OJT Training: Theory Influencing Practice

Jonathan R. Lightfoot

Gonzaga University

OJT Training: Theory Influencing Practice

Three source documents are being used to analyze the theory and practice of On-the-Job-

Training. The oldest is a 1996 article from a manufacturing magazine, Water Engineering

& Management, about the use of OJT vs. classroom training classes in factories. The next

is a Train the Trainer handbook copyrighted in 1999 and used for several years at to

educate first line managers and supervisors on how to best train new hires in their

operational responsibilities. The final document is a 2013 study published in The

International Journal of Human Resource Management on the effectiveness of OJT and

PDCA training.

Each of the three materials will be reviewed in chronological order, and then compared

and contrasted with each other to see what the disparate perspectives can yield when

brought together. The author of this paper was trained in the second document’s methods

in the early 2000s, and is writing this paper to place his education and experience in
context of the greater field of study. By reviewing the materials chronologically, the

training materials can be placed in an appropriate context, and then evaluated to see

where current theory can be used to approve or amend it to be more effective.

On-the-Job Training

Smith and Kules (1996) did a practical article for plant managers on when and how to

apply on-the-job-training to their plants, and how to know when classroom or OJT training

made more sense.

Their leading point was that good OJT training is not the “sink or swim” method, where

an activity is demonstrated once, quickly, to the trainee, and then they are left alone and

expected to be competent. Instead, evaluation is done to understand what the trainee

knows before training, and training is done to ensure the trainer is trained. This structure

teaches the trainee problem solving skills. The trainee learns more information about the

why of the process, and is thus more open to ask questions of the trainer. The

trainer/trainee relationship is also one of more respect than the sink or swim method.

Smith and Kules gave guidelines for deciding between classroom and OJT training. Note,

these are considering factory/plant training, but their recommendations can be applied

elsewhere. One factor should be cost per person. What can affect those costs? The

expense and availability of capital equipment, experience of employees and number of

employees needing similar training. Another factor to consider is the experience of the
employee(s). Less experienced employees usually do better in classroom training first

before OJT.

Tools and Techniques of OJT Training

The materials in this OJT training book by Instructional Design Associates (1999)

concentrate on creating the best trainer for OJT training. It is high on principles and

concepts. There are the characteristics of successful OJT training:

1) Structured

2) Timely

3) Accountability

4) Premeditated

5) Consistent

6) Human

Then there is the 4-step training model, as detailed in the below table:
Trainer Student

Prepare Leaner Put student at ease, get student interested in materials

Motivation

Present the job Tell, show and illustrate the task Understanding

Try out performance Have student practice the task, correct errors Participation

Transition to job Put student on own, tell where to get help, check frequently

Application

That is balanced by an analysis of trainer/trainee styles. Again, another table:

Trainer: Tour Guide

Student: Gadfly

Trainer: Balanced

Student: Thinker

Trainer: Administrator

Student: Rock
Trainer: Engine

Student: Engine

The key is to work through the 4-step training model while recognizing the student’s

training style and aligning the material and the trainer with that style to achieve the end

training result. A trainer needs to recognize the student’s quadrant on the style table, and

move the student to the place of greatest learning.

The PDCA Cycle and OJT Training

Matsuo and Nakahara (2013) put the plan-do-check-act (PDCA) cycle and On-the-Job-

Training (OJT) through a research study to compare their effectiveness in fostering the

organizational learning process.

They defined the organizational learning process as:

Acquisition of knowledge by individuals or groups

Sharing and interpreting knowledge within groups and organizations

Incorporation of knowledge into organized routines

Elimination of anachronistic routines

To determine effectiveness, they put forth four hypotheses:

OJT – Direct supervision is positively correlated with workplace learning

OJT – Empowerment is positively correlated with workplace learning

PDCA – Positively correlated with workplace learning

Reflective Communication is positively correlated with workplace learning

They used learning outcome survey data from a Japanese firm to make their analysis.

What they discovered is that the first hypothesis was false, but the other three were true.

The general conclusions were that quality management based on the PDCA cycle can

markedly improve development by promoting problem solving and stimulating experiential

learning. In contrast, the effectiveness of OJT depends on its style.

They did note that the results might be affected by the culture of the Japanese firm, and

need to be expanded to other cultural settings to confirm a more general conclusion.

https://beswiftbeprecise.wordpress.com/2016/11/22/ojt-training-theory-influencing-

practice/