The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2046-9012.htm

Role of
A person-situation perspective of supervisor
informal learning: the role of feedback
environment
supervisor feedback environment
Muhammad Qamar Zia and Muhammad Adnan Bashir
College of Business Management, Institute of Business Management,
Karachi, Pakistan Received 24 September 2020
Revised 23 November 2020
15 December 2020
Riaz Ahmed Mangi 14 January 2021
Institute of Commerce, Shah Abdul Latif University Khairpur, Accepted 17 January 2021

Sindh, Pakistan, and

Aamir Feroz Shamsi
Bahria University, Karachi Campus, Pakistan

Abstract
Purpose – Based on trait activation theory, the purpose of the present study is to explore the relationship
between the antecedents and outcomes of informal learning with the moderating effect of supervisor feedback
environment (SFE) in small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
Design/methodology/approach – Data (n = 388) were gathered from middle managers of Pakistan’s
SME sector by following the purposive sampling technique. The proposed model was examined by means of
structural equation modeling analysis with AMOS 24.
Findings – The study results delineate that middle managers with high-level self-efficacy and motivation to
learn more actively participate in informal learning activities. The study also found that the SFE is a strong
contextual moderator between the nexus of personal factors and informal learning. In addition, informal
learning also has significant and positive effect on work engagement.
Practical implications – Human resource practitioners and organizational leaders of small businesses can
use informal learning to improve employees’ skills and knowledge with less cost. For instance, management should
use different strategies to enhance the effectiveness of informal learning by providing SFE.
Originality/value – There are numerous recent calls for research to ascertain the interaction of individual,
contextual factors and outcomes of informal learning. The study addresses these voids by empirically examining
antecedents and outcomes of informal learning simultaneously through the person–situation interaction
perspective. It demonstrates that informal learning at the workplace becomes more effective in SFE.
Keywords Informal learning, Self-efficacy, Work engagement, Motivation to learn,
Small-to-medium enterprises, Supervisor feedback environment
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Informal learning is the primary driving force of corporate competitiveness and is
considered a prominent approach for developing knowledge, skills and attitudes of
employees (Cerasoli et al., 2018; Jeong et al., 2018a; Schulz and Roßnagel, 2010; Skule, 2004).
Informal learning attained the persistent concentration of researchers (Jeong et al., 2018a) as
employee training and development have experienced a transformational phase in the past European Journal of Training and
Development
century and become more learner-centered perspective (Bell et al., 2017; Lourenco and © Emerald Publishing Limited
2046-9012
Ferreira, 2019). Traditionally, informal learning emerges in environments where human DOI 10.1108/EJTD-09-2020-0142
EJTD resource (HR) development practices are less formal (Kortsch and Kauffeld, 2019), especially
in small organizations (Coetzer et al., 2020; Jeong et al., 2018a, 2018b). Employees grow
through informal learning methods in small firms as they experience less opportunity for
formal training and development activities (Bishop, 2017; Coetzer et al., 2017). Moreover,
employees of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) receive only basic training owing
to limited time and financial resources (Decius et al., 2019; Decius and Schaper, 2017). Even if
informal learning is a key element for SMEs (Tam and Gray, 2016) the literature is
inconclusive as only a few studies investigated informal learning in small businesses
(Coetzer, 2006; Coetzer et al., 2017, 2019, 2020; Jeong et al., 2018b).
Employee learning and development occurs through both formal and informal methods
(Choi and Jacobs, 2011; Ellinger, 2005). However, literature shows that more than 70%–90%
of learning at the workplace happens informally (Cerasoli et al., 2018; Wolfson et al., 2018,
2019); meanwhile, organizational resources are allocated more to formal learning (Moore and
Klein, 2020). Informal learning is about workplace experience, unstructured and work
beyond the classroom (Marsick et al., 1999). Informal learning activities include emotional,
physical or cognitive efforts to improve professional knowledge and skills (Lohman, 2005).
Informal learning occurs through learning from oneself (experimenting new ways), others
(interaction and feedback from coworker and supervisors) and non-interpersonal sources
(through publication and internet) (Noe et al., 2013).
The review of existing studies shows that informal learning is greatly influenced by
individual factors which are intertwined with motivation, abilities, personality and interest
(Cerasoli et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2019; Messmann et al., 2018; Noe et al., 2013). For example,
Noe et al. (2013) deduced that Big Five personality dimensions, self-efficacy and zest were
influencing informal learning. Furthermore, individual factors such as goal orientation,
motivation to learn and self-efficacy were found to precipitate informal learning (Choi and
Jacobs, 2011; Noe et al., 2017). Although the relationships between self-efficacy, motivation
to learn and informal learning have some support in informal learning studies, yet their
relationship has not been clearly established in small business literature. As self-efficacy
and motivation to learn are related to individual phenomena, informal learning is high in
small businesses owing to learner’s personal initiatives. Thus, examining the relationship
between self-efficacy and motivation to learn will help to understand the role of these factors
as antecedents of informal learning in SMEs.
In addition, literature shows that not only individual factors but also contextual factors
such as job autonomy, training climate, opportunity for feedback receiving, feedback culture
and coaching stimulate informal learning (Ellinger, 2005; Janssens et al., 2017; Kyndt et al.,
2009; London and Smither, 2002; Noe et al., 2017; Cangialosi et al., 2020c). In short, informal
learning is influenced by multiple factors categorized as individual/personal and situational/
contextual (Cerasoli et al., 2018). Noe et al. (2017) concluded that informal learning is a mix of
both personal and contextual factors; however, the combined relationship of these two
streams is scarcely investigated (Kyndt et al., 2009, 2016; Govaerts et al., 2018), particularly
very limited evidence is available from SMEs literature. More importantly, employees’
involvement in learning and development activities increases when supported by
situational/contextual factors (Orvis and Leffler, 2011; Zia et al., 2020). Feedback
environment is a contextual factor that acts as a moderator in person–situation interaction
(Young, 2013; Young and Steelman, 2017). The supervisory feedback environment (SFE)
value has been relatively ignored in informal learning studies as employees’ tendency to
seek and use feedback was mostly considered (Eraut*, 2004; Kyndt et al., 2009). The SFE is a
contextual aspect that is anticipated to directly influence informal learning. By adding the
SFE as a contextual moderator, the study also responds to the recent calls about the
interaction of individual and contextual factors related to informal learning (Cerasoli et al., Role of
2018; Jeong et al., 2018a, 2018b; Noe et al., 2017; Cangialosi et al., 2020a). As informal learning supervisor
has more share in employee development than formal learning (Ellinger, 2005), scholars
have paid special attention to what are the prominent outcomes of informal learning. For
feedback
instance, work engagement, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, affective environment
commitment and innovative work behavior were found as crucial outcomes of informal
learning (Cangialosi et al., 2020b; Cerasoli et al., 2018; Coetzer et al., 2020; Messmann et al.,
2018; Uhunoma et al., 2020; Yoon et al., 2018). Even though informal learning leads to
positive outcomes (Cerasoli et al., 2018), research has examined how work engagement is
influenced by informal learning in SMEs only sparsely (Susomrith and Coetzer, 2019). This
gap is a predominant concern in informal learning literature as work engagement of
employees is especially imperative because engaged employees mainly determine
organizational performance (Bakker, 2017; Kim et al., 2013). Susomrith and Coetzer (2019)
also connected work engagement as an outcome of informal learning, and it is especially
important in small businesses because these firms provide opportunities for developing
knowledge and skills and the associated experience of work engagement. Grounded in the
aforementioned theoretical background, the current study empirically examines a
comprehensive model of informal learning. The study simultaneously tests individual and
contextual factors together with informal learning outcomes through a person-situation
perspective (Schneider, 1982). The study aims at understanding the influence of personal
and contextual factors on informal learning, the impact of informal learning on work
engagement and the role of SFE as a contextual moderator on the relationship among the
constructs. Figure 1 depicts the conceptual model of the study.

Theoretical framework
Informal learning is a result of personal and contextual factors that provide positive
outcomes for both the individual and organization (Cerasoli et al., 2018), but literature is still
scarce about the empirical investigation of both antecedents and outcomes concurrently.
Moreover, it is not clear how SFE as a contextual moderator enriches informal learning and
work engagement. This study uses trait activation theory (TAT) to fill these gaps and

Figure 1.
Conceptual model
EJTD understand informal learning through person–situation interaction. TAT asserts that
situational signals available in the workplace act as moderators and increase individual cues
for learning behavior (Tett and Burnett, 2003). The integration of personal and contextual
factors of informal learning has scarcely been addressed in existing literature (Noe et al.,
2017; Zia et al., 2020). The conceptual model of the study is based on presage, process and
product (3-Ps) of workplace learning (Tynjälä, 2013). According to Tynjälä (2013), presage
(learning factors and learning context) influences process (learning activities), and it leads to
product (learning outcomes). In creating the conceptual framework of this study, personal
factors (self-efficacy, motivation to learn) were conceived as learner factors, the contextual
factor (SFE) as learning context and work engagement was taken as learning outcome. TAT
helps us in examining the association between the predictors (personal and contextual) and
outcomes of informal and how a contextual factor acts as a moderator. Based on TAT SFE
is expected to strengthen the relationship of self-efficacy, motivation to learn and informal
learning. In addition, informal learning is expected to impact work employees’ engagement.

Self-efficacy and informal learning

Self-efficacy is defined as “personal beliefs of individual about his capabilities to improve
skills and knowledge acquired by training activities” (Bandura et al., 1999; Maurer et al.,
2003; Wentzel and Miele, 2016). A substantial amount of research has explained it as a
significant predictor of informal learning (Noe et al., 2013; Scheurer, 2013; Yoon et al., 2018).
Self-efficacy is derived from social cognitive theory of Bandura (1991) and has been mostly
used in studies examining motivation, learning, performance and development (Choi and
Jacobs, 2011; Noe et al., 2013). The existing studies demonstrate that self-efficacy has a
strong association with intentions, attitudes and informal learning activities at the
workplace (Maurer et al., 2002; Maurer and Tarulli, 1996).
Lohman (2003, 2005, 2006) clarified that individual factors such as self-efficacy, learning
commitment, personality, integrity and curiosity are positively affecting informal learning.
Although informal learning literature has confirmed that self-efficacy is a crucial predictor
of informal learning (Choi and Jacobs, 2011; Kyndt et al., 2016; Noe et al., 2013; Schulz and
Roßnagel, 2010; Yoon et al., 2018), the examination of self-efficacy as an antecedent of
informal learning in SMEs context is not explored well. Jeong et al. (2018b) concluded that
the structure of SME facilitates informal learning and provides more opportunities for
informal learning. Based on existing literature support, the following hypothesis is
formulated:

H1. Self-efficacy has positive and significant influence on informal learning.

Motivation to learn and informal learning

Motivation to learn is an epistemological belief of an individual which arouses with learner
curiosity to fill his gap in existing knowledge (Keller, 2008); in the informal learning context,
this refers to the desire of the individual to acquire work-related contents by participating in
learning activities (Choi, 2009; Noe and Schmitt, 1986). Motivation to learn explains how an
individual participates in learning events at the workplace and how he/she is dedicated to
development activities (Birdi et al., 1997; Noe et al., 2014). Motivation to learn is about
employee engagement in learning and development activities (Tharenou, 2001), and higher
motivation to learn leads to more active participation in learning programs which often
translates in positive outcomes (Colquitt et al., 2000; Shanti et al., 2016). Literature portrays
that the relationship between learning measures and individual motivation is significant
and positive (Noe and Schmitt, 1986). Informal learning is based on individual interest and Role of
motivational aspects (Lohman, 2005) and mostly occurs in small organizations (Coetzer supervisor
et al., 2020). In addition, the relationship of motivational attitude, motivation to learn and
informal learning was found significant and positive in existing studies (Choi, 2009;
feedback
Lohman, 2005, 2006). However, studies conducted in SMEs have not addressed the impact of environment
motivation to learn on informal learning. For this reason, this study proposes the following
hypothesis:

H2. Motivation to learn has a positive and significant influence on informal learning.

Supervisor feedback environment

The feedback environment is a contextual aspect that includes day-to-day feedback from his
supervisor and coworkers instead of formal appraisal feedback sessions (Steelman et al.,
2004). The feedback environment has two potential sources (supervisor and coworker).
However, the SFE is strongly associated with employee behavior on the job and self-
development (Cavanaugh, 2016). Psychogios et al. (2019) urged that managerial feedback
plays a crucial role as trigger of change in SMEs which enhances learning. The favorable
feedback environment or feedback culture is an essential contextual aspect of individuals
toward learning and development, especially self-initiated development (Cavanaugh, 2016;
London and Smither, 2002). The SFE is mainly based on favorable and encouraging
supervisors’ remarks to her/his subordinate for improvement and assistance. In such an
environment, the individual can easily get valuable information that assists him in
satisfying self-related motives (Anseel et al., 2007). The strong feedback environment leads
to positive outcomes such as the commitment to the organization (Norris-Watts and Levy,
2004), self-development (Cavanaugh, 2016), better performance (Rosen et al., 2006; Whitaker,
2007) and control on his learning and information (Gabriel et al., 2014).
Informal learning studies showed that feedback was addressed as feedback-seeking,
feedback behavior, receiving feedback, feedback opportunities and feedback orientation in
relation to informal learning at the workplace (Coetzer et al., 2019; Eraut*, 2004; Janssens
et al., 2017; Kyndt et al., 2009; Marsick, 2009; Schürmann and Beausaert, 2016). Cavanaugh
(2016) concluded that when SFE is favorable, accurate, encouraging and from a credible
source, the employee propensity to learn and seek information for self-initiated learning
increases. Literature shows that SFE has a direct association with personal factors such as
self-efficacy, career insight and motivation to learn (Cavanaugh, 2016; Guzman, 2007; Leh
et al., 2014; Ling and Abdullah, 2015) and influences both work engagement and informal
learning (Cavanaugh, 2016; Lee et al., 2019). Feedback environment is also verified as a
moderator which strengthens the relationship of personal factors and dependent variables
such as work engagement and available meaningfulness safety (e.g. Young and Steelman,
2017; Young, 2013). Previous studies have shown that SFE has been scarcely investigated as
a contextual moderator in informal learning studies. Thus, following the person–situation
interactionism paradigm (Mendoza-Denton et al., 2001), it is expected that the SFE could act
as moderator and will strengthen the linkage of personal factors and informal learning.
Thus, this study proposed the following:

