Employee Training Programs for North American Businesses

According to a recent edition of Training Magazine, US firms with 50 or more employees spend $32 billion on formal employee training and development programs. Although human resource managers claim that training is essential for producing a productive workforce, little is known about how organizations allocate resources for formal training and if such training improves measured labor productivity. Previous labor economist research on employee training has concentrated on the influence of training on an individual's success in the labor market, i.e., how training boosts wages and reduces the likelihood of layoff.

Economists have also investigated why employers are more willing to teach certain employees than others, and have discovered that those who are expected to stay with the company are more likely to receive training. As a result, economic research on training has focused on how training investments affect incomes distribution. Similarly, industrial and organizational psychologists have done individual-level training research, concentrating on the impact of training on employees' cognitive skills, job effort, and morale.

This article examines the influence of staff training on North-American firm performance, as assessed by Tobin's Q and total returns to shareholders,

using data from a 2000 poll of senior executives in human resource management. According to the findings, more training can improve business performance by increasing staff satisfaction and customer loyalty. Overall, it has been discovered that higher levels of training are connected with significant benefits, including increased company value. The second channel is human and firm-specific capital developed through on-the-job training (Becker 1962; Hashimoto 1981). Several studies have found that higher training rates is connected with less layoffs and staff turnover (Becker 1962; Hashimoto 1981; Molina and Ortega 2003).Schumpeter (1982), Dickson et al. (1986), Olavarrieta and Friedmann (1999), Cooke (2001), Bassi et al. (2002), Molina and Ortega (2003), and Myers et al. (2004) investigated the ways that corporations have used to increase labor productivity. The findings emphasised the need of increasing investment in human capital to boost organizational profit, highlighting a positive and significant association between training investment and total return to shareholders.

However, evidence from North America reveals that enterprises with higher levels of training are less technologically advanced, more unionized, and have lower R&D rates (Molina and Ortega 2003)Several studies have found that higher training rates is connected with less layoffs and staff turnover (Becker 1962; Hashimoto 1981; Molina and Ortega 2003). However, evidence from North America reveals that enterprises with higher levels of training are less technologically advanced, more unionized, and have lower R&D rates (Molina and Ortega 2003). These competing qualities indicate that the net impact of such training can only be determined through empirical investigation. This result could be seen as a potential self-selection bias, as organizations that invest in employee training are typically larger in size (Kotey and Folker 2007) and potentially less adaptable in the face of hardship. Employee training may indicate organizations with low productivity (Bartel 1994), are restructuring, are highly unionized, or have low skill stocks (Almeida-Santos and Mumford 2005; Molina and Ortega 2003). If this is the case, these businesses may be more vulnerable during periods of economic stress.

According to the data obtained, training can be considered an additional strategic tool that companies should use to improve their performance outcomes (Molina & Ortega, 2003

Olavarrieta & Friedmann, 1999;Bassi et al., 2002) and productivity (Bartel, 2000;Holzer, 1993;Barron et al., 1997; Tennant et al., 2002). One of the main contributing features of this research is the exhaustive and rigorous analysis of contemporary theory that reviews all the empirical evidence and research that relate training to business results (Molina & Ortega, 2003; Bartel, 2000; Black & Lynch, 1996; Palaexandris & Nikandrou, 2000).However, the link between training and organizational outcomes is not completely evident. Several writers (Molina and Ortega, 2003; Vărzaru and Vărzaru, 2009; Nguyen, Truong, and Buyens, 2011) have experimentally analyzed the relationship between training and organizational performance in various forms, but further research is needed to better define this relationship in many ways. That is why it is vital to do research on employees' perceptions of TPD programs and their faith in them.

Other researches have found a beneficial association between TPD, confidence in TPD outcomes, productivity, and job performance. Furthermore, Molina and Ortega (2003) proved that TPD has a favorable impact on organizational performance by increasing employee satisfaction. Training has been connected with lower staff turnover rates, but it has also been linked to less technologically advanced organizations (Molina and Ortega, 2003). These opposing characteristics require additional investigation to determine the impact of training on resilience. This is attributable to increased understanding of the benefits system and fewer options for income support between employment (Beatty and Fothergill, 2005; Beatty et al., 2000). Given this, it is possible that formal and structured staff training programs are typically pursued by organizations with low productivity (Bartel, 1994) and/or severe skill gaps (Molina and Ortega, 2003).

If such is the case, greater shares of employee training would indicate a higher concentration of enterprises that are more vulnerable to a crisis.Some empirical research found no association between these two variables (Naeem and Saif 2010, Jonathan and Johnmark 2012, Roy et al. 2017). Employee training, on the other hand, has been shown to increase customer satisfaction (Rogg et al. 2001; Molina and Ortega 2003; Chartrungruang et al. 2006). Based on these findings, the following hypothesis were proposed:. Similar findings on the impact of open book management dimensions were observed in the literature. Rogg et al. (2001), Molina and Ortega (2003), and Chartrungruang et al. (2006) found that employee training increased customer satisfaction.

Ugboro and Obeng Peters and Mazdarani and Isimoya and Bakarey

all found that employee empowerment has a favorable impact on customer satisfaction.Some believe that the link between production and training is weak and difficult to demonstrate (Matilda, 2009). Molina and Ortega (2003), quoted in Matilda (2009), discovered some unfavorable effects of training on business performance. Some scholars and researchers claim that the negative outcomes observed may be due to inefficient training delivery, such as a lack of alignment with the broader business strategic plan (Aragon-Sanchez et al., 2003; Huquea & Vyas, 2008). Furthermore, Siebern- Thomas (2005), as mentioned in Jones, Jones, Latreille, and Sloane (2008), found that job satisfaction was greater in 13 European Community Household Panel countries between 1994 and 2001 when there was access to workplace training.

Molina and Ortega (2003) illustrated how training can improve organisational performance by increasing employee job satisfaction. Thus, management can improve employees' job satisfaction by raising the pace of training and development activities that influence positively on their general skill acquisition (Jamshed, Halepota, & Irani, 2010; Jones, Jones, Latreille, & Sloane, 2008).... This means that a company in which top management strongly supports a comprehensive training project, with proper organization and evaluation, is more likely to succeed than one that does not consider these factors and conducts training in isolation rather than as part of a comprehensive program (Pineda, 2002). According to the data obtained, training can be considered an additional strategic tool that companies should use to improve their performance outcomes (Molina & Ortega, 2003; Olavarrieta & Friedmann, 1999; Bassi et al., 2002) and productivity (Bartel, 2000; Holzer, 1993; Barron et al., 1997; Tennant et al., 2002). This study also contributes to the idea of developing a training model that considers the important features of a training process in any company.