TRANSFER OF TRAINING:
EXPLORING THE INTERACTION BETWEEN
TRAINEE CHARACTERISTCS AND TRANSFER CLIMATE
Master’s Thesis, MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
ABSTRACT
As a result of the rapidly changing work environment, companies make large investments in continuous learning and training of their workforce (ASTD, 2012; CBS, 2011). Due to these investments the interest in the effectiveness of training has risen enormously. The extent to which the newly gathered knowledge and/or skills can be implemented on the job is called transfer of training (Cromwell & Kolb, 2004; Newstrom, 1986) and is a common method for assessing effectiveness of training. Various factors that influence transfer outcomes are known, and can be clustered in categories such as transfer climate and trainee characteristics (Grossman & Salas, 2011; Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart & Wright, 2010; Landy & Conte, 2010). In this study, the transfer climate factors of support, opportunity to perform, and workload are included, as well as the trainee characteristics achievement orientation, self-efficacy, and motivation. The possible interaction between these two categories and their underlying dimensions are investigated in the current study. I expected that the trainee characteristics moderate the relationship between transfer climate factors and training transfer. The results showed that the factor motivation indeed moderates the
relationship between support and opportunity to perform on transfer of training. All other interaction hypotheses were rejected.
Keywords: Transfer of training, transfer climate, support, opportunity to perform, workload,
INTRODUCTION
The rapidly evolving work environment in which millions of people are faced with new technology, changing laws and regulations, and globalization, created a serious demand for continuous learning. As a result, companies invest great sums of money in the training of their employees to ensure their workforce is up to date. In 2011, employers in the U.S.A spent approximately $156.2 billion on learning activities for their employees (American Society for Training & Development, 2012), and in the Netherlands €1.6 billion was spent on company training (Centraal Bureau voor Statistiek, 2012). The CBS (2011) also reported that over one third of
employees in the Netherlands receive training, although they found some differences concerning the size of the company, which show that in larger companies even more employees receive training (41%) compared to employees of smaller organizations (29%). Due to these large investments the interest in training effectiveness has risen enormously. Therefore, it is necessary to take the outcomes of these investments under scrutiny: What are the actual benefits companies get out of these expensive training and education programs?
Transfer of training is a common way of judging and evaluating the effectiveness of training. Transfer of training stretches beyond measuring what is actually learned through a training
program, but questions to what extent this newly gathered knowledge and/or skills can be implemented and used in the actual work setting (Cromwell & Kolb, 2004; Newstrom, 1986). Research has examined factors that affect transfer of training outcomes and shows various direct relationships between different characteristics of both the employee and the organization, such as supervisor support, peer support, feedback, working conditions, self-efficacy and motivation of the trainee, on training transfer (Grossman & Salas, 2011; Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart & Wright, 2010; Landy & Conte, 2010). In this study, these characteristics are clustered into two variable categories, namely: transfer climate and trainee characteristics. Examining the effects of variables in these categories on training transfer is interesting because it covers the work situation as well as the personal characteristics of the trainee, which are both relevant for transfer outcomes (Grossman & Salas, 2011; Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart & Wright, 2010; Landy & Conte, 2010).
different underlying factors of the variable categories transfer climate and trainee characteristics has not been investigated before. Exploring this interplay could be of great value to the understanding of the transfer concept in general, because it can provide information of what factors matter to what extent. Moreover, it can provide new insight in which factors companies and training designers should focus on to improve transfer outcomes. Ideally, all factors create positive effects on training transfer, but often these perfect circumstances cannot be found. In the present research, I investigate what combinations of factors might result in higher transfer outcomes. Thus, the overall research question of this study is: “Is the relationship between the transfer climate of a company and the perceived transfer of training among its employees moderated by trainee characteristics?”
This study can add to existing literature about training transfer because it investigates the
interactions between different dimensions of a transfer climate and characteristics of trainees, which are not studied before. In practice, this study can be used in order to find out on what factors
companies should particularly focus on, regarding the improvement of transfer of training
outcomes. As a result, this study can provide useful insights in how to increase return on the large investments made in training, including both the financial part and human effort.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
In the present study, the category trainee characteristics includes achievement goals, self-efficacy, and motivation. These variables have been selected because previous research shows they are relevant for transfer of training (Belenky and Nokes-Malach, 2012; Grossman & Salas, 2011; Bakker, 2011; Cheng & Ho, 2001). The factor motivation includes both job motivation and
motivation to transfer, and within this study the intensity of these motivations will be investigated. Whereas a mastery orientation has a positive effect on training transfer and a performance
orientation a negative effect (Belenky and Nokes-Malach, 2012), high self-efficacy and high motivation are found to be of a direct positive effect on transfer outcomes (Grossman & Salas, 2011; Bakker, 2011; Cheng & Ho, 2001).
Transfer climate can be defined as both objective and subjective organizational contexts that either strengthen or weaken the implementation of newly gathered knowledge and/or skills
dimensions are included in the current research. Support and opportunity to perform are positively related to training transfer, while workload is negatively related to training transfer.
This study aims to examine the possible interactions between the transfer climate and the trainee characteristics and its underlying dimensions, which have not been investigated yet. In general, I expect that the relationship between the transfer climate and transfer of training is
moderated by the characteristics of the trainee in case. Phrased differently, I expect that the transfer climate is of less importance for trainees with characteristics that are positively related to training transfer outcomes. However, I do not expect that personal characteristics totally surpass the
dimensions of a transfer climate; I expect this climate to be of more importance to trainees with low levels of characteristics that are positively related to training transfer. This expectation is based on the fact that one’s personal characteristics are stable traits, whereas the transfer climate is a certain atmosphere at work and therefore is situation specific. Due to this difference in presence and stability, it is possible that trainee characteristics are of stronger effect on training transfer than transfer climate factors are. Moreover, Barrick and Mount (2005) invite researchers to investigate interactions between personality and work settings, indicating their expectation that personality will prove itself as a strong and enduring factor. Furthermore, a study by Burns and Machin (2013) shows that personality has a stronger effect on employee well being than the organizational climate. Their research shows that personality can override situational organizational factors, which is in line with the expectations in this study.
