor, J.M. & Rothstein, M.G. (1995). The role of interpersonal networks in women’s and men’s

career development. The International Journal of Career Development, 7(3), pp. 25-32.

Burgoyne, J.G., & Hodgson, V.E. (1983). Natural learning and managerial action: A phenomenological study in

the field setting. Journal of Management Studies, 20 (3), pp. 387-399.

20

Buyens, D., Martens, G., Meganck, A., Wouters, K., & De Vos, A. (2002). De relatie en interactie tussen

loopbaanactiviteiten en werknemersperceptie inzake loopbaanontwikkeling als onderdeel van het psychologisch

contract: Literatuurstudie en empirisch onderzoek [The relation and interaction between career systems and

employee perceptions as part of the psychological contract: Literature study and empirical research].

Wetenschappelijk onderzoeksverslag opgesteld in het kader van het F.W.O. project nr G.0106.00N, Gent:

Universiteit Gent.

Campion, M.A., Cheraskin, L. & Stevens, M.J. (1994). Career-related antecedents and outcomes of job rotation.

Academy of Management Journal, 37(6), pp. 1518-1542.

Candy, P.C. (1990). How People Learn to Learn. In: R.M. Smith (Ed.), Learning to Learn Across the Lifespan.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 30-63.

Cheetham, G. & Chivers, G. (2001). How professionals learn – the theory. Journal of European Industrial

Training, 25(5), pp. 250-269.

Cianni, M. & Romberger, B. (1995). Perceived racial, ethnic, and gender differences in access to developmental

experiences. Group & Organization Management, 20(4), pp. 440-459.

Davies, J., & Easterby-Smith, M. (1984). Learning and developing from managerial work experiences. Journal

of Management Studies, 21(2), pp. 169-183.

Dechant, K. (1990). Knowing how to learn: The neglected management ability. Journal of Management Studies,

21(9), pp. 40-49.

Dechant, K. (1994). Making the most of job assignments: an exercise in planning for learning. Journal of

Management Education, 18(2), pp. 198-211.

Dixon, N.M. (1994). A Theoretical Framework of Individual Learning, In: N.M. Dixon (Ed.), The

Organizational Learning Cycle: How We Can Learn Collectively. London: McGraw-Hill Book Company, pp.

10-35.

Dogson, M. (1993). Organizational learning: a review of some literatures. Organization Studies, 14, pp. 375-394.

DuBois, D. & McKee, A. (1994). Facets of work experience. Paper presented at the 6th Annual Conference of the

Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St Louis, MO.

Dweck, C.S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, pp. 1040-1048.

21

Ellinger, A.D., & Bostrom, R.P. (2002). An examination of managers’ beliefs about their roles as facilitators of

learning. Management Learning, 33(2), pp. 147-179.

Entwistle, N.J. (1988). Motivational factors in students’ approaches to learning. In R.R. Scmeck (Ed.), Learning

strategies and learning styles. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 21-52.

Fagenson, E.A. (1989). The mentor advantage: perceived career/job experiences of proteges versus non-

proteges. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10(4), pp. 309-320.

Fagenson, E.A. (1994). Perceptions of proteges’ vs nonproteges’ relationships with their peers, superiors and

departments. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, pp. 55-78.

Fleishman, E.A., & Mumford, M.D. (1989). Individual attributes and training performance. In I.L. Goldstein

(Ed.), Training and development in Organizations. San Fransico: Jossey-Bass, pp. 183-255.

Gattiker, A.E. & Larwood, L. (1988). Predictors for managers’ career mobility, success and satisfaction. Human

Relations, 41(8), pp. 569-591.

Gherardi, S., Nicolini, D., & Odella, F. (1998). Toward a social understanding of how people learn in

organizations: The notion of situated curriculum. Management Learning, 29(3), pp. 273-297.

Gibbons, M. (1990). A Working Model of the Learning-How-to-Learn Process. In: R.M. Smith (Ed.), Learning

to Learn Across the Lifespan. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 64-97.

Gist, M.E., Schwoerer, C., & Rosen, B. (1989). Effects of alternative training methods on self-efficacy and

performance in computer software training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, pp. 884-891.

Hall, D.T. (1996). Protean careers of the 21st century. Academy of Management Executive, 10(4), pp. 8-16.

Hall, D.T. (1991). Twenty questions: Research needed to advance the field of careers. In R.F. Morrison & J.

Adams (Eds.), Contemporary career development issues. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 151-167.

Hall, D.T., & Mirvis, P.H. (1995). Careers as lifelong learning. In A. Howard (Ed.), The changing Nature of

Work . San Fransico, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 323-361.

Higgins, M.C., & Kram, K.E. (2001). Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: a developmental network

perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), pp. 264-288.

Higgins, M.C., & Thomas, D.A. (2001). Constellations and careers: toward understanding the effects of multiple

developmental relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(3), pp. 223-247.

22

Hoeksema, L.H. (1995). Learning strategy as a guide to career success in organizations. Non-published

doctoral dissertation, Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.

Hofmann, D.A., Jacobs, R., & Gerras, S.J. (1992). Mapping individual performance over time. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 77(2), pp. 185-195.

Horgan, D.D. (1989). A cognitive learning perspective on women becoming expert managers. Journal of

Business and Psychology, 3(3), pp. 299-313.

Howard, A., & Bray, D.W. (1988). Managerial lives in transition: Advancing age and changing times. New

York: Guilford Press.

Howard, A. & Bray, D.W. (1990). Predictions of Managerial Success over Long Periods of Time: Lessons From

the Management Progress Study. In: K.E. Clark & M.B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of Leadership. West Orange:

Leadership Library of America, pp. 113-127.

Hunt, D.M. & Michael,C. (1983). Mentorship: a career training and development tool. The Academy of

Management Review, 8(3), pp. 475-485.

Hunt, J.G. (1991). Leadership: A new synthesis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ilgen, D.R. & Klein, H.J. (1988). Individual Motivation and Performance: Cognitive influences on effort and

choice. In J.P. Campbell, R.J. Campbell and Associates (Eds.), Productivity in Organizations: New perspectives

from industrial and organisational psychology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 143-176.

Judge, T.A., Cable, D.M., Boudreau, J.W., & Bretz, R.D. (1995). An empirical investigation of the predictors of

executive career succes. Personnel Psychology, 48(3), pp. 485-520.

Kahn, W.A. (1992). To be fully there: psychological presence. Human Relations, 45(4).

Karakowsky, L. & McBey, K. (1999). The lessons of work: toward an understanding of the implications of the

workplace for adult learning and development. Journal of Workplace Learning, 11(6), pp. 192-203

Kelleher, D., Finestone, P. & Lowy, A. (1986). Managerial learning: first notes from an unstudied frontier.

Group & Organization Studies, 11(3), pp. 169-202.

Keys, B. & Wolfs, J. (1988). Management education and development: current issues and emerging trends.

Journal of Management, 14(2), pp. 205-229.

23

Knowles, M.S. (1974). The modern practice of adult education: andragogy versus pedagogy. New York:

Association Press NY.

Kram, K.E. (1988). Mentoring at Work: Developmental Relationships in Organizational Life. Lanham:

University Press of America.

Kram, K.E. & Isabella, L.A. (1985). Mentoring alternatives: the role of peer relationships in career development.

Academy of Management Journal, 28(1), pp. 110-132.

Law, K.S. ,Wong, C. & Mobley, W.H. (1998). Toward a taxonomy of multidimensional constructs. Academy of

Management Review, 23, pp. 741-755.

London, M., & Stumpf, S. (1982). Managing Careers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Lyness & Thompson (1997). Above the glass ceiling: a comparison of matched samples of female and male

executives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), pp. 359-375.

Marsick, V.J., & O’Neil, J. (1999). The many faces of action learning. Management Learning, 30(2), pp. 159-

176.

Marsick, V. & Watkins, K. (1997). Lessons from Informal and Incidental Learning. In: Burgoyne, J. & Reynolds

(Eds.), M. Management Learning: Integrative Perspectives in Theory and Practice. London: Sage Publications,

pp. 295-311.

Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I. Outcome and Process. British Journal of

Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.

Mathieu, J.E., Martineau, J.W. & Tannenbaum, S.I. (1993). Individual and situational influences on the

development of self-efficacy: implications for training effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 46(1), pp. 125-147.

McCall, M.W. (1994). Identifying leadership potential in future international executives: developing a concept.

Consutling Psychology Journal, 46(1), pp. 49-63.

McCall, M.W., Lombardo, M.M., & Morrison, A.M. (1988). The lessons of experience: How successful

executives develop on the job. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

McCauley, C.D. (2001). Leader training and development. In: S.J. Zaccaro & R.J. Klimoski (Eds.), The nature

of organizational leadership. Lexington, M.A: Lexington Books.

24

McCauley, C.D. & Brutus, S. (1998). Management Development Through Job Experiences: An Annotated

Bibliography. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

McCauley, C.D. & Douglas, C.A. (1998). Developmental Relationships. In: C.D. McCauley, R.S. Moxley & E.

Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass, pp.160-193.

McCauley, C.D., & Hezlett, S.A. (2001). Individual development in the workplace. In N. Anderson, D.S. Ones,

H.K. Sinangil & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work & organizational psychology (Vol. 1).

London: Sage, pp. 313-335.

McCauley, C.D., Moxley, R.S., & Van Velsor, E. (1998). The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of

Leadership Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McCauley, Ohlott & Ruderman (1989). On-the-job development: a conceptual model and preliminary

investigation. Journal of managerial issues, 1(2), pp. 142-158.

McCauley, C.D., Ruderman, M.N., Ohlott, P.J. & Morrow, J.E. (1994). Assessing the developmental

components of managerial jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), pp. 544-560.

McCauley, C.D. & Young, D.P. (1993). Creating developmental relationships: roles and strategies. Human

Resource Management Review, 3(3), pp. 219-230.

McDougall, M. & Beattie, R.S. (1997). Peer mentoring at work. Management Learning, 28(4), pp. 423-437.

Megginson, D. (1996). Planned and emergent learning: Consequences for development. Management Learning,

27(4), pp. 411-428.

Merriam, S.B. & Caffarella, R.S. (1999). Learning in Adulthood: a Comprehensive Guide. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S.B. & Heuer, B. (1996). Meaning-making, adult learning and development: a model with implications

for practice. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 15(4), pp. 243-255.

Miner, A., & Mezias, S. (1996). Ugly duckling no more: Pasts and futures of organizational learning research.

Organizational Science, 7(1), pp. 88-99.

Morrison, A.M. (1992). The new leaders: Guidelines on leadership diversity in America. San Fransico: Jossey-

Bass.

25

Morrison, R.F., & Branter, T.M. (1992). What enhances or inhibits learning a new job? A basic career issue.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(6), pp. 926-940.

Morrison, R.F., & Hoch, R.R. (1986). Career building: Learning from cumulative work experiences. In D.T. Hall

& Associates (Eds.), Career development in organizations. San Fransico: Jossey-Bass, pp. 236-273.

Moxley, R.S. (1998). Hardships. In: C.D. McCauley, R.S. Moxley & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for

Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp.194-213.

Mullen, E. (1998). Vocational and psychosocial mentoring functions: identifying mentors who serve both.

Human Resource Development Quarterly, 9(4), pp. 319-331.

Mumford, A. (1997). Management development: Strategies for action, 3rd ed. London: Institute of Personnel and

Development.

Nicolson, N., & West, M. (1988). Managerial job change: Men and women in transition. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Noe, R.A. (1988). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships.

Personnel Psychology, 41(3), pp. 457-479.

Noe, R.A. (1996). Is career management related to employee development and performance? Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 17(2), pp. 119-133.