H3. SFE has positive and significant influence on informal learning.

H3a. SFE moderates the relationship between self-efficacy and informal learning.
H3b. SFE moderates the relationship of motivation to learn and informal learning.
EJTD H3c. SFE moderates the relationship of informal learning and work engagement.

Informal learning and work engagement

Work engagement is conceptualized as an individual’s positive psychological commitment
to work. For Kahn (1990), work engagement regards situations where employees are
confident about expressing themselves physically, mentally, emotionally and cognitively
during their role performance. Susomrith and Coetzer (2019) stated that informal learning
activities enhance employees’ work engagement, and this relation becomes stronger with
organizational support and individual proactively. Cerasoli et al. (2018) in their meta-
analysis highlighted that involvement in informal learning programs will enhance the work
engagement of employees. Literature portrays that direct relationship of informal learning
and work engagement is investigated in few empirical studies (Coetzer et al., 2020), but in
general, the role of learning opportunities for work engagement is established in existing
studies (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002; Rich et al., 2010) . Uhunoma et al. (2020) established
that informal learning has a positive association with work engagement and facilitates older
workers’ work engagement. Thus, this study proposed the following:

H4. Informal learning has positive and significant impact on work engagement.

Method
Sample and procedures
SMEs significantly provide employment, global development and the largest contributor to
gross domestic product (GDP) in emerging economies, especially in developing countries
(World Bank, 2020). SMEs play a crucial role in countries’ economies as SMEs are the main
contributor to national GDP (Ahmad et al., 2020). The target population of the present study
is SMEs in Pakistan. SMEs contribute to Pakistan’s economy by generating 40% to annual
GDP, 80% employment and 30% to exports (SMEDA, 2019; Zafar and Mustafa, 2017). The
data were gathered from manufacturing SMEs as 20% of Pakistan’s SMEs belong to
manufacturing such as food, sports, textile, leather, wood, metal and so on (Mubarik et al.,
2016). According to SMEDA (2019), the average workforce for a manufacturing SME is
between 10 and 250. The questionnaires were distributed among the middle managers of
SMEs in Karachi, Lahore and Faisalabad because 25% of SMEs are located in these cities
(Mubarik et al., 2016). Middle managers were selected as respondents because they get more
informal learning opportunities at the workplace owing to regular interaction with
employees and employers (Choi, 2009; Noe et al., 2017).
To avoid the problem of common method bias, the guidelines of Podsakoff et al. (2012)
were followed. First, the study data were collected in two-time lags through purposive
sampling from the registered list of Small Medium Development Authority. In the first
phase, data of personal characteristics and informal learning were gathered and in the
second phase, data of SFE and work engagement were gathered. To match the
questionnaires, the respondents were asked to write their maternal grandparents’ name as
the same method was adopted by Carmeli et al. (2010). Second, to obtain the data of middle
managers in SMEs’ of Pakistan, a list of 900 manufacturing firms was compiled containing
email address, contact numbers and address from the database of Jamal’s yellow pages and
the chamber of commerce. The owners and managers of these firms were approached
through telephone regarding willingness and permission for research. The firms having
concerns were dropped from the list, and the remaining 375 firms were finally considered for
data collection. Third, items of instrument were arranged randomly. Fourth, the
questionnaire was handed over personally to the respondents in an envelope, and Role of
information of the respondent was kept confidential. supervisor
A total of 650 questionnaires were distributed among the middle managers of these firms
in Phase 1, and 469 were returned fully completed by the respondents. The same
feedback
respondents were again contacted after one month, and this time out of 469, the researchers environment
received 412 completed surveys as few respondents have switched or left the previous firm.
A total of 24 questions were dropped from the survey owing to incomplete information,
respondent disengagement, outliers and multivariate normality issues. Finally, 388 surveys
(response rate = 59.69%) were used for further analysis. Table 1 presents the respondents’
profile.

Measures
Informal learning (Time 1 survey) was assessed using Choi and Jacobs’ (2011) 12 items with
three constructs, knowledge sharing, self-experiment and environmental scanning. A
sample item is “I read professional magazines or vendor publications to be current in some
topics.” Personal characteristics (Time 1 survey) were assessed with two different scales.
Self-efficacy was measured with an eight-item scale taken from Chen et al. (2001), a sample
item is “I will be able to successfully overcome many challenges.” Motivation to learn was
measured with the seven-item scale taken from Tharenou (2001), and a sample item is “I
would like to improve my skills through learning activities.” The feedback environment
scale (Time 2 survey) was originally developed by Steelman et al. (2004). The present study
used the supervisor portion and short version of the scale which consists of 21 items with
seven facets (Young, 2013). These seven facets are source credibility (SC), feedback quality
(FQ), feedback delivery (FD), favorable feedback (FF), unfavorable feedback (UFF), source
availability (SA) and promotes feedback seeking (PFS). A sample item is “I seldom have
received praise from my supervisor.” Work engagement (Time 2 survey) was measured
through short version of “Utrecht Work Engagement Scale-9” (Schaufeli et al., 2006). This
scale has three subscales with three items: vigor, dedication and absorption. A sample item
is “I feel energized at work.” All items of the questionnaire were assessed at five-point Likert
scale (5: strongly agree to 1: strongly disagree).

Variables Type Frequency (n = 388) (%)

Gender Male 316 81.4

Female 72 18.6
Age Less than 25 years 74 19.1
25–34 years 155 39.9
35–45 years 94 24.2
45–55 years 49 12.6
Over 55 years 16 4.1
Qualification 2 year college 119 30.7
Graduation 166 42.8
Master/MPhil 103 26.5
Organizational tenure Less than 5 years 43 11.1
6–12 years 188 48.5
13–18 years 87 22.4
19–24 years 59 15.2 Table 1.
25 year and above 11 2.8 Respondents’ profile
EJTD Data analysis
Statistical package for the social science (SPSS) 25.0 and AMOS 24.0 were used for data
analysis. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was adopted for examining the relationship
between observed and unobserved variables. SEM is a statistical method which is applied to
examine the structural model based on theory (Byrne, 2010). SEM is further evaluated with
measurement and structural models (Hair et al., 2012), and it is a popular approach for
testing the theoretical models in social science studies (Bandalos, 2002). SEM comprises of
both factor analysis and regression analysis (Hox and Bechger, 1998) and confirms multiple
relations among the variables simultaneously (Lomax and Schumacker, 2012). The steps of
data analysis of the present study are described in the following subsections.

Data fit and cleaning

Data cleansing was completed by checking the missing values, outliers and unengaged respondents
as data with such issues can disrupt the findings and results (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). First,
missing values in eight respondents were replaced with mean of respective variables as these
missing values were less than 10%. Second, outliers and multivariate normality were checked
through Mahalanobis (d2) square distance values, and a total of 18 problematic values were
removed in this test. Few other assumptions such as homoscedasticity and multicollinearity were
also checked and found no violation. Table 2 demonstrates descriptive statistics correlations among
the constructs. The correlations of all constructs are within the range of 0.20–0.60, and the present
study shows no possibility of multicollinearity (Grewal et al., 2004),

Measurement model
The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to estimate the measurement model (Chin
et al., 2008). All the five variables with their latent factors were plotted simultaneously
(pooled-CFA) in AMOS 24.0 for CFA. Initially, the model fit indices were satisfactory, but
few values were less than model fit indices. A total of five items with low factor loading
(<0.60) were eliminated (Hair et al., 2010). The modification index (MI) in AMOS was used to
overall improve the model fit indices. After the adjustment of MI >10, a good fit of the
measurement model was reflected. The model fit indices of measurement model are;
X2=1480, df = 1280, X2/df = 1.149, CFI = 0.985, goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = 0.881, Normed-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Age 1
2. Tenure 0.741** 1
3. Gender
0.242**
0.213** 1
4. MTL 0.072 0.05
0.016 0.719
5. SE 0.049 0.06
0.056 0.411** 0.752
6. SFE
0.050
0.034 0.016 0.344** 0.340** 0.793
7. IL
0.011 0.065 0.017 0.509** 0.612** 0.411** 0.826
8. WE 0.046 0.067
0.028 0.293** 0.324** 0.322** 0.515** 0.826
Mean 2.43 2.50 1.19 3.53 3.57 3.57 3.63 3.44
Std. dev. 1.06 0.97 0.39 0.67 0.068 0.71 0.70 0.72

Notes: Age and organizational tenure were assessed in five categories, whereas gender was coded as a
Table 2. binary variable (0 = male and 1 = female); MTL= motivation to learn, SE = Self-efficacy, IL = Informal
Correlation and learning, SFE = Supervisor feedback environment, WE = Work engagement, square root of average
descriptive statistics variance extracted (AVE) is italic *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01 (one-tailed test)
fit index = 0.896, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = 0.984, standardized root Mean residual = 0.041 Role of
and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.020. It shows that GFI’s value is supervisor
less than the recommended value; however, researchers recommended the value of GFI
feedback
greater than 0.80 also suggests a good fit and GFI > 0.9 means satisfactory fit (Hair et al.,
2010). environment
Internal consistencies of the constructs were assessed through composite reliability (CR).
Table 3 shows that CR values varied from 0.86 to 0.92 exceeding the threshold value of 0.70
(Hair et al., 2010). The validity of constructs was ensured through convergent validity and
discriminate validity. Convergent validity was verified by computing the average variance
extracted (AVE) for each construct. Table 3 presents that AVE of all constructs ranges from
0.517 to 0.689 which is above the threshold value (0.50) (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The
discriminate validity of the constructs was established with two methods. First, Table 2
confirms that the square root of AVE exceeds the correlation values of the constructs
(Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Second, AVE of the construct should be greater than the value
of maximum shared variance (MSV), and Table 3 confirms that MSV value is less than AVE
(Hair et al., 2012). The above-stated estimates indicate that the scale has no issue of
convergent validity and discriminant validity.

Structural model
The structural model is the second part of SEM which is used to explain the
relationships and verify the proposed research hypothesis. In the first step of

Construct Indicator Std. L CR AVE MSV

Motivation to learn MTL1 0.720 0.865 0.517 0.359

MTL2 0.726
MTL4 0.706
MTL5 0.718
MTL7 0.767
Self-efficacy SE1 0.772 0901 0.565 0.498
SE2 0.724
SE3 0.762
SE4 0.758
SE5 0.799
SE6 0.736
SE8 0.707
Supervisor feedback environment SC 0.941 0.922 0.630 0.214
FQ 0.765
FD 0.826
FF 0.848
UFF 0.751
SA 0.634
PFS 0.752
Informal learning KS 0.867 0.866 0.683 0.501
SE 0.809
ES 0.801
Work engagement ABS 0.773 0.869 0.689 0.399
DED 0.866
VIG 0.848 Table 3.
Reliability and
Notes: Std. L = Standard loading, CR = Composite reliability, AVE = Average variance extracted validity
EJTD hypothesis testing, the moderating influence of SFE was not included. The structural
model of present study also reflected a good fit: X2=19, df = 12, X2/df = 1.59,
CFI = 0.992, GFI = 0.988, TLI = 0.981 and RMSEA = 0.039. The acceptance and rejection
of the hypothesis were based on standardized regression coefficients and p-value in
AMOS 24.0 output. Figure 2 indicates the results of the SEM analysis. Figure 2 shows
the relationship of self-efficacy ! informal learning ( b = 0.457, p < 0.001), motivation
to learn ! informal learning ( b = 0.280, p < 0.001) and SFE ! informal learning ( b =
0.166, p < 0.001) is significant and positive. The impact of informal learning on work
engagement was also noted as positive and significant ( b = 0.530, p < 0.001). The
squared multiple correlation (R2) is used to determine the potency of the model. Figure 2
depicts that predictors of informal learning and work engagement explain 0.480% and
0.274% of its variance, respectively. Figure 2 presents that control variables such as
age and organizational tenure were significantly related to informal learning. It shows
that age has a negative impact on informal learning ( b =
0.092, CR =
3.86,
p < 0.001), and organizational tenure has positive impact on informal learning ( b =
0.102, CR = 3.92, p < 0.001). These results indicate that middle manager with older age
has low participation in informal learning activities, and longer tenure displays high
participation. However, the result of the main hypothesis was noted with no change
with or without control variables. In conclusion, the control variables explained 25%
variance for informal learning and 38% for work engagement.

Moderating effect of supervisory feedback environment

The moderating effect of SFE was examined hierarchically (Xanthopoulou et al., 2007).
As per the researchers’ recommendations and guidelines, three additional variables
were created in SPSS for interaction effects by multiplying independent variables and
moderating variables (Ranaweera and Jayawardhena, 2014). The moderating effect
results are presented in Table 4, and the plotted presentation of the interaction effect is

Figure 2.
Hypothesized model
results
displayed in Figure 3 (Aiken et al., 1991). A significant moderating effect was found for Role of
self-efficacy  SFE ! informal learning ( b = 0.143**, R2 = 0.45) and motivation to supervisor
learn  SFE ! informal learning ( b = 0.137**, R2 = 0.34). Additionally, the study
found that moderating effect of the feedback environment on the relation between
feedback
informal learning and work engagement was not significant ( b = 0.047n/s, R2 = 0.28). environment

Findings and discussions

The findings of this study expand the knowledge of informal learning in several ways.
First, this study investigated predictors of informal learning in today’s hyperactive and
globalized environment where learning has become challenging and a need for all
professionals (Khandakar and Pangil, 2019). Figure 2 presents that personal factors
such as self-efficacy and motivation to learn showed positive significance on informal
learning supporting H1 and H2. These findings are in line with existing studies, where
the motivation to learn is related to informal learning (Choi and Jacobs, 2011; Moon and
Na, 2009) and self-efficacy is a predictor of informal learning (Cho and Kim, 2016;
Lohman, 2003; Yoon et al., 2018). Figure 2 also verified that informal learning is not
only predicted by personal factors but contextual factors such as feedback environment
also play a significant role. Interestingly, the feedback environment has not had a very
encouraging influence on informal learning ( b = 0.17; Sig < 0.001). However, H3 was
accepted as the impact was significant, and this finding is in line with the results of
Cavanaugh (2016). In conclusion, the data from SMEs confirmed that personal factors
(self-efficacy and motivation to learn) along with contextual factor (SFE) will enhance
the participation of middle managers in informal learning activities.
Second, the present study also answers the call for research addressing the influence of
informal learning toward attitude-related outcomes (Cerasoli et al., 2018). The findings
support the notion that informal learning is positively and significantly related to work
engagement ( b = 0.53; Sig < 0.001), and this is also in line with recent studies (Coetzer et al.,
2020; Susomrith and Coetzer, 2019). In conclusion, the results related to antecedents and
outcomes of informal learning are also parallel to Tynjälä (2013) 3-P model of workplace
learning.
Third, the moderating influence of SFE can be explained in terms of TAT (Tett and
Burnett, 2003). The present study suggests that feedback as contextual moderator
strengthens the relationship of personal factors and informal learning. However, one
unexpected finding was that the moderating role of feedback environment between informal

Hypotheses Structural relationship St. estimates ( b ) CR P value R2 Result

H3a IL/SE 0.505 12.43 0.000 Accepted

IL/SFE 0.237 5.90 0.000 0.45
IL/SEXSFE 0.143 4.48 0.000
H3b IL/MTL 0.402 9.09 0.000 Accepted
IL/SFE 0.261 5.92 0.000 0.34
IL/MTLXSFE 0.126 3.34 0.000
H3c WE/IL 0.457 9.66 0.000 Rejected
WE/SFE 0.135 2.85 0.004 0.28
Table 4.
WE/ILXSFE 0.0473 1.23 0.219
Summary of
Notes: MTL = Motivation to learn, SE = Self-efficacy, IL = Informal learning, SFE = Supervisor feedback interaction effect on
environment, WE = Work engagement informal learning
EJTD

Figure 3.
Interactive effect

learning and work engagement was nonsignificant (p = 0.219). Consequently, H3a and H3b
were empirically accepted but H3c was rejected. The findings are in tandem with existing
studies in which SFE acts as a moderator in person–situation interaction (Young, 2013;
Young and Steelman, 2017). The study found that the positive effect of personal factors on
informal learning was more substantial when middle managers work in a more favorable
feedback environment.
Contrary to this, an interesting finding of the study is about the absence of a significant
moderating effect of SFE which suggests that a favorable SFE environment will not
strengthen the connection of informal learning and work engagement. The positive direction
of H3c states that SFE may still provide a good fit as individual can use the information and
feedback of supervisor to enhance informal learning and improves work engagement. In
short, when there is a favorable SFE, employee having motivation for learning and self-
efficacy will feel that they can enhance their capabilities through informal learning which
leads to work engagement.
The present study sample was gathered from middle managers as middle managers
get more informal learning opportunities than other employees owing to their regular
interaction with the employee and top management (Choi, 2009). Besides, existing
literature also states that managers also play a significant role in informal learning at
the workplace such as coaching (Beattie et al., 2014). Recently, Coetzer et al. (2019)
indicated that managers’ role in small businesses is very prominent and facilitates
informal learning.
Theoretical implications Role of
The findings of the study support the TAT, which emphasizes that individual factors are supervisor
inspired by situational factors such as environmental and organizational characteristics
(Tett and Burnett, 2003). In simple words, when a situational variable correlates with an
feedback
individual factor, this will play a significant role in employee learning and development. environment
Thus, this study corroborated that and contributed to the literature by attesting that
employees with strong self-efficacy and motivation to learn are more willing to actively
participate in informal learning activities with the support of situational factors such as
SFE. Additionally, the presented findings are also in line with existing studies that describe
the support of situational factors boosting employees’ informal learning (Noe et al., 2017;
Cangialosi et al., 2020b). Accordingly, the present study also answered the recent calls
regarding the interaction of personal and situational factors of informal learning (Jeong
et al., 2018a; Noe et al., 2017). Moreover, the gap concerning the scarce research about
employee attitude (work engagement) as an outcome of informal learning is evident in
relevant studies (Cerasoli et al., 2018). This study uncovers the role of work engagement as a
relevant and significant outcome of informal learning in SMEs. Moreover, previous studies
on informal learning mainly focused on one side of informal learning (predictors) but
devoted little attention to consequences. This paper expands the literature by empirically
examining the combined influence of antecedents and outcomes of informal learning
simultaneously.

Practical implications
The study’s result provided a number of implications for management, workplace learning
professionals, HR practitioners and organizational leaders. First, the results clearly state
that there is a need for a feedback environment to enhance informal learning. The feedback
environment is an important contextual aspect that fosters informal learning, and it is an
important source for middle managers of SMEs to feel support, enhances skills and
knowledge. Therefore, owners/management of SMEs should be committed to the
philosophy of providing a feedback environment to the employees for improving their skills
and knowledge through informal learning. Second, personal characteristics encourage
middle managers to actively participate in informal learning activities in the workplace. For
instance, management should refine its recruitment by selecting those individuals whose
learning motivation and self-efficacy are high through standardized selection assessments
or personality testing (Ones et al., 2007). Third, as informal learning is intentional and
unstructured, the question may arise of how the employee will learn and what will be the
learning frame (Marsick and Watkins, 2001). The success of informal learning depends on
the assistance of management and HR practitioners in providing learning opportunities
(Marsick and Watkins, 2015). Thus, HR practitioners should create such an environment
where individuals should get maximum learning opportunities that facilitate motivation to
learn for informal learning. In conclusion, the provision of authentic feedback environment
will be beneficial.

Limitations and future research

The present research has some limitations which provide direction for future research. First,
this study added only one contextual variable for both predictor and moderator of informal
learning as this construct is comprehensive and a combination of these different constructs.
In future studies, testing other contextual factors or work characteristics such as training
climate and autonomy would add knowledge about informal learning’s contextual
predictors. Second, the study has added only one outcome of informal learning and two
EJTD individual factors. To better understand informal learning, future research is needed to
empirically examine the relationship between multiple triggers and outcomes of informal
learning simultaneously. Third, from a methodological point of view, the measures of
variables were rated by the same person on the same survey, and data were collected from
the same level. Thus, future research should collect data from different respondents by
using a multilevel analytical approach. Last but not least, the generalization of empirical
findings to other settings is important. One potential way to substantiate the issue of
generalizability is that the data should be collected from cross-national sources.

References
Ahmad, S., Siddiqui, K.A. and AboAlsamh, H.M. (2020), “Family SMEs’ survival: the role of owner family and
corporate social responsibility”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 27 No. 2.
Aiken, L.S., West, S.G. and Reno, R.R. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions, Sage.
Anseel, F., Lievens, F. and Levy, P.E. (2007), “A self-motives perspective on feedback-seeking behavior:
linking organizational behavior and social psychology research”, International Journal of
Management Reviews, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 211-236.
Bakker, A.B. (2017), “Strategic and proactive approaches to work engagement”, Organizational
Dynamics, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 67-75.
Bandalos, D.L. (2002), “The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter estimate bias in structural
equation modeling”, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 78-102.
Bandura, A. (1991), “Social cognitive theory of self-regulation”, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 248-287.
Bandura, A., Freeman, W.H. and Lightsey, R. (1999), “Self-efficacy: the exercise of control”, Journal of
Cognitive Psychotherapy, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 158-166.
Beattie, R.S., Kim, S., Hagen, M.S., Egan, T.M., Ellinger, A.D. and Hamlin, R.G. (2014), “Managerial
coaching: a review of the empirical literature and development of a model to guide future
practice”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 184-201.
Bell, B.S., Tannenbaum, S.I., Ford, J.K., Noe, R.A. and Kraiger, K. (2017), “100 years of training and
development research: what we know and where we should go”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 102 No. 3, p. 305.
Birdi, K., Allan, C. and Warr, P. (1997), “Correlates and perceived outcomes of 4 types of employee
development activity”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 6, p. 845.
Bishop, D. (2017), “Affordance, agency and apprenticeship learning: a comparative study of small and
large engineering firms”, Research in Post-Compulsory Education, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 68-86.
Byrne, B.M. (2010), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming
(Multivariate Applications Series), Vol. 396, Taylor and Francis Group, New York, NY, p. 7384.
Cangialosi, N., Odoardi, C. and Battistelli, A. (2020a), “A three-way interaction model of innovative
behavior, task-related learning, and job characteristics”, Performance Improvement Quarterly,
Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 153-172.
Cangialosi, N., Odoardi, C. and Battistelli, A. (2020b), “Learning climate and innovative work behavior, the
mediating role of the learning potential of the workplace”, Vocations and Learning, Vol. 67 No. 284,
pp. 1-18.
Cangialosi, N., Deprez, G.R.M., Odoardi, C. and Battistelli, A. (2020c), “Work based learning: Italian
adaptation of the learning potential of the workplace scale (LPW). BPA-Applied psychology
bulletin”, (Bollettino di Psicologia Applicata), Vol. 67 No. 284, pp. 153-172.
Carmeli, A., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Ziv, E. (2010), “Inclusive leadership and employee involvement in
creative tasks in the workplace: the mediating role of psychological safety”, Creativity Research
Journal, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 250-260.
Cavanaugh, C.M. (2016), “Beyond cheerleaders and checklists: the effects of the feedback environment Role of
on employee self-development”, [PhD Thesis], University of Akron.
supervisor
Cerasoli, C.P., Alliger, G.M., Donsbach, J.S., Mathieu, J.E., Tannenbaum, S.I. and Orvis, K.A. (2018),
“Antecedents and outcomes of informal learning behaviors: a meta-analysis”, Journal of
feedback
Business and Psychology, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 203-230. environment
Chen, G., Gully, S.M. and Eden, D. (2001), “Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale”,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 62-83.
Chin, W.W., Peterson, R.A. and Brown, S.P. (2008), “Structural equation modeling in marketing: some
practical reminders”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 287-298.
Cho, H.J. and Kim, J.-M. (2016), “Administrative assistants’ informal learning and related factors”,
Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 28 No. 7.
Choi, W. (2009), Influences of Formal Learning, Personal Characteristics, and Work Environment
Characteristics on Informal Learning among Middle Managers in the Korean Banking Sector
[PhD Thesis], The OH State University.
Choi, W. and Jacobs, R.L. (2011), “Influences of formal learning, personal learning orientation, and
supportive learning environment on informal learning”, Human Resource Development
Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 239-257.
Coetzer, A. (2006), “Employee learning in New Zealand small manufacturing firms”, Employee
Relations, Vol. 28 No. 4.
Coetzer, A., Kock, H. and Wallo, A. (2017), “Distinctive characteristics of small businesses as sites for
informal learning”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 111-134.
Coetzer, A., Susomrith, P. and Ampofo, E.T. (2020), “Opportunities to participate in formal and informal
vocational learning activities and work-related outcomes in small professional services
businesses”, Journal of Vocational Education and Training, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 88-114.
Coetzer, A., Wallo, A. and Kock, H. (2019), “The owner-manager’s role as a facilitator of informal learning in
small businesses”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 420-452.
Colquitt, J.A., LePine, J.A. and Noe, R.A. (2000), “Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: a meta-
analytic path analysis of 20 years of research”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 5, p. 678.
Decius, J. and Schaper, N. (2017), “The competence management tool (CMT)–a new instrument to
manage competences in small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises”, Procedia
Manufacturing, Vol. 9, pp. 376-383.
Decius, J. Schaper, N. and Seifert, A. (2019), “Informal workplace learning: development and validation
of a measure”, Human Resource Development Quarterly.
Ellinger, A.D. (2005), “Contextual factors influencing informal learning in a workplace setting: the case of
reinventing itself company”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 389-415.
Eraut*, M. (2004), “Informal learning in the workplace”, Studies in Continuing Education, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 247-273.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gabriel, A.S., Frantz, N.B., Levy, P.E. and Hilliard, A.W. (2014), “The supervisor feedback environment
is empowering, but not all the time: feedback orientation as a critical moderator”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 487-506.
Govaerts, N., Kyndt, E. and Dochy, F. (2018), “The influence of specific supervisor support types on
transfer of training: examining the mediating effect of training retention”, Vocations and
Learning, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 265-288.
Grewal, R., Cote, J.A. and Baumgartner, H. (2004), “Multicollinearity and measurement error in
structural equation models: implications for theory testing”, Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 4,
pp. 519-529.
EJTD Guzman, M. (2007), “The mediating role of motivation and job satisfaction in work environment-
outcome relationships”.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Mena, J.A. (2012), “An assessment of the use of partial least
squares structural equation modeling in marketing research”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 414-433.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, Vol. 7New
Jersey, Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hox, J.J. and Bechger, T.M. (1998), “An introduction to structural equation modeling”,
Janssens, L., Smet, K., Onghena, P. and Kyndt, E. (2017), “The relationship between learning conditions in
the workplace and informal learning outcomes: a study among police inspectors”, International
Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 92-112.
Jeong, S., Han, S.J., Lee, J., Sunalai, S. and Yoon, S.W. (2018a), “Integrative literature review on informal learning:
antecedents, conceptualizations, and future directions”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 17
No. 2, pp. 128-152.
Jeong, S., McLean, G.N. and Park, S. (2018b), “Understanding informal learning in small-and medium-
sized enterprises in South Korea”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 30 No. 2.
Kahn, W.A. (1990), “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 692-724.
Keller, J.M. (2008), “First principles of motivation to learn and e3-learning”, Distance Education, Vol. 29 No. 2,
pp. 175-185.
Khandakar, M.S.A. and Pangil, F. (2019), “Relationship between human resource management
practices and informal workplace learning”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 31 No. 8.
Kim, W., Kolb, J.A. and Kim, T. (2013), “The relationship between work engagement and performance:
a review of empirical literature and a proposed research agenda”, Human Resource Development
Review, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 248-276.
Kortsch, T. and Kauffeld, S. (2019), Validation of a German Version of the Dimensions of the Learning
Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ) in German Craft Companies, Zeitschrift Für Arbeits-Und
Organisationspsychologie A&O.
Kyndt, E., Dochy, F. and Nijs, H. (2009), “Learning conditions for non-formal and informal workplace
learning”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 369-383.
Kyndt, E., Vermeire, E. and Cabus, S. (2016), “Informal workplace learning among nurses:
organisational learning conditions and personal characteristics that predict learning outcomes”,
Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 435-450.
Lee, J.Y., Yoo, S., Lee, Y., Park, S. and Yoon, S.W. (2019), “Individual and organisational factors
affecting knowledge workers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of informal learning: a multilevel
analysis”, Vocations and Learning, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 155-177.
Lee, M.C.C., Idris, M.A. and Tuckey, M. (2019), “Supervisory coaching and performance feedback as
mediators of the relationships between leadership styles, work engagement, and turnover
intention”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 257-282.
Leh, L.Y., Abdullah, A.G. and Ismail, A. (2014), “The influence of feedback environment towards self-
efficacy for students engagement, classroom management and teaching strategies”,
International Journal of Management, Vol. 4 No. 6, pp. 253-260.
Ling, Y.-L. and Abdullah, A.G.K. (2015), “Do feedback environment and coaching communication
determine self-efficacy of teaching? A case of Malaysian polytechnic lecturers”, International
Journal of Management and Applied Research, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 59-72.
Lohman, M.C. (2003), “Work situations triggering participation in informal learning in the workplace: a case
study of public school teachers”, Performance Improvement Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 40-54.
Lohman, M.C. (2005), “A survey of factors influencing the engagement of two professional groups in informal
workplace learning activities”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 501-527.