Transfer Climate: Support, Opportunity to Perform, and Workload
The first dimension of the transfer climate is support, and is defined as the interpersonal encouragement or discouragement perceived by the trainee in case. Support, from both supervisors and peers, is helpful in creating positive training transfer outcomes because it makes employees feel appreciated (Clarke, 2002). The awareness of being noticed can also result in the belief that one’s effort in learning and transferring knowledge will be valued as well by these supervisors and peers, which can motivate employees to do so (Simosi, 2012). Due to the positive effects of peer and supervisor support on training transfer (Noe et al., 2010; Martin, 2010; Bakker, 2011; Clarke, 2002; Simosi, 2012) both aspects are investigated in this study.
Opportunity to perform creates awareness of the usefulness of the training and can help the trainees to get motivated and to put effort in reaching the learning goals. Moreover, opportunity to perform can create a need for learning for the employees: not being able to use these opportunities could lower one’s job performance or result in not getting promoted.
The last dimension in the category transfer climate is workload, which is also an important predictor of transfer outcomes (Clarke, 2002; Bakker, 2011). Workload refers to the balance between time to perform all tasks that belong to a certain job and time to learn/attend training, and is defined as such in this study. Unlike support and opportunity to perform, workload has a direct negative effect on training transfer, meaning that the higher the workload, the lower the transfer outcomes. Presumably, this negative effect of workload on training transfer is due to the lack of time and energy that it results in for learning, attending trainings, homework, etc.
Trainee Characteristics: Achievement goals
The first dimension of trainee characteristics is achievement goals, and includes two
different types of achievement orientations. The first is called the mastery orientation, in which the reference point of the person in case is intra-individual (Paulick, Watermann & Nuckless, 2013; Anseel, Van Yperen, Janssen & Duyck, 2011). People with a mastery orientation focus on
‘mastering’ their tasks, they want to become better than they were before on a certain task and they want to reach their own highest achievement possible (Anseel et al., 2011). The other type of achievement goals is called performance orientation and focuses on a person’s achievements in comparison with others. People with a performance orientation aim to perform better than others do (Anseel et al., 2011). Direct effects of either mastery or performance orientations on transfer
outcomes are investigated by Belenky and Nokes-Malach (2012), showing that the mastery
orientation improves training transfer outcomes whereas the performance orientation leads to lower levels of transfer. They demonstrate that the positive effect of a mastery orientation is due to the intrinsic motivation and inward attention of the trainee in case. Trainees with a mastery orientation are focused on themselves and on reaching their personal highest learning outcome, which can easily result in higher transfer outcomes (Belenky & Nokes-Malach, 2012). The negative effect of a performance orientation can be due to the focus on comparing one’s achievements with others, which leads the attention away from a person’s own learning outcomes and could therefore lead to lower results in terms of transfer.
Due to lack of previous research studying interactions between trainee characteristics and the transfer climate of a company, this study investigates the possible interactions between achievement goals and several dimensions of such a transfer climate. Building on a study by Belenky and Nokes-Malach (2012), I expect that achievement goals moderate the relationship between the transfer climate and transfer of training outcomes. Their study shows that achievement goals do indeed interact with environmental aspects. Moreover, their study shows that the type of instruction less affected training participants with a high-mastery orientation than participants with a performance orientation. Therefore, I expect that achievement goals moderate the relationship between the transfer climate of the organization and training transfer. Furthermore, I expect that trainees with a high mastery orientation will be less affected by positive or negative environmental circumstances - thanks to their inward focus – compared to trainees with a lower mastery orientation. Hence, I expect that a high mastery orientation can override the effects of the transfer climate, concerning training transfer. This expectation results in the following hypotheses:
H1: The positive relationship between support and transfer of training is moderated by the trainee’s mastery orientation, such that this relationship is weaker for trainees with a high mastery orientation, compared to trainees with a low mastery orientation.
H2: The positive relationship between opportunity to perform and transfer of training is moderated by the trainee’s mastery orientation, such that this relationship is weaker for trainees with a high mastery orientation, compared to trainees with a low mastery orientation.
H3: The negative relationship between workload and transfer of training is moderated by the trainee’s mastery orientation, such that this relationship is weaker for trainees with a high mastery orientation, compared to trainees with a low mastery orientation.
In addition, Belenky and Nokes-Malach (2012) show that on the whole people with a high performance orientation reached lower levels of transfer. This could imply that the level of support is of more relevance to these specific trainees since they are, compared to trainees with a mastery orientation, more focused on the environment and their peers (Anseel et al., 2011). Moreover, it is probable that people with a high performance orientation are more affected by the level of support, opportunity to perform, and workload, than their lower performance oriented colleagues. Therefore, I state the following hypotheses:
H5: The positive relationship between opportunity to perform and transfer of training is moderated by the trainee’s performance orientation, such that this relationship is stronger for trainees with a high performance orientation, compared to trainees with a low performance orientation.
H6: The negative relationship between workload and transfer of training is moderated by the trainee’s performance orientation, such that this relationship is stronger for trainees with a high performance orientation, compared to trainees with a low performance orientation.
Trainee Characteristics: Self-efficacy
The second trainee characteristic that is included in this research is selfefficacy, