| 008 |
|
200415n^^^^^^^^xx^ad^^^o^^^^^|||^u^eng^d |
| 024 |
7 |
|a HF5549.5.P35 F54 2009_FletcherRowan |2 BU-Local |
| 100 |
1 |
|a Fletcher, Rowan Hobbs. |
| 245 |
10 |
|a The impact of trainer accountability on management performance in the appraisal process |h [electronic resource]. |
| 260 |
|
|a Miami, Fla. : |b Barry University, |c 2009. |
| 300 |
|
|a xii, 177 leaves : |b ill., charts ; |c 28 cm |
| 490 |
|
|a Barry University Dissertations -- School of Education. |
| 502 |
|
|a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Barry University, 2009. |
| 504 |
|
|a Includes bibliographical references (leaves 159-168). |
| 506 |
|
|a Copyright Rowan Hobbs Fletcher. Permission granted to Barry University to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. |
| 520 |
3 |
|a Purpose: Employees give great importance to their annual evaluation, from the lowest level job right up to the CEO level. Waiting for the results creates much anxiety, and performance appraisal has a direct impact on employee morale. Current literature on performance appraisal provides invaluable information for appraisal to be conducted properly. Yet, performance appraisal continues to be conducted poorly. Within the context of Human Resource Development, current literature on accountability does not present trainers as being held accountable for training and does not speak to the trainer’s responsibility for learning transfer to the work area. Accordingly, this research sought to bring value to the Human Resource Development field by exploring the impact of trainer accountability for management performance in the appraisal process. Method: The participants in this study comprised ten trainers and ten managers who were randomly selected from financial institutions in South Florida. These trainers and managers gave their views on training, knowledge transfer, feedback systems and trainer accountability in face-to-face interviews. The data were analyzed through open, axial and selective coding processes contained within the grounded theory tradition, and revealed best practices, barriers and contributors to trainer accountability for management performance in the appraisal process. The research was undertaken within the constructs of two established theoretical frameworks: the Kirkpatrick Evaluation Model and David Easton Political Systems Model. These models speak to how knowledge is transferred, and how a feedback loop guarantees a continual flow of revisions and corrective action for future development. A new model called the Fletcher Trainer Accountability Model emerged from these two frameworks to demonstrate the use of a feedback loop to sustain trainer accountability. Major Findings: Management performance in the appraisal process could not be attributed to the training function. Managers perceived themselves to be ultimately responsible for learning transfer and took ownership for learning. Trainers believed managers should be held accountable for learning and refuted accountability for how managers performed appraisals. Feedback from managers to trainers was encouraged through informal channels only. In short, no feedback loop existed to engage and sustain trainer accountability for management performance in the appraisal process. The findings in this study have been summarized in a coding paradigm called The Accountability Flow: Inconsistent Feedback Inhibits Trainer Accountability. A new theory called Fletcher’s Theory of Trainer Accountability and the Feedback Loop is presented. This theory specifies that it is not necessary to have a feedback loop to experience knowledge transfer; however, it is necessary and sufficient to have a feedback loop to engage trainer accountability for management performance in the appraisal process. |
| 533 |
|
|a Electronic reproduction. |c Barry University, |d 2020. |f (Barry University Digital Collections) |n Mode of access: World Wide Web. |n System requirements: Internet connectivity; Web browser software. |
| 535 |
1 |
|a Barry University Archives and Special Collections. |
| 650 |
0 |
|a Performance |x Management. |
| 650 |
0 |
|a Employees |x Rating of. |
| 650 |
0 |
|a Employee training personnel. |
| 650 |
0 |
|a Executives |x Training of |x United States. |
| 830 |
0 |
|a Barry University Digital Collections. |
| 830 |
0 |
|a Theses and Dissertations. |
| 852 |
|
|a BUDC |c Theses and Dissertations |
| 856 |
40 |
|u http://sobekcmsrv.barrynet.barry.edu/AA00001501/00001 |y Click here for full text |
| 992 |
04 |
|a https:/budc.barry.edu/content/AA/00/00/15/01/00001/HF5549_5_P35 F54 2009_FletcherRowanthm.jpg |
| 997 |
|
|a Theses and Dissertations |