Lohman, M.C. (2006), “Factors influencing teachers’ engagement in informal learning activities”, Role of
Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 141-156.
supervisor
Lomax, R.G. and Schumacker, R.E. (2012), A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling,
Routledge Academic, New York, NY. feedback
London, M. and Smither, J.W. (2002), “Feedback orientation, feedback culture, and the longitudinal performance environment
management process”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 81-100.
Lourenco, D. and Ferreira, A.I. (2019), “Self-regulated learning and training effectiveness”, International
Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 117-134.
Marsick, V.J. (2009), “Toward a unifying framework to support informal learning theory, research and
practice”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 265-275.
Marsick, V.J., Volpe, M. and Watkins, K.E. (1999), “Theory and practice of informal learning in the
knowledge era”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 80-95.
Marsick, V.J. and Watkins, K. (2015), Informal and Incidental Learning in the Workplace (Routledge
Revivals), Routledge.
Marsick, V.J. and Watkins, K.E. (2001), “Informal and incidental learning”, New Directions for Adult
and Continuing Education, Vol. 2001 No. 89, pp. 25-34.
Maurer, T.J., Mitchell, D.R. and Barbeite, F.G. (2002), “Predictors of attitudes toward a 360-degree
feedback system and involvement in post-feedback management development activity”, Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 87-107.
Maurer, T.J. and Tarulli, B.A. (1996), “Acceptance of peer/upward performance appraisal systems: role
of work context factors and beliefs about managers’ development capability”, Human Resource
Management, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 217-241.
Maurer, T.J., Weiss, E.M. and Barbeite, F.G. (2003), “A model of involvement in work-related learning
and development activity: the effects of individual, situational, motivational, and age variables”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 4, p. 707.
Mendoza-Denton, R., Ayduk, O., Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., Testa, A. (2001), “Person$\times$situation
interactionism in self-encoding (iam. . . when. . .): implications for affect regulation and social
information processing”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 4, p. 533.
Messmann, G., Segers, M. and Dochy, F. (2018), Informal Learning at Work: Triggers, Antecedents, and
Consequences, Routledge.
Moon, S.-Y. and Na, S.-I. (2009), “Psychological and organizational variables associated with workplace
learning in small and medium manufacturing businesses in Korea”, Asia Pacific Education
Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 327-336.
Moore, A.L. and Klein, J.D. (2020), “Facilitating informal learning at work”, TechTrends, Vol. 64 No. 2,
pp. 219-228.
Mubarik, M.S., Govindaraju, C. and Devadason, E.S. (2016), “Human capital development for SMEs in Pakistan:
is the “one-size-fits-all” policy adequate?”, International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 43 No. 8.
Noe, R.A. and Schmitt, N. (1986), “The influence of trainee attitudes on training effectiveness: test of a
model”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 497-523.
Noe, R.A., Tews, M.J. and Marand, A.D. (2013), “Individual differences and informal learning in the
workplace”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 83 No. 3, pp. 327-335.
Noe, R.A., Tews, M.J. and Michel, J.W. (2017), “Managers’ informal learning: a trait activation theory
perspective”, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Noe, R.A., Wilk, S.L., Mullen, E.J. and Wanek, J.E. (2014), “Employee development: issues in construct
definition and investigation of antecedents”, in Ford, J.K, Kozlowski, S.W.J, Kraiger, K., Salas, E.
and Teachout, M.S. (Eds), Improving Training Effectiveness in Work Organizations, Lawrence
Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 153-189.
Norris-Watts, C. and Levy, P.E. (2004), “The mediating role of affective commitment in the relation of the
feedback environment to work outcomes”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 351-365.
EJTD Ones, D.S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C. and Judge, T.A. (2007), “In support of personality assessment
in organizational settings”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 995-1027.
Orvis, K.A. and Leffler, G.P. (2011), “Individual and contextual factors: an interactionist approach to
understanding employee self-development”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 51 No. 2,
pp. 172-177.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2012), “Sources of method bias in social science research
and recommendations on how to control it”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 539-569.
Psychogios, A., Blakcori, F., Szamosi, L. and O’Regan, N. (2019), “From feeding-back to feeding-
forward: managerial feedback as a trigger of change in SMEs”, Journal of Small Business and
Enterprise Development, Vol. 26 No. 1.
Ranaweera, C. and Jayawardhena, C. (2014), “Talk up or criticize? Customer responses to WOM about
competitors during social interactions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 12, pp. 2645-2656.
Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002), “Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, p. 698.
Rich, B.L., Lepine, J.A. and Crawford, E.R. (2010), “Job engagement: antecedents and effects on job
performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 617-635.
Rosen, C.C., Levy, P.E. and Hall, R.J. (2006), “Placing perceptions of politics in the context of the
feedback environment, employee attitudes, and job performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 91 No. 1, pp. 211.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and Salanova, M. (2006), “The measurement of work engagement with a
short questionnaire: a cross-national study”, Educational and Psychological Measurement,
Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 701-716.
Scheurer, A.J. (2013), “Antecedents of informal learning: a study of core self-evaluations and work-
family conflict and their effects on informal learning”, [PhD Thesis], The Ohio State University.
Schneider, B. (1982), Interactional Psychology and Organizational Behavior, MI State University East
Lansing Department of Psychology.
Schulz, M. and Roßnagel, C.S. (2010), “Informal workplace learning: an exploration of age differences in
learning competence”, Learning and Instruction, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 383-399.
Schürmann, E. and Beausaert, S. (2016), “What are drivers for informal learning? ”, European Journal of
Training and Development, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 130-154.
Shanti, T.I., Janssens, J. and Setiadi, B. (2016), “University support, motivation to learn, emotional adjustment,
and academic performance”, Asian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, Vol. 3 No. 1.
Skule, S. (2004), “Learning conditions at work: a framework to understand and assess informal
learning in the workplace”, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 8
No. 1, pp. 8-20.
SMEDA (2019), State of SMEs in Pakistan, Sage Publications Sage CA, Los Angeles, CA, available at:
https://smeda.org/
Steelman, L.A., Levy, P.E. and Snell, A.F. (2004), “The feedback environment scale: construct definition,
measurement, and validation”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 165-184.
Susomrith, P. and Coetzer, A. (2019), “Effects of informal learning on work engagement”, Personnel
Review, Vol. 48 No. 7.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2007), Using Multivariate Statistics, Vol. 5, Pearson, Boston, MA.
Tam, S. and Gray, D.E. (2016), “The practice of employee learning in SME workplaces”, Journal of
Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 23 No. 3.
Tett, R.P. and Burnett, D.D. (2003), “A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 3, p. 500.
Tharenou, P. (2001), “The relationship of training motivation to participation in training and
development”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 5, pp. 599-621.
Tynjälä, P. (2013), “Toward a 3-P model of workplace learning: a literature review”, Vocations and Role of
Learning, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 11-36.
supervisor
Uhunoma, O., Lim, D.H. and Kim, W. (2020), “The mediating role of informal learning on work engagement:
older workers in the US public sector”, European Journal of Training and Development. feedback
Wentzel, K.R. and Miele, D.B. (2016), Handbook of Motivation at School, Routledge. environment
Whitaker, B. (2007), “Explicating the links between the feedback environment, feedback seeking, and
job performance”, [PhD Thesis], University of Akron.
Wolfson, M.A., Mathieu, J.E., Tannenbaum, S.I. and Maynard, M.T. (2019), “Informal field-based
learning and work design”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 104 No. 10.
Wolfson, M.A., Tannenbaum, S.I., Mathieu, J.E. and Maynard, M.T. (2018), “A cross-level investigation
of informal field-based learning and performance improvements”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 103 No. 1, p. 14.
World Bank (2020), “[text/HTML] world bank SME finance”, available at: www.worldbank.org/en/topic/
smefinance
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Dollard, M.F., Demerouti, E., Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T.W. and
Schreurs, P.J. (2007), “When do job demands particularly predict burnout?”, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 8.
Yoon, D.-Y., Han, S., Sung, M. and Cho, J. (2018), “Informal learning, organizational commitment and
self-efficacy: a study of a structural equation model exploring mediation”, Journal of Workplace
Learning, Vol. 30 No. 8, pp. 640-657.
Young, S.F. (2013), A Person-Situation Model of Employee Engagement, FL Institute of Technology.
Young, S.F. and Steelman, L.A. (2017), “Marrying personality and job resources and their effect on
engagement via critical psychological states”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 797-824.
Zafar, A. and Mustafa, S. (2017), “SMEs and its role in economic and socio-economic development of Pakistan”,
International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, Vol. 7
No. 4.
Zia, M.Q., Naveed, M., Bashir, M.A. and Shamsi, A.F. (2020), “The interaction of situational factors on individual
factors and self-development”, European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 44 NoS 4/5.

Further reading
Eraut, M. (2000), “Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work”, British Journal of
Educational Psychology, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 113-136.
Noe, R.A. and Wilk, S.L. (1993), “Investigation of the factors that influence employees’ participation in
development activities”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 2, pp. 291.
Rowden, R.W. and Conine, C.T. Jr, (2005), “The impact of workplace learning on job satisfaction in
small US commercial banks”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 215-230.
Tannenbaum, S.I., Beard, R.L., McNall, L.A. and Salas, E. (2010), “Informal learning and development in
organizations”, Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations, pp. 303-332.
Corresponding author
Muhammad Qamar Zia can be contacted at: ammarzia5@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com