Noe, R.A. & Wilk, S.L. (1993). Investigation of the factors that influence employees’ participation in

development activities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), pp. 291-302.

Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69(6), pp. 96-104.

Ohlott, P.J. (1998). Job Assignments. In: C.D. McCauley, R.S. Moxley & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for

Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp.127-159.

Ohlott, P.J., McCauley, C.D., & Ruderman, M.N. (1995). Developmental challenge profile: Learning from job

experiences. Chicago: Center for Creative Leadership.

Ohlott, P.J., Ruderman, M.N. & McCauley, C.D. (1994). Gender differences in managers’ developmental

experiences. Academy of Management Journal, 37(1), pp. 46-67.

Pajares, F. Overview of social cognitive theory and of self-efficacy.

(www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/eff.html)

26

Pask, G. (1988). Learning strategies, teaching strategies, and conceptual or learning style. In R.R. Scmeck (Ed.),

Learning strategies and learning styles. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 83-100.

Pearson & McCauley (1991). Job demands and managerial learning in the research and development function.

Human Resource Development Quarterly, 2(3), pp. 263-274.

Quiñones, M.A., Ford, J.K. & Teachout, M.S. (1995). The relationship between work experience and job

performance: a conceptual and meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), pp. 887-910.

Revans, R.W. (1980). Action Learning: New techniques for management. London: Blond & Briggs.

Reynolds, M. (1997). Learning styles: A critique. Management Learning, 28(2), pp. 115-133.

Richter, I. (1998). Individual and organizational learning at the executive level: Towards a research agenda.

Management Learning, 29(3), pp. 299-316.

Robinson, D.F., & Miner, A.S. (1996). Career change as organizations learn. In M.B. Arthur & D.M. Rousseau

(Eds.), The boundaryless career: A new employment principle for a new organizational area. New York: Oxford

University Press, pp. 79-94.

Robinson, G.S., & Wick, C.W. (1992). Executive development that makes a business difference. Human

Resource Planning, 15(1), pp. 63-76.

Roche, G.R. (1979). Much ado about mentors. Harvard Business Review, 5(1), pp. 14-24.

Rousseau, D.M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and

Rights Journal, 2(2), pp. 121-139.

Rousseau, D.M., & Wade-Benzoni, K.A. (1995). Changing individual-organization attachments: A two-way

street. In A. Howard (Ed.), The Changing Nature of Work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 290-322.

Ruderman, M.N., Ohlott, P.J. & McCauley, C.D. (1990). Assessing Opportunities for Leadership. In: K.E. Clark

& M.B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of Leadership. West Orange: Leadership Library of America, pp. 547-562.

Sadler-Smith, E. (2001). A reply to Reynolds critique of learning styles. Management Learning, 32(3), pp. 291-

304.

Scandura, T.A. (1992). Mentorship and career mobility: an empirical investigation. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 13, pp. 169-174.

27

Schalk, R., & Freese, L. (1997). New facets of commitment in response to organizational change: Research

trends and the Dutch experience. In C.L. Cooper & D.M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in Organizational Behavior

(Vol. 4). New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 107-123

Schockett, M.R. & Haring-Hidore, M. (1985). Factor analytic support for psycho-social and vocational

mentoring functions. Psychological Reports, 57, pp. 627-630.

Seibert, K.W. (1996). Experience is the best teacher, if you can learn from it. In: Hall, D.T. & Associates (Eds.),

The Career is Dead – Long Live the Career: a Relational Approach to Careers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp.

246-264.

Seibert, S.E, Crant, J.M., & Kraimer, M.L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 84(3), pp. 653-663.

Seibert, S.E., & Kraimer, M.L. (2001, February). The five-factor model of personality and career success.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, pp. 1-21.

Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organisation. New York: Double

Day Currency.

Smith , R.M. (1990). Learning to Learn Across the Lifespan. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Spreitzer, G.M., McCall, M.W., & Mahoney, J.D. (1997). Early identification of international executive

potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), pp. 6-29.

Stewart, R. (1984). Developing managers by radical job moves. Journal of Management Development, 3(2), pp.

48-55.

Sullivan, S.E. (1999). The changing nature of careers: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management,

25(3), pp. 457-484.

Tesluk, P. E. & Jacobs, R.R.(1998). Toward an integrated model of work experience. Personnel Psychology, 51,

pp. 321-355.

Tesluk, P. E., Dragoni, L. & Russell, J.E.A (Internal Document). Growing managerial talent: role of

developmental work experiences, learning orientation, and access to opportunities in shaping competencies and

advancement potential.

Tharenou, P. (1997). Organisational, job and personal predictors of employee participation in training and

development. Applied Psychology: An international Review, 46(2), pp. 111-134.

28

Thomas, D.A. (1990). The impact of race on managers’ experiences of developmental relationships (mentoring

and sponsorship): an intra-organizational study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, pp. 479-492.

Turban, D.B. & Dougherty, T.W. (1994). Role of protégé personality in receipt of mentoring and career success.

Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), pp. 688-702.

Valerio, A.M. (1990). A study of developmental experiences of managers. In K.E. Clark & M.B. Clark (Eds.)

Measures of leadership. West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America, pp. 521-534.

Van der Sluis, L.E.C., & Hoeksema, L.H. (2001). The palette of management development. The Journal of

Management Development, 20(2), pp. 168-175.

Vande Walle, D., Cron, W.L., & Slocum, J.W. (2001). The role of goal orientation following performance

feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, pp. 629-640.

Van Maanen, J. (1977). Introduction: The Promise of Career Studies. In: J. Van Maanen (Ed.), Organizational

Careers: Some New Perspectives. London: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 1-12.

Van Velsor, E. & Guthrie, V.A. (1998). Enhancing the Ability to Learn from Experience. In: C.D. McCauley,

R.S. Moxley & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership

Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp.242-261.

Van Velsor, E. & Hughes, M.W. (1990). Gender Differences in the Development of Managers: How women

managers learn from experience. Greensboro: Center for Creative Leadership.

Van Velsor, E. McCauley, C.D. & Moxley, R.S. (1998). Our View of Leadership Development. In: C.D.

McCauley, R.S. Moxley & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership

Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 1-25.

Wexley, K.N. & Baldwin, T.T. (1986). Management development. Journal of Management, 12(2), pp. 277-294.

Wick, C.W. (1989). How people develop: An in-depth look. HR Report, 6(7), pp. 1-3.

Whitely, W.T., Dougherty, T.W. & Dreher, G.F. (1991). Relationships of career mentoring and socio-economic

origin to managers’ and professionals’ early career progress. Academy of Management Journal, 34(2), pp. 331-

351.

Whitely, W.T. & Coetsier,P. (1993). The relationship of career mentoring to early career outcomes.

Organization Studies, 14(3), pp. 419-441.

29

Wood, R. & Bandura, A. (1989). Social Cognitive Theory of Organizational Management. Academy of

Management. The Academy of Management Review, 14(3), pp. 361-384.

Wouters, K.& Buyens, D. (internal document). Literature review on on-the-job learning. Exhibit of the Doctoral

Qualification Exam. Gent: Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School.

EXHIBIT 1: CONCEPTUAL MODEL

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE VARIABLES

- Learning Goal Orientation

- Proactive Stance Toward Problems and Opportunities

- Critical Reflection

- Openness

- Self-Efficacy

- Locus of Control

- Coping Strategies

DEVELOPMENTAL ON-THE-JOB EXPERIENCES

- Unfamiliar Responsibilities

- Creating Change

- High Levels of Responsibility

- Managing interfaces

- Managing diversity

SITUATIONAL VARIABLES

Multiple Developmental Relationships

CAREER OUTCOMES - Extrinsic Career Success - Intrinsic Career Success

PERCEIVED DEGREE

OF CHALLENGE