Kamal Ka article

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY 1998,51

TOWARD AN INTEGRATED MODEL OF WORK EXPERl ENCE

PAUL E. TESLUK Tulane University

RICK R. JACOBS The Pennsylvania State University

SHL-Landy, Jacobs and Associates, Inc.

Work experience and related concepts such as tenure and seniority have been and continue to be used extensively in a variety of human resource functions. However, research on experience has proceeded without a clear theoretical orientation, adequate consideration of contextual and individual factors, and appropriate attention to measurement and design. These issues are addressed and a model of the work experience construct is offered. Work experience is described as consisting of qualitative and quantitative components that exist at different levels of specification and which interact and accrue over time. The model provides a nomological net for the experience construct linking it to contextual and individual factors critical for the development of experience and its translation into immediate outcomes of work-based knowledge, skills, attitudes, and motivation, and secondary outcomes such as performance. The model provides a basis for specific research propositions and human resource applications that consider work experience as a multidimensional, multilevel, and temporally dynamic construct.

Experience plays a central role in models of work performance and behavior. Furthermore, work experience and related concepts, tenure and seniority, are used in a variety of human resource functions including selection (e.g., Ash & Levine, 1985), promotion (e.g., Olsen & Berger, 1983), career and management development (e.g., Campion, Cheraskin, & Stevens, 1994; McCauley, Ruderman, Ohlott, & Morrow, 1994), compensation (e.g., Medoff & Abraham, 1980, 198l), training (e.g., Ford, Quifiones, Sego, & Speer-Sorra, 1992), and layoff and recall decisions (e.g., Gordon &Johnson, 1982).

We thank David Day, James Farr, David Hofmann, and four anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this paper. We also acknowledge Kimberly Hoffmaster and Heather Steinbach for their assistance in gathering articles for this study.

Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Paul Tesluk, Depart- ment of Psychology, Tulane University, 3010 Stern Hall, New Orleans, LA, 70118-5698; phone: 504-862-3325, or e-mail: [email protected]

COPYRIGHT 43 1998 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, INC

321

322 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

Despite the importance of work experience, research and practice in this area has progressed largely in the absence of any guiding theoretical framework. This may be due, in part, to how the construct itself has been conceptualized and operationalized. Most studies have measured work experience in terms of tenure, defined as years in a job (e.g., McDaniel, Schmidt, & Hunter, 1988a), years in an organization (e.g., McEnrue, 1988), or years in a position (e.g., Borman, Hanson, Oppler, Pulakos, & White, 1993). Other research has measured experience by the number of times an individual has completed a certain task or operation (e.g., Lance, Hedge, & Alley, 1989; Vance, Coovert, MacCallum, & Hedge, 1989). What these studies share in common is that all have described and assessed work experience in quantitative terms.

However, this approach does not provide an adequate consideration of the qualitative aspects of work experience (Hofmann, Jacobs, & Ger- ras, 1992; Waldman & Avolio, 1993). For instance, Ford et al. (1992) demonstrated that two individuals with equal job and organizational tenure, can differ dramatically in the level of challenge and complexity encountered in their assignments and the tasks. Incorporating into the description of experience qualitative components such as having opportunities to develop new knowledge and skills through training or working with a highly supportive mentor requires a perspective that focuses on the accumulation of different types of experiences across a career. A more encompassing conceptualization of work experience also consid- ers how experiences are influenced by contextual factors such as performance management and feedback systems, opportunities for skills updating and training, and supervision, as well as individual factors such as ability. These and other contextual and individual variables can shape accrued work experiences and influence how experience translates into work-related knowledge, skills and motivation and important organizational outcomes such as job performance.

Despite calls for more theoretical work providing greater articula- tion of the nature of work experience (e.g., DuBois & McKee, 1994; Ford, Sego, Quiiiones, & Speer-Sora, 1991; Hofmann et al., 1992; Lance et al., 1989), few attempts have been made to bring the quantitative and qualitative aspects of work experience together into a comprehen- sive model. However, an important first step was recently provided by Quifiones, Ford, and Teachout (1995) who offered a conceptual framework for the measurement of work experience based on two general dimensions. The first dimension is the measurement mode, which describes how experience is assessed. According to their framework, there

TESLUK AND JACOBS 323

are three measurement modes (amount, time, and type). Amount measures include the number of times a task has been performed or the number of times a person has held different assignments. Time-based measures, such as job or organizational tenure, assess the length of time an individual has worked at a job or in an organization. Although amount and time-based measures capture the quantitative aspects of experience, type measures assess the more elusive and qualitative nature of experience (e.g., task difficulty, job complexity). The second dimension of the model is the level ofspecificify, which refers to how fine-grained or specific is the experience measure in question. There are three levels of specificity in their framework (task, job, and organizational), which when combined with the three measurement mode, form a 3 x 3 cate- gorization scheme.

In addition to offering a model that brings together different con- ceptualizations of work experience, Quifiones et al. (1995) applied their framework to a meta-analysis of the work experience-job performance relationship. They found that the measurement mode and level of specificity functioned as moderators of the experience-performance relationship, which suggests that different types of measures capture unique aspects of work-relevant experience. Their analyses demonstrate the utility of conceptualizing experience in complex, multidimensional terms and they called for further theoretical work that describes the facets of work experience. Now that a basic framework for conceptyalizing and measuring work experience has been offered, it is necessary to further develop the construct by articulating a nomological network linking experience to other relevant variables.

Toward this end of developing a theory of work experience, the goal of this paper is fourfold. First, we build on the foundation provided by Quifiones et al. (1995) by using their framework to further develop the dimensionality of work experience. For instance, we take into account how qualitative and quantitative facets can be combined to describe the relative density or the developmental punch offered by certain experiences. Second, we relate work experience to contextual and individual variables and describe these relationships in a manner that conveys the inherently dynamic nature of the experience construct over time. Third, we specify direct outcomes of experience such as increased work knowledge and skills, motivation, values, and attitudes as well as indirect outcomes including performance and participation in developmental activities. Fourth, in the final section, we examine some practical and theoretical implications of applying the proposed model of experience, including implications for human resources systems and the experience construct at the work group level of analysis. As a means to encourage further


theoretical and empirical research, we offer propositions that focus attention on emerging questions regarding work experience.

Defining and Distinguishing Work Experience

Every experience in life, everything with which we have come in contact in life, is a chisel which has been cutting away at our life statue, molding, modifying, shaping it. We are part of all we have met. Everything we have seen, heard, felt, or thought has had its hand in molding us, shaping us. Orison Swett Marden

As captured in this quote, our past and current life experiences are continuously affecting the development and shape of our knowledge, skills, attitudes, ambitions, beliefs, and behaviors. But because experience involves a continuous flow of events across different aspects of our lives, any systematic development of the construct must start with a specific area of interest (Quiiiones et al., 1995). Our focus is on a more delineated domain of life events, that of work experience, the sub- set of life events that are most directly and immediately relevant to work attitudes, motivation, and performance and other issues of interest to organizational researchers.

Within the industrial-organizational psychology literature, work experience has been used almost interchangeably with tenure and seniority (Hofmann et al., 1992). They are closely related in that each contains a time element that refers to an individuals length of service in a position or organization. With respect to seniority, drawing from its use in industrial relations, Title VIII concepts, and national labor policy, the Supreme Court in California BrewersAssociation v. Byznt (1980) defined a seniority system as a policy that grants employees increasing employ- ment rights and benefits with longer service in the organization (Gordon & Johnson, 1982). Seniority then contains two dimensions: one that is based on length of time in various organizational units or roles (e.g., organization, department, job) and a second that defines the negotiated entitlements and decisions (e.g., benefits, promotions, and recall decisions) that are determined on the basis of length of service. This first dimension, tenure, can be described as time in various organizational units or roles (e.g., managerial tenure, job tenure, occupational tenure). Ex- perience, likewise, contains a time-based aspect in that it connotes acquisition over time of job-related knowledge, skills, and abilities (Lance et a]., 1989). In fact, researchers have often tended toview experience and tenure as synonymous (e.g., McDaniel et al., 1988a; Schmidt, Hunter, & Outerbridge, 1986; Schmidt, Hunter, Outerbridge, & Goff, 1988).


Despite their similarities, there are notable and important differences between tenure and work experience. One deficiency of tenure is that the amount of time spent in a job (or organization, etc.) does not have the same implications for all people. Some people may improve their performance over time, others may get worse, and others may change less systematically (Hofmann et al., 1992; Hofmann, Jacobs, & Baratta, 1993). Time-based measures of experience cannot account for these interindividual differences in intraindividual change. In part, this is because conceptualizing work experience as tenure ignores important events that accrue over a career such as opportunities to perform tasks or duties (Ford et al., 1992) as well the nature or quality of specific experiences (DuBois & McKee, 1994; Quifiones et al., 1995). When viewed from this perspective, the construct of experience is clearly not equivalent to tenure.

What work experience is-if it is not simply a function of time-remains an open question. As Campbell (1990) has stated, we have no theory of experience. Perhaps, more as a matter of convenience than anything else, time-based measures of experience (i.e., tenure) have been used without extensive attempts to more fully operationalize the richness of the experience construct. Experience should reflect the challenges and interactions that accrue above and beyond what is acquired through simple continued practice (DuBois & McKee, 1994). Other researchers have made similar observations and have suggested that work experience may be conceptualized as consisting of qualitative and quantitative components that capture the events experienced by an individual that relate to work-related outcomes such as performance (e.g., DuBois & McKee, 1994; Ford, Sego, Quifiones et al., 1991; Hofmann et al., 1992; Quiiiones et al., 1995; Waldman & Avolio, 1993). Quantitative and qualitative components not only combine in an additive fashion to form experience, but may also interact. 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. A theory of work experience needs to consider each of these components as three basic aspects of the experience construct. Next, these components are described in detail and related to individual and contextual factors that contribute to work experience and that influence the extent to which experience contributes to the knowledge and skill development, motivation, values, and attitudes, and ultimately, outcomes such as performance.

A Model of Work Experience

Amodel summarizing the key facets of experience, factors that influ-


ence the development of experience, and direct and indirect outcomes is presented in Figure 1. This model is used as a framework for discussing work experience outcomes. It is also serves as a springboard for developing a set of propositions to encourage research on work experience as a multidimensional, multilevel, and temporarily dynamic construct and to explore some implications of the role of experience in models of work performance and in human resource practice.

Our depiction of the core work experience construct is based on the Quiiiones et al. (1995) conceptualization of work experience measures in terms of measurement mode (amount, time, type) and level of specificity (task, job, organization). However, following their calls for additional theoretical development of the work experience construct, our model extends the dimensionality of experience by proposing additional facets to the measurement mode and level of specification and by describing work experience in terms of three major components. In addition, our model relates the core components of work experience to individual and contextual factors and immediate and secondary outcomes (see Link- ages 1-5 in Figure l ) , thereby providing the start of a nomological net.

Core Components of Work Experience

The quantitative component is the first of the three components of work experience. It includes two of the three measurement modes described by Quifiones et al. (1995). Yhe first are time-based measures of experience which reflect the traditional reliance on length of time working on a task or in a job or organization and are operationalized in various measures of tenure (e.g., McDaniel et al., 1988a; Medoff & Abraham, 1980,1981; Schmidt et al., 1986,1988). The second measurement mode contained in the quantitative component are amount measures. More recent studies have supplemented tenure with measures of the number of times that a task or duty has been performed (e.g., Ford, Sego, & Teachout, 1991; Lance et al., 1989; Vance et al., 1989). The advantage of this type of measure is that it reflects important qualities that impact work experience, such as opportunity to perform and practice (Ford et al., 1992). However, like time-based measures, amount measures such as the number of times a task has been practiced or the number of jobs an individual has held, categorize experience strictly in quantitative terms. They provide little information regarding the nature of those experiences and thus permit only a partial assessment of the construct.

In contrast to the quantitative aspects, the qualitative component of work experience has received relatively little attention in the literature. Quiiiones et al. (1995) described measures that distinguish experiences

I In

divi

dual

Diff

eren

ce F

acto

rs

e.g.

. abi

lity/

aptil

ude;

mot

ivat

ion

10 le

arn:

sel

f-effi

cacy

; fe

edba

ck s

eeki

ng te

nden

cies

I I

I

Wor

k M

otiv

atio

n C

aree

r D

evel

opm

ent

Kno

wle

dge

& S

kills

Pe

rfor

man

ce

Con

text

ual F

acto

rs

Sw

iallS

ocie

tal

Leve

l (e.

g., c

ohon

eff

ec~s

) In

dust

ryIO

ccup

atio

naI

Leve

l (e

g., i

ndus

try

grow

th, l

cchn

olog

ical

cha

nges

) O

rgan

izat

iona

l Le

vel(

e.g.

. hum

an re

sour

ce s

taffi

ng p

olic

ies.

trai

ning

pra

ctic

es)

Imm

edia

te W

ork

Env

iron

men

l Lev

el (e

.a.,

supe

rvis

ion.

job

char

acte

ristic

s)

Figu

re 1

. Mod

el o

f Wor

k Ex

peri

ence

.


qualitatively as type measures. They may be best represented by the specific nature of work situations that contribute to the richness of the experience construct, such as the variety and breadth of tasks and responsibilities performed in a job, the types of challenges encountered in an assignment, or the complexity of a task. Following a life-span approach where development is considered to occur over the entire life-course and stem from a variety of sources (Baltes, Reese, & Nesselroade, 1977), the qualitative components may be gleaned from on-the-job occurrences, the larger organizational context, and other relevant life events.

The qualitative component of work experience can be described according to multiple dimensions. For instance, DuBois and McKee (1994) examined the types of terrain and contexts experienced by Mar- ines in training, their opportunities for supervising, training, or instruct- ing others, and how these experiences related to task performance. In a very different setting, McCauley et al. (1994) investigated the contribution of qualitative aspects of managerial work experience on learning by investigating the amount of challenge provided in different work situations. As these examples show, the specific modes that make up the qualitative component and those that are most relevant will differ from one domain to another. They are also context specific because certain modes are more appropriate for relating work experience to particular variables of interest. For example, level of challenge may be more predictive of persistence while having a wide variety of experiences may be more directly related to creativity and innovation. For purposes of illus- tration, variety, challenge, and complexity are listed as examples. How- ever, in different work contexts and for certain purposes, other modes are more relevant.

Although relatively little research has explored the importance of different types of work experiences, work in the area of management development is a notable exception (e.g., Bray & Howard, 1983; McCall, Lombardo, & Morrison, 1988; McCauley, 1986; McCauley et al., 1994; Morrison & Brantner, 1992). The basic supposition of this literature is that, instead of formal training, on-the-job work experiences are the primary source of individual career development and learning (Morrison & Hock, 1986). It has focused on explicating the types of work experiences managers encounter that provide the opportunities and motivation for on-the-job learning and career development. For instance, research has identified how work transitions (e.g., taking on a new assignment), task- related job demands (e.g., implementing changes), job demands from obstacles (e.g., lack of adequate resources) are three important types of work experiences that provide the challenge that motivates development and promotes learning (McCall et al., 1988; McCauley et al., 1994; McCauley, Cavanaugh, & Noe, 1996).


The final component of experience considered in the model involves the interaction between qualitative and quantitative components. It can be described in terms of various types of acquired work experiences that depend on a particular dimension of time. Thus, the interaction component represents particular combinations of the quantitative and qualitative components. One mode, which we call density, is intended to capture the intensity of experiences and is similar to what Quiiiones et al. (1995) refer to as the developmental punch provided by an event. For instance, if an individual in a 1-year assignment repeatedly faces a number of challenging situations while another individual in a similar assignment for the same duration is presented with relatively few challenging opportunities, the experience described in the first scenario may be characterized as displaying greater density than the experience in the second scenario.

A notable characteristic of high-density experiences is that they are likely to have dramatic effects on subsequent work experiences and outcomes such as learning, motivation, or performance in ways that can dramatically change an individuals career trajectory. As a case in point, the series of abuse, sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, and rape cases currently emerging in the military will undoubtedly seriously affect the careers of all the parties directly involved. Even for those not directly involved (e.g., instructors who were performing their duties in full ac- cordance with military code), the way these experiences have affected their motivation and the changes these events are likely to bring about in terms of military policies and expectations/perceptions of new recruits will alter the types of work experiences those individuals accrue over the remainder of their careers.

The other mode of the interaction component is the timing of an experience. It refers to when a work event occurs relative to a longer se- quence of successive experiences such as those that characterize a career. For instance, feedback is important for management development (London & Beatty, 1993), yet it is most beneficial if it is properly timed. Feedback immediately following a challenging assignment or dealing with a difficult set of job demands can serve as effective opportunities for managers to draw valuable lessons from experience (McCall et al., 1988).

Similarly, experiences may influence individuals differently depend- ing on when they occur during a career. Katz (1980) has built a model supported by empirical research (Katz, 1978a, 1978b; Kozlowski & Hults, 1986) which proposes that at various career stages, people react differently to features in their work environment. Specifically, new employees who are focused on establishing role identity and developing social and interpersonal relationships are particularly attentive to interactions


with co-workers and supervisors in order to understand role demands and expectations. Later on, attention focuses from social concerns to task concerns. At this stage, employees are concerned about their ability to influence and contribute in their work roles. Specific features of the job, for instance, the level of challenge and autonomy involved, become more important in influencing employee reactions. This suggests that experiences can be ordered or sequenced in ways that maximize motivational and performance outcomes. Similarly, the concept of learning hierarchies (Horne, 1983) suggests that work roles and events should be arranged in logical progression so that mastery of new knowledge and skills at one level facilitates development at the next. Thus, a set of roles that are the sequenced in a way that work experiences build on each other is more likely to facilitate learning than a more haphazard career pattern (Morrison & Hock, 1986).

Although differentiating work experience components is important for developing a better understanding of the construct, it is also necessary to consider experience components in terms of levels of specification (Quiiiones et al., 1995). Failure to appropriately select and match the level of specification of work experience to specific criteria by using the most convenient measure of experience (e.g., using organizational tenure to predict job performance) limits predictive power and has served to slow the constructs development.

In addition to the task, job, and organizational levels of specification described by Quiiiones et al. (1995), we propose additional levels. For instance, a persons experience at the work group level of specificity can be assessed in terms of the number of different work groups and the type of teams (e.g., cross-functional problem-solving teams) in which they have participated. Providing greater specification of work experience by including exposure to group and team events and situations can further our understanding of relationships with critical variables. For example, experience working in teams has been related to knowledge of critical teamwork functions (Rentsch, Heffner, & Duffy, 1994). It is less likely that a similar relationship would be found if work experience were conceptualized at a different level of specification (e.g., organization, job, task). Thus, 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 experience and its outcomes.

Levels of analysis issues are important for linking experience to its antecedents, particularly contextual factors (Waldman & Avolio, 1993). In the following section, we incorporate a levels perspective in describing relationships between aspects of the larger social and work environment and work experience.


Contextual Influences on Work Experience (Linkage 1)

Contextual features of the work environment, ranging from more macro (e.g., societal demographic trends) to more micro (e.g., job characteristics), have been included in current theories of performance (e.g., Waldman & Avolio, 1993). As depicted in Figure 1, contextual factors that operate at different levels of analysis are considered to have direct influences on the quantitative, qualitative, and interaction components of work experience.

At a macro level, a number of demographic, economic, and business trends have resulted, both directly and indirectly, in a situation where workers are changing jobs, organizations, and careers with greater frequency (Hall & Associates, 1996; Hall & Mirvis, 1995). Members of the baby boom generation who are now advancing to mid-career status tend to be less focused on advancement and more concerned with career development than workers from other cohorts (Hall & Richter, 1990). As a result, these workers tend to change jobs, organizations, and careers more frequently (London & Stumpf, 1985). Competitive business conditions have contributed to this trend through restructuring and down- sizing. These and other macro factors are serving to shorten the length of time individuals spend in a particular job, organization, or career. Al- though current macro socio-economic trends may be related to declining tenure, other aspects of work experience may be enhanced. Shorter career cycles mean that individuals will tend to work in a greater number of different jobs and organizations over the life course, thereby serving to help increase the amount of certain work experiences that are obtained. These changes also have implications for the types of work experiences as organizations promote decentralization, the use of teams, and continuous change in work unit design which often translate into more challenging, complex, and varied work experiences (Hall & Mirvis, 1995).

At an organizational level, the use of career management and staffing practices such as job rotation (i.e., lateral transfers between job assignments within an organization; Campion et al., 1994) affect the length of time spent in a job or performing a task as well as the number of jobs held or the number of tasks performed. Job rotation approaches that require performing new and varied tasks can enrich the qualitative aspects of experience as well by providing challenges and complexities that stretch capabilities. As another career management strategy, career paths can be designed and job assignments can be sequenced to maximize the timing of experiences.

More immediate features of the work situation, such as supervision, work group climate, and work characteristics, may also effect the development of work experience. For instance, subordinates are provided


better mentoring and career guidance when supervisors view them in more positive ways (Noe, 1988). Similarly, individuals have been found to perform more complex tasks following training when they work in a supportive work group environment (Ford et al., 1992). Supervisor and peer/co-worker support has been linked to employee technical updating and development activity (Kozlowski & Farr, 1988; Kozlowski & H u h , 1987; Maurer & Tarulli, 1994; Noe & Wilk, 1993).

Non-work experiences can also influence work-related knowledge, skills, and abilities and motivation and need to be considered in a discussion of experience from a developmental perspective (Waldman & Avo- lio, 1993). From interviews with senior executives, McCall et al. (1988) found that many reported that personal traumas (e.g., illnesses and in- juries, divorces, family problems, accidents) enabled them to learn how to cope with events that are beyond ones control, recognize their personal limits, and more effectively manage interpersonal relationships. Even early experiences such as education and relationships with parents shape learning patterns and strategies and form values and capabilities that affect later work experiences (Morrison & Brantner, 1992).

Individual Influences on Work Experience (Linkage 2)

A number of individual difference factors appear critical in predicting the work experiences people are provided and pursue. For instance, those with higher ability are more likely to be provided opportunities for promotions and thus are more likely to acquire more supervisory and managerial experience than those with lower levels of ability (Borman et al., 1993). Other personal characteristics, such as likeability and motivation, may also have a role in determining the length of time individuals accrue in various tasks, roles, positions, or assignments.

Individual difference factors may also influence the qualitative nature of an individuals experiences accrued over time. Individuals ac- tively influence the nature of their experiences by selecting the content and contexts in which they perform (Morrison & Hock, 1986). Self- efficacy and motivation to learn have been found to influence the like- lihood that individuals will pursue opportunities to update their skills through training (e.g., Hill, Smith, & Mann, 1987; Noe & Wilk, 1993). Similarly, individuals with higher self-efficacy have been found to perform a greater variety of and more complex tasks following training (Ford et al., 1992).

In certain situations, contextual and individual factors can operate together in a complex set of interactions to influence experience. Ford et al. (1992) found that supervisors tended to provide their more capa- ble new subordinates with assignments that contained greater breadth


(number of different tasks), complexity, and difficulty. Individual differences in ability are, in part, responsible for this type of assignment pattern, but so too are supervisors judgments of the subordinates skills, likeability, and advancement potential.

Contextual and Individual Difference Factors Facilitating Experience Outcomes (Linkage 3)

The discussion regarding the role of contextual and individual difference variables in Linkages 1 and 2 has considered how these variables directly contribute to work experience. However, contextual and individual difference variables also influence what is extracted from work experiences. 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). One method individuals can use to learn from work experiences is by engaging in proactive feedback-seeking behavior-an important strategy for obtaining performance-related information (Ashford & Cummings, 1985). Those with a strong learning goal orientation, compared to those with a performance goal orientation, may be more likely to seek evaluative information on their experiences because they see feedback as information about how to develop task and skill mastery (Dweck, 1986). Relatedly, those with higher self-esteem are able to learn more from job experiences (Brett, 1984). In addition, those who are more intelligent should learn more from their experiences than those who are less intelligent. However, there is some evidence that higher levels of cognitive ability do not necessarily provide for more effective use of experience, at least when experience is measured in terms of tenure (Fiedler, 1994; Schmidt et al., 1988).

Contextual factors, particularly those in the organizational and immediate work environment, also can facilitatehinder the extent to which knowledge, skills, abilities, motivation, values, and work attitudes result from work experience. One example is the use of career development strategies such as action learning programs that include the use of coaches, mentors, and peers along with 360-degree feedback systems to maximize learning from work assignments and projects (Mirvis gL Hall, 1996). In the training literature, there is evidence that a transfer of training climate and continuous learning culture influence the extent to which training experiences translate into knowledge and behavioral outcomes back on the job (Tracy, Tannenbaum, & Kavanugh, 1995). Likewise, a supportive work group and supervisor may also help individuals gain more from training and other work-related experiences by making them feel more comfortable using new knowledge and skills.


Immediate Outcomes of Work Experience (Linkage 4)

Work experience is relied upon in making selection, promotion, and compensation decisions because it leads to the development of knowledge and skills, motivation, and attitudes and values that factor into performance and other organization-valued outcomes. In this section, we address three primary and direct outcomes of work experience: (a) knowledge and skill development, (b) motivation, and (c) work-related values and attitudes.

Work experience is critical in learning and developing the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary for effective performance (Morrison & Brantner, 1992). With respect to the quantitative component of experience, the number of times a task has been performed (i.e., amount) can enhance proficiency by honing skills through practice (Lance et al., 1989). Also representing the quantitative aspect of experience, the length of time spent in a job (i.e., job tenure) has been found to have a strong influence on performance through the development of job knowledge and skills. Schmidt et al. (1986) investigated the impact of job tenure and cognitive ability on job knowledge, work sample proficiency, and supervisor performance ratings. They found that time spent in the job affected performance ratings indirectly through enhancing job knowledge and improving work sample performance.

With respect to the more qualitative components, studies on managerial development have found that certain types of experiences, such as assignments that require change implementation or involve a high level of responsibility are related to learning the skills, knowledge, and in- sights that are critical for effective executive performance (McCauley et al., 1994). These events, situations, and job features provide managers opportunities to learn the critical lessons of experience, for instance, how to effectively manage agendas and handle relationships (McCall et al., 1988). Thus, two managers who have held similar positions for similar periods of time (i.e., job tenure), may have very different knowledge and skill sets and demonstrate different levels of performance because they have encountered different events and situations as part of their managerial roles.

Aspects of the immediate job and the larger work environment experienced by an individual over time can influence work motivation in a number ofways (Waldman & Avolio, 1993). According to an expectancy framework (Vroom, 1964), factors such as repeatedly receiving feedback with clearly specified goals and the means to achieve them or having re- wards that are closely linked to performance will strengthen future performance -+ outcome expectancy beliefs and support motivation. Simi- larly, challenging job situations promote motivation by encouraging in-


dividuals to try to reach a desired level of job competency or achieve a valued reward outcome (McCauley et al., 1994). Consistently receiving challenging assignments may provide the type of an accrued context that can have motivational benefits witnessed across a career. This may help account for why plateaued managers (i.e., those with a low probability of receiving future job assignments with increased responsibility) are found to have had fewer challenging assignments as part of their career histories than nonplateaued managers (Greenhaus, Parasuraman, & Worm- ley, 1990; Slocum, Cron, Hansen, & Rawlings, 1985; Veiga, 1981).

In addition to knowledge, skills, and motivation, there is also evidence that work experiences can shape attitudes, values, and even personality characteristics. Morrison and Hock (1986) and Mortimer and Lorence (1979) have summarized a number of studies that have demonstrated these effects. For instance, Kohn and Schoolers (1982) longitudinal research suggests that worhng in a highly bureaucratic work environment can create feelings of distrust and can lead to increased au- thoritarian conservatism. Working in jobs that are substantively complex and involve solving tough problems has been associated with increased internal locus of control and self-directedness (Brousseau, 1984) as well as intellectual flexibility (Kohn & Schooler, 1978). Experiences that provide a high level of autonomy can create an increase in intrinsic values (Mortimer & Lorence, 1979) and enhance emotional well-being (Kohn & Schooler, 1982). A recent study by Wageman (1995) found that as individuals gained experience working in interdependent work groups, they became less concerned with maintaining personal autonomy in their work and grew to like working in an more interdependent manner.

Pe$ormance and Other Secondary Outcomes of Work Experience (Linkage 5)

This section extends the linkages developed in the previous section to secondary or less immediate outcomes that follow from the effects of work experience on knowledge, skills, motivation, attitudes, and values. The focus is on performance, but work experiences are also related to participation in developmental activities and organizational attach- ments.

A number of path analytic studies and meta-analyses have found significant and positive relationships between quantitative measures of work experience and performance. Schmidt et al. (1986) and Borman et a]. (1993) both found job tenure to be related to job performance though increased job knowledge and competencies. Similarly, Vance et al. (1989), found that length of time spent as an engine mechanic predicted performance on three different sets of tasks. In a meta-analysis


of various predictors of job performance for over 32,000 individuals in entry-level positions, Hunter and Hunter (1984) reported a mean tenure-performance correlation of .18 (correcting for criterion measurement error). Across a sample of over 16,000 individuals, McDaniel et al. (1988a) found the estimated population correlation to be .32 (correcting for range restriction and criterion unreliability), whereas in a more recent meta-analysis of the work experience-job performance relationship (which included the McDaniel et al. study), Quifiones et al. (1995) reported an overall correlation of 2 7 (correcting for sampling error and criterion unreliability).

The amount of work experience accrued, the other measurement mode of the quantitative component of work experience, has also been related to performance. For instance, studies of U.S. Air Force mechanics have found that across different engine repair tasks the number of times an individual has performed the task in the past predict task proficiency (Ford, Sego, & Teachout, 1991; Lance et al., 1989). In their meta- analysis, Quifiones et al. (1995) reported a corrected correlation of .43 between amount measures of experience and performance. Taken as a whole, the results of these studies make clear that there is a consistent and positive relationship between the quantitative component of work experience and performance.

Several studies have demonstrated that the relationship between quantitative measures of experience such as tenure and performance initially takes a simple linear pattern, but after a certain point it plateaus (Avolio, Waldman, & McDaniel, 1990; Jacobs, Hofmann, & Kriska, 1990; McDaniel et al., 1988a; Schmidt et al., 1986). Consistent with the earlier discussion that experience impacts performance through learning, this pattern suggests that for most jobs there is an initial knowledge and skill development period that fosters performance which takes place over the first several years on the job. After that, the benefits of spending more time on the job diminish. An important area for research is determining to what extent the point of diminishing returns from the accrual of additional experience is a function of the type of job, the complexity of the work, or the extent of change in occupational job requirements. In occupations such as engineering, where rapidly changing technolo- gies mean that knowledge and skill sets continuously need to be updated (Kaufman, 1995), this point may occur much earlier than for other occupations.

In contrast to the quantitative component of work experience, research investigating the relationship between the qualitative component and performance is virtually nonexistent. QuiAones et al. (1995) were able to find a few studies where type or qualitative measures of experience were used to predict performance. However, rather than measur-


ing the nature of the work experience in terms of what the experience entailed, in these studies the qualitative aspects were assessed through more indirect means. For example, Laxmar and Olson (1978) compared the performance levels of instructors in a Navy training class to that of recent course graduates assuming that instructors have more qualitative and quantitative experience.

A more direct approach to capturing the qualitative aspects of work experience and relating them to performance outcomes was conducted by DuBois and McKee (1994). They developed an assessment of experience quality based on the extent and depth of Marines prior training and experience in different types of terrain settings, roles and duties, training classes, and supervisory functions. This composite measure of experience quality was found to predict performance on hands-on proficiency and work sample tests. Most interesting, however, was that the quality of experience measure was a better predictor of performance on the inconsistent tasks of a proficiency test (e.g., tactical decision making) than a measure of experience quantity, which better predicted performance on the consistent tasks (e.g., determining location and direction). It suggests that the quantitative and qualitative components of work experience may be differentially related to certain performance dimensions, which was also evidenced in findings from the Quifiones et al. (1995) meta-analysis. We take up this point in more detail in the next section on directions for future research.

Recommendations for Future Directions for Research and Practice on Work Experience

The vital role work experience plays in human resource functions and areas of study within industrial-organizational psychology make it an important topic for future research. One objective of this paper was to develop a model of work experience by integrating existing theoretical and empirical research. Yet there are a number of issues that remain to be addressed. In this section some directions for future research are presented that are organized around the following core themes: (a) nature of the core work experience components, (b) contextual and individual influences on the development of work experience, (c) immediate and secondary outcomes of work experience and implications for human resource practices, and (d) measurement and research design considera- tions.

Theoretical Development of the Core Work Experience Components

Future research might begin by developing a better understanding


of work experience by considering it as being: (a) multidimensional, (b) dynamic and multidirectional, and (c) multilevel. Each of these directions for development of work experience are addressed in turn.

Conceptualizing experience in terms of quantitative and qualitative components and the ways in which they interact and operate at different levels of specification helps to expand the narrow approach of equating experience with tenure. An important place for future research to start is to consider the value of conceptualizing work experience as consisting of qualitative, quantitative, and interaction components.

Proposition 1: Relationships between work experience and immediate and secondary outcomes will be enhanced by treating work experience as consisting of three components. These components are conceptually distinct but have the potential to impact one another and create a complex system of interrelationships. The components are quantitative such as measures of length of time in a position, qualitative such as type of assignment or complexity of previous work, and interactive which requires an understanding of experience along dimensions of the density and timing of the expe r ie nee.

Adding qualitative and interactive components to the quantitative measures that are traditionally used to assess experience will improve understanding of performance and other criteria of interest. This as- sertion could be tested in several ways. For instance, research might attempt to explain performance, promotion rates, learning, interest in seeking developmental opportunities or other important outcome criteria for managers using measures of each of the three experience components and placing them into a three-step hierarchical regression. Quan- titative experience measures entered into the first step of this equation could include length of time as a manager, in current position, or in the organization, and are likely to explain a significant amount of variance in an outcome such as performance (McEnrue, 1988). Relevant types of qualitative work experiences could be assessed along dimensions such experience in handling job transitions which involved new responsibilities and assignments that required a high level of responsibility. Po- tential methods of assessing these types of qualitative experiences are considered in a later section; however, an instrument such as the De- velopmental Challenge Profile (DCP; McCauley et al., 1994) could be used to measure the level of responsibility and complexity involved in recent job experiences. These measures entered as the second step of the equation should provide incremental prediction beyond the quantitative indicators of work experience. Measures of timing and density as different modes of the interaction component of experience would provide further incremental prediction when entered as the third step of the regression equation. In terms of timing, Katzs (1980) work suggests


that managers who were provided extensive feedback, mentoring, and support from bosses and co-workers during the early-career stage will respond more favorably than those managers who received those same experiences but at a later career stage.

Another mode of the interaction component that could be considered is the relative intensity of certain work experiences. A defining characteristic of a high density experience is that it is likely t o result in dramatic changes in outcomes such as knowledge, skill, motivation, and/or performance that may dramatically affect an individual's career trajectory and future work experiences. This introduces another important feature of work experience; it changes over time and those changes are not necessarily linear and even across experience components.' For example, managers who experience dramatic transitions such as having to turn around a poor performing unit find that the challenges and demands provide significant gains in learning and career development (McCauley et al., 1994,1996). Learning new responsibilities, advancing in one's career, and successfully meeting these demands can help build confidence and efficacy that encourages a manger to seek out additional challenging developmental experiences (Maurer & Tarulli, 1994; Noe & Wilk, 1993). In contrast, managers who do not experience these types of dramatic transitions might be more likely to have their careers plateau.

Proposition 2: The three components of work experience are temporally dynamic. Quantitative and qualitative components can accrue gradually over long periods of time, but they are also subject to potentially sudden and dramatic changes due to individual factors, contextual factors, or a combination of the two. In addition, gains in one experience component do not necessarily mean gains in the others.

A useful place to start would be through conducting retrospective accounts via event and work histories from personnel files, interviews, or surveys of highly successful (and unsuccessful) managers to analyze and identify high density experiences that lead to dramatic upward (or downward) experience, learning, and performance spirals. These retrospective reports can lead to the development of hypotheses of the types of contextual and individual factors that initiate high density work experiences.

Work experience has been examined almost exclusively at the individual level of analysis. However, with the increasing emphasis on the use of groups and teams, experience at the work group or team level of analysis will become increasingly important in predicting outcomes such as team performance (Quifiones et al., 1995). For instance, there appears to be a curvilinear relationship between group tenure (i.e., the length of time members work together) and group performance.


Initially, as group members spend more time working together, coordination and communication improve, which facilitates group performance (Watson, Michaelson, & Sharp, 1991). However, at some point, inter- and intra-group communication may begin to decrease and the group may become less open to change and innovation, which for certain groups (e.g., R&D teams; top management teams) causes performance to decline (Fredrickson & Iaquinto, 1989; Katz, 1982).

Team or work group experience is a quality specific to the team or group rather than the individual because it reflects the length of time individuals have worked together as an intact team (i.e., team tenure), not the average length of time members have worked in their jobs or for the organization. It is also not the same as experience working on a team accrued by an individual, although this type of experience at the individual level may be related to the development of individual teamwork skills that may be important for effective team performance (Rentsch et al., 1994). From a qualitative standpoint, team or work group experience can refer to the nature of specific occurrences shared by team or group members (e.g., training together as an intact team). As an aggregate rather than individual-level phenomenon, team or work group experience should be more closely related to teadgroupvariables than work experience assessed at the individual level. For example, Katzs (1982) finding of an inverted-U relationship between team tenure and performance in R&D teams remained when controlling for tenure at the individual level. Declines in team performance were not a result of longer-tenured teams being staffed by researchers whose technical skills were becoming obsolete. Rather, team performance suffered because of the development of team processes that interfered with creativity that resulted from teams functioning as intact units for long periods of time. Findings such as this help to establish the construct validity of experience as a multilevel phenomenon.

Proposition 3: Experience is multilevel in nature and can be simultane- ously conceptualized as a unique property of individuals and work groups. Experience demonstrates a similar pattern of relationships at the individual and groupheam levels of analysis.

Theoretical advances in this area will require greater attention to describing how team/group experience is defined and conceptualized, how it is observed and measured, and articulating relationships it shares with variables at different operational levels. For instance, multilevel phe- nomena display similar patterns of relationships across levels of analysis (Klein, Dansereau, & Hall, 1994; Rousseau, 1985). If one of the primary mechanisms by which individual work experience translates into performance is through knowledge and skill development (Borman et al., 1993;


Schmidt et al., 1986), a similar process might be identified at the team or work group level of analysis. Research on team performance (e.g., Cannon-Bowers, Salas, & Converse, 1993; Rouse, Cannon-Bowers, & Salas, 1992), demonstrates that team experiences can improve performance through the development of shared knowledge structures (i.e., shared mental models; Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994) and transactive memory systems (Liang, Moreland, & Argote, 1995). Certain types of team experiences are likely to be particularly effective in the development of these group-level knowledge and skill systems. For instance, training team members as an intact group and cross-training team members can enhance the development of a common mental model by increasing members familiarity with teammates responsibilities and tasks (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993).

In summary, a useful place to start is to demonstrate the utility of the three components of work experience, examine interrelationships and patterns of change in experience components over time, and differenti- ate the construct at the individual and group levels of analysis. These developments will greatly facilitate construct development and the ability to link work experience to important outcomes.

Individual and Contextual Influences

In the work experience model presented here, individual difference factors and contextual variables directly contribute to the development of work experiences as well as facilitate what is gained from experience. The importance of considering employee characteristics and the organizational context becomes more clear when considering the changes organizations have recently experienced with increased competition, down- sizing, restructuringheengineering, and technological change and the implications they have for employees work experiences and careers. For example, features of the organizational context including the nature and pace of technological and structural change, human resource practices (e.g., training, staffing assignments), social environment (e.g., continuous learning culture), and immediate work aspects (e.g., supervisor support) are all important in influencing participation in developmental experiences for updating technical knowledge and skills (Kozlowski & Farr, 1988). Individual characteristics are likely to become even more important since responsibility for attaining critical work experiences is increasingly being shifted to employees (Hall & Associates, 1996).

Describing the role of individual and organizational factors in relation to experience in these terms raises a number of specific and press- ing research questions. For instance, because not everyone gains equally from their work experiences (Seibert, 1996), an important direction for


integrating the role of individual difference variables is to examine individual characteristics that help extract the benefits from work experiences. Although experiencing obstacles such as dealing with adverse business conditions or a difficult boss have been suggested as an important source of managerial learning and development (McCall e t al., 1988; Valerio, 1990), recent studies have failed to find such a relationship (McCauley et al., 1994, 1996). Variables such as self-efficacy, self- esteem, locus of control, and coping abilities may help explain why some gain more from difficult experiences than others (McCauley et al., 1994; Morrison & Brantner, 1992). Similarly, initial failure experiences can serve as opportunities for learning for those with characteristics such as a learning goal orientation (Hofmann et al., 1993). Learning goal orien- tated individuals are less likely to make negative attributions regarding their ability, feel negative affect, or encounter performance disruptions following failure experiences (Dweck, 1986). As a result, because they are more likely to frame failure experiences as chances to learn, following a failure experience learning goal oriented individuals should be more likely to reflect upon and analyze the past event and identify a more effective strategy for the next time the situation arises (Anderson & Jennings, 1980).

Proposition 4: Individual difference variables that reflect a positive atti- tude toward learning, a strong self-concept, and sense of personal control (e.g., learning goal orientation, self-efficacy, self-esteem, problem focused coping strategies) moderate the extent to which work experiences that present obstacles and initial failures translate into motivation development and knowledge and skill acquisition.

Given that learning comes primarily from on-the-job experiences and that greater responsibility for obtaining these experiences is shifting to individuals (Hall & Mirvis, 1995), employees need to be provided the information and support necessary to allow them to get into experiences that stretch their capabilities and enhance motivation. Less formal practices include providing access to special work assignments. Working on project teams as part of continuous improvement processes can be provided for the purpose of developing teamwork, leadership, and change management skills. More formal experience-building strategies may include staffing practices where assignments are ordered in such ways to build knowledge and skill sets. Morrison and Hock (1986) have described what such a sequencing of assignments might look like for providing career developmental experiences for commanding naval officers. Learning critical work roles (e.g., technical expert, tactician) is accomplished by working in the types of jobs (e.g., weapons instructor, head of


operations) that develop those knowledge and skills required for assuming the work roles required of a commanding officer. This structured sequencing of work roles fosters development based on cumulative work experiences.

Proposition 5: Human resource practices (e.g., staffing, work assignments, training) that develop employee work experience through brokering assignments and learning hierarchies will provide employees more fully developed work experiences.

Career practices such as these need to ensure that new experiences closely match those previously acquired experiences; otherwise, prior experiences will not facilitate subsequent learning and performance (Gor- don, Cofer, & McCullough, 1986; Gordon & Fitzgibbons, 1982). There may also be limits to the utility of continuously gaining more varied, complex, and challenging work experiences. Greater breadth may sacrifice depth in the development of expertise and these trade-offs need to be considered in light of the work context and employee career objectives.

The experience itself is not as important as the opportunity to reflect on what was learned from the experience (Seibert, 1996). Unfortu- nately, many work experiences, particularly on-the-job experiences, are not framed as instances for learning (Hall & Mirvis, 1995). Organiza- tions can facilitate learning from experience through critical incident learning, advance skill certification exercises, personal journaling, and 360-degree feedback processes (Hall & Mirvis, 1995; Robinson & Wick, 1992). Support from others is another context factor that may help translate work experience into learning by lessening stress that interferes with learning and increasing self-confidence in ones ability to manage challenging experiences (McCauley et al., 1994). Support can stem from acceptance and approval of ones performance by supervisors, opportunities to vent frustrations and relieve stress with colleagues, and a sense of collegiality with co-workers (Morrison & Brantner, 1992; Morrison, White, & Van Velsor, 1987).

Proposition 6: Use of organizational practices and sources that enable reflection of recent work experiences (e.g., 360-degree feedback systems) and provide support and relieve stress will strengthen motivational development and the acquisition of work knowledge and skills.

As preceding discussion highlights, individual and situational factors need to be considered together in how they interact to produce experience. A promising area for research involves integrating a careers perspective and the temporally dynamic features of work experience to consider the relative contributions of individual and contextual factors to


the development of experience over time. Morrison and Hock (1986) argue that, initially, the job context, through the set of tasks and assignments that characterize a career pattern, dominates learning of work knowledge and skills and the development of personal characteristics. However, over time, individuals exert increasingly greater influence over their own work roles and job context to the point where acquired experience becomes more a product of individual than contextual factors. As an example, Landy and Vasey (1991) reported that compared to more junior officers, senior officers demonstrated greater discretion in determining the types of on-duty activities they performed.

Proposition 7: Initially, context factors exert a stronger influence over accrued work experiences than individual factors. As a function of time and the associated exposure to contextual factors of the work, individual factors provide greater influence over the characteristics of accrued work experiences.

This is not to say that context becomes less important on the development of work experience. However, individuals help enact their environments by opting into and out of occupations, organizations, jobs, and assignments over the course of their careers (cf., Schein, 1971). Thus, over time, the influences of individual characteristics such as learning style, motivation, and personality become more evident.

Outcomes of Work Experience

A third contribution of this paper has been to describe the primary and secondary outcomes of work experience. A number of promising avenues for research exist that can build on this multidimensional framework. One is by relating work experience components to recent developments in theories of work performance (e.g., Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Campbell, 1990). For instance, Motowidlo and Van Scotter (1994; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996) found that tenure better predicts task performance than contextual performance. Presumably this is because performance on standard task activities is influenced by job knowledge and skill development that improves with the practice that comes from greater tenure. DuBois and McKee (1994) reported similar findings. Experience quantity, measured as a composite of task frequency, re- cency of task performance, amount of training, and amount of feedback, was more strongly related to performance of Marines on consistent tasks in a land navigation proficiency test ( e g , determining location and direction) than on inconsistent tasks (e.g., tactical decision making). In contrast, experience quality, assessed using a composite measure of the


types of environments, duties, training classes, supervisory opportunities, and activities involved in training, was a better predictor of performance on the inconsistent tasks involved in the proficiency test than experience quantity. It appears that more quantitative aspects of work experience, as assessed by amount and time measures, are more predictive of performance on standard work activities that involve consistent application of knowledge and skills. For nonroutine tasks or in unstruc- tured work contexts, exposure to unique and diverse situations may be more important.

Proposition 8: Quantitative component measures of work experience are more strongly related to performance on consistent tasks while qualitative component measures are more strongly related to performance on more inconsistent tasks.

Other features of the work environment and additional dimensions from other performance models will need to be considered to more fully understand the complexities between different experience components and aspects of performance. Fiedler (1994) has summarized a number of studies which have consistently found measures of tenure to be better predictors of performance under stressful or difficult working conditions than in low-stress situations. However, this relationship is found only when tasks are relatively structured and procedures and goals are well- defined. In these situations, automatic responses to high stress events or situations are more likely to be correct and effective than in novel or unique circumstances. Through repetition and practice comes the skill development and refinement that allows for automatic processing, which may be particularly critical for performance under urgent or stressful circumstances when the learned response is likely to be correct.

For jobs that involve higher levels of complexity or where nonroutine decision making composes a larger portion of the performance domain, information on the qualitative aspects of experience may be necessary for accurate prediction. There is evidence that the tenure -, knowledge 4 performance relationship that has been identified when examining jobs that are relatively low in complexity (Schmidt et al., 1986), is weaker for more complexjobs (Borman et a]., 1993; McDaniel et al., 1988a). For supervisory and other jobs that involve higher levels of complexity and less standardization, simply increasing the amount of time spent in the job may not provide enough opportunities for detailed and higher level job knowledge and skill development. The content of work experience needs to be considered and this necessitates attention to the qualitative aspects of work experience. Proposition 1 (that all three experience components contribute to explaining performance) can be elaborated upon by stating that when moving from more simple to complex jobs,


the relative contribution of the qualitative and interactive components in explaining important outcome criteria will increase.

Proposition 9: At lower levels of job complexity, experience measures that simply include a quantitative component will forecast criteria such as job performance. As job complexity increases, the predictive power of such measures will decrease and will need to be supplemented by experience measures that include qualitative and interaction components of the experience model.

Perhaps the greatest advances to our understanding of work experience and relationships with immediate outcomes such as work knowledge and then secondary outcomes such as performance will come from a more temporal approach. A substantial amount of research in the area of life-span psychology has demonstrated that fluid abilities/mechanics (e.g., memory, motor coordination) decline over the life-course while pragmatic abilities are maintained and can even increase into old age (see Salthouse, 1991, 1995, for reviews). Thus, development consists of multiple dimensions that undergo simultaneous growth in certain areas and decline in others (Baltes, 1987). Work experience may play a critical role in this process by maintaining performance as individuals age by providing practical job-relevant knowledge and skills (i.e., pragmatic abilities) that compensate for age-related declines in memory, fine-motor coordination, and other fluid abilities (Salthouse & Mau- rer, 1996). Salthouses finding that older typists compensate for declines in finger movement speed by development through experience of more extensive forward-processing of letter and word sequences that enable them to perform as efficiently as younger typists demonstrates this relationship quite well. It is consistent with work in the area of practical intelligence (e.g., Sternberg, Wagner, Williams, & Horvath, 1995) that has shown that experience serves to provide a set of complex multicon- ditional rules that apply to specific work situations, but that are difficult to convey. There is even evidence to suggest that these pragmatic and practical work-related knowledge and skills developed through experience are more important for performance in certain jobs than general cognitive ability (Ceci & Liker, 1986, 1988; Scribner, 1984, 1986).

Recognizing that different performance-related factors (e.g., general cognitive ability, motivation, task-relevant skills) have distinct growth trajectories and that certain factors are more malleable by experience than others has numerous implications for performance over a career. It suggests that experience can facilitate development of work knowledge and slulls that may compensate for age-related declines in basic cognitive abilities. However, the extent to which these experiences are acquired is a function of individual and contextual factors (see Farr,


Tesluk, & Klein, 1998; Salthouse & Maurer, 1996). For instance, outcome needs (e.g., growth needs) and expectations for success (e.g., self- efficacy) are two variables that are relevant to gaining experiences such as participating in updating or employee development activities (Salt- house & Maurer, 1996). With respect to contextual factors, training activities, staffing practices, and work design can be integrated to provide more complex work experiences which have been suggested as a means to off-set age-related declines in certain abilities (Avolio, Waldman, & McDaniel, 1990; Waldman & Avolio, 1993). Opportunities for participation in certain work experiences (e.g., skills training) are also affected by age-related norms that can vary by work group and organization (Salt- house & Maurer, 1996; Waldman & Avolio, 1993).

Proposition 10: As a function of individual and contextual factors, on-the- job work experiences accrued over time contribute to the development of pragmatic intelligence (i.e., procedural work-related knowledge and context-bound problem-solving abilities) that compensate for age-related declines in fluid abilities (e.g., information processing, fine-motor coordination).

Measurement and Research Design Issues

One important direction for research is to apply the framework provided by Quifiones et al. (1995) and elaborated upon here to methods of operationalizing work experience in terms of its qualitative, quantitative, and interaction components at different levels of specification. Fol- lowing a construct development logic where prediction is enhanced by achieving congruence between predictors and criteria (Binning & Bar- rett, 1989), measures of work experience should be collected at the level of specification that best links experience to the level of the outcome of interest, whether it be the task, job, team, organization, or occupation. For example, Lance and colleagues (1989), found that task experience better predicted performance on the task than tenure. Ford, Sego, & Teachout (1991), who examined relationships between cognitive ability, job tenure, and amount of task experience in predicting task proficiency for 43 tasks across four U.S. Air Force jobs, reported similar findings. Although all three predictors were significantly correlated with task proficiency, task experience accounted for far greater variance in task proficiency than did job tenure (or cognitive ability). Even after entering cognitive ability and job tenure, frequency of task experience remained significant. Future work relating different measures of work experience and performance needs to take into account the following proposition:

Proposition 11: When validating experience measures, care must be taken


to match the level of specification of both work experience and the criterion. Stronger work experience-outcome relationships will be observed when the work experience measure and the outcome criterion are assessed at the same level of specification than when they are assessed at different levels of specification.

A test of this proposition, for example, might involve relating work experience and performance for an airplane mechanic. A 2 x 2 design could be used where experience and performance are measured at the task (experience measured by length of time spent working on repairing jet engines and performance measured by proficiency in engine repair) and job (experience measured by length of time spent in the job of airplane mechanic and performance measured by supervisors rating of overall job performance) levels of specification. The experience-performance correlations for the cells that are matched on the level of specification should be significantly higher than for the non- matched cells. This pattern should hold true in relating work experience to other outcomes besides performance. For instance, organizational tenure should be more highly correlated with organizational commit- ment than job tenure (Quifiones et al., 1995). This is because job tenure reflects the amount of time spent in the current job title rather than the length of time spent within the same familiar organizational context, which is better captured by organizational tenure.

Methods to assess the qualitative aspects of experience need direct attention. One place to start is with traditional training and experience (T&E) rating methods. T&E methods are used to predict job performance through systematic, judgment-based evaluation of the written information provided by applicants on questionnaires, resumes, applications, or other documents (Levine & Flory, 1975). They extract job- related information such as past work accomplishments, performance on specific tasks in previous jobs, prior training, and educational history. Although a number of different T&E evaluation methods exist (see Ash, Johnson, Levine, & McDaniel, 1989), the behavioral consistency method has been found to display the highest validities (McDaniel, Schmidt, & Hunter, 1988b). Based on the assumption that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, this method requires applicants to list and describe their past achievements which are formally scored according to dimensions derived from subject matter experts. A limitation of this and other similar T&E methods is that they focus on the outcome of an experience and do not fully capture the nature of the experience itself (e.g., level of challenge of an assignment). Another limiting factor is that these techniques place a premium on written communication skills and may not be appropriate for all jobs.


A measure such as the Developmental Challenge Profile (DCP; Mc- Cauley et al., 1994) offers a potential advancement. The DCP is intended to capture the on-the-job situations and events that are associated with learning and managerial development. Examples of the types of important experiences include job transitions, assignments that impose challenges, situations that require assuming a high level of responsibility, and instances that require overcoming obstacles. This type of measure is targeted at what the experience entailed, rather than simply the length of the experience or outcomehesult of the experience. In addition, because responses are made according to multi-point rating scale, reliance on communication abilities is reduced.

Innovative research designs and strategies are needed in order to capture patterns of interindividual and intraindividual change over time that define experience. In order to do this, researchers need to move beyond cross-sectional studies and utilize longitudinal designs to categorize and follow the progression of experiences over time. There are a number of ways this might be accomplished (see Waldman & Avolio, 1993). For instance, using archival data sets from personnel files with information on individuals work histories and work contexts, researchers might con- duct retrospective or postdictive studies. Data might also be collected retrospectively through interviews or surveys to obtain information regarding work experiences (e.g., McCall et al., 1988). These methodologies may at least serve as a means to develop initial hypotheses and may encourage organizations to work more closely with researchers in col- lecting future data for use in more sophisticated designs (Waldman & Avolio, 1993).

Factors critical in the development and patterns of experience may be missed with the use of only either a cross-sectional or a longitudinal design (see Waldrnan & Avolio, 1993, for an excellent discussion of these methodologies). Cohort effects, which reflect individuals within the same generation sharing common social or societal experiences, are an example of one macro-level contextual factor that may affect experience in ways that cannot be captured either one of these types of designs individually. For instance, the AT&T studies (Bray & Howard, 1983) identified important motivational, interest, and work value differences between managers from different generational cohorts that affected the types of career decisions they made and influenced their respective patterns of experience. If examined cross-sectionally, these differences due to cohort membership might be mistakenly attributed as being due to aging. However, even in a longitudinal design, if only a single cohort of managers was considered, these differences due to generational effects that reflect larger societal trends, would be overlooked as well. As Waldman and Avolio (1993) have suggested, cross-sequential designs


(e.g., see Baltes & Schaie, 1976) that incorporate features of longitudinal and cross-sectional approaches by adding new groups of individuals over time which allows for the comparison of patterns of change across individuals of different cohorts help overcome these limitations. Other types of factors that may systematically affect the types of experiences individuals acquire and that could be explored with this type of design would be changes in human resource practices (e.g., a new two-tier wage system) that may apply to new hires, but not to more senior employees.

Conclusion

As one of the most commonly used variables in personnel and human resources, work experience is well deserving of study. Yet it has received virtually no theoretical attention. Experience is much more than simply the length of time spent in a job, organization, or occupation, which cap- tures only a small sliver of the construct domain. Without integrating the qualitative with the quantitative dimensions, the complexity of work experience remains unexplored and its benefits remain untapped. The recent work of Quifiones and his colleagues (Quiiiones et al., 1995) has made a significant contribution by providing a framework for conceptualizing experience and highlighting the need to attend to how it is defined and operationalized. This model builds on their initial framework in a number of important ways. It adds to the dimensionality of experience by discussing how qualitative and quantitative components interact over time and how different levels of specification are important. It also takes the first step toward developing a nomological network that links work experience to individual and contextual variables as well as immediate and secondary outcomes. In doing so, experience is described in multidimensional, temporarily dynamic, and in multilevel terms. Finally, after identifying a number of important theoretical issues for future study, some implications that this new conceptualization of experience has for human resource practice and directions for developing new methodologies and measures for experience assessment were discussed. It is our hope that this effort will serve to stimulate additional theoretical and empirical research on work experience.

REFERENCES

Anderson CA, Jennings DL. (1980). When experiences of failure promote expectations of success: The impact of attributing failure to ineffective strategies. Journal of Personality, 48,393401.

Ash RA, Johnson JC, Levine EL, McDaniel MA. (1989). Job applicant training and work experience evaluation in personnel selection. In Rowland Kh4, Ferris GR (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 7, 183-226). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.


Ash RA, Levine EL. (1985). Job applicant training and work experience evaluation: h empirical comparison of four methods. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 70,572-576.

Ashford SJ, Cummings LL. (1985). Proactive feedback seeking: The instrumental use of the information environment. Journal of Occupafional Psychology, 58,67-79.

Avolio BJ, Waldman DA, McDaniel MA. (1990). Age and work performance in nonman- agerial jobs: The effects of experience and occupational title. Academy ofManage- ment Journal, 33,407-422.

Baltes PB. (1987). Theoretical propositions of life-span developmental psychology: On the dynamics between growth and decline. Developmental Psychology, 23,611-626.

Baltes PB, Reese HW, Nesselroade JR. (1977). Life-span developmentalpsychology: Intro- duction to research methods. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Baltes PB, Schaie KW. (1976). On the plasticity of adult and gerontological intelligence: Where Horn and Donaldson fail. American Psychologist, 31,720-725.

Binning JF, Barrett GV (1989). Validity of personnel decisions: A contextual analysis of the inferential and evidential bases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,478-494.

Borman WC, Hanson MA, Oppler SH, Pulakos ED, White LA. (1993). Role of supervisory experience in supervisory performance. Journal of Applied fsychology, 78,443-449.

Borman WC, Motowidlo SJ. (1993). Expanding the criterion domains to include elements of contextual performance. In Schmitt N, Bonman W and Associates (Eds.), fer- sonnel selection in organizations (pp. 71-98). New York: Jossey-Bass.

Brett JM. (1984). Job transitions and personal and role development. In Rowland KM, Ferris GR (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 2, pp. 155-188). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Bray DW, Howard A. (1983). The AT&T longitudinal studies of managers. In Shaie KW (Ed.), Longitudinal studies of adult psychological development (pp. 266-312). New York: Guilford Press.

Brousseau KR. (1984). Job-person dynamics and career development. In Rowland KM, Ferris GR (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 2, pp. 125-154). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

California Brewers Association v. Bryant, 444 U.S. 598 (1980). Campbell JI? (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and

organizational psychology. In Dunnette MD, Hough LM (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizationalpsychology (2nd. ed., Vol. 1 , pp. 687-732). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Campion MA, Cheraskin L, Stevens MJ. (1994). Career related antecedents and outcomes of job rotation. Academy of Management Journal, 37,1518-1542.

Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E, Converse SA. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In Castellan NJ Jr. (Ed.), Current issues in individual and group decision making (pp. 221-246). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ceci SJ, Liker J. (1986). Academic and nonacademic intelligence: An experimental sepa- ration. In Sternberg RJ, Wagner KR (Eds.), Practicalintelligence: Natureandorigins of competence in the everyday world (pp. 119-142). New York: Cambridge Univer- sity Press.

Ceci SJ, Liker J. (1988). Stalking the IQ-expertise relationship: When the criticsgofishing. Journal of Experimental fsychology: General, 117,96-100.

DuBois D, McKee A. (1994, April). Facets of work experience. Paper presented at the 6th Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St Louis, MO.

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

Farr JL, Tesluk PE, Klein SR. (1998). Organizational structure of the workplace and the


older worker. In Schaie KW, Schooler C (Eds.), Impact of workon olderindividmls (pp. 143-184). New York: Springer.

Feidler FE. ( I 994). Leadership experience and leadership performance. (Technical Report MDA 903-89-K-0193). Alexandria, VA. U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Ford JK, Quifiones M, Sego DJ, Speer-Sorra J. (1992). Factors affecting the opportunity to perform trained tasks on the job. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 45,511-527.

Ford JK, Sego D, QuiRones M, Speer-Sora J. (1991, April). The construct of experience: A review of the literature and needed research directions. Paper presented at the 6th Annual Conference of the Societ

Kamal Ka article

Documents

Transcript of Kamal Ka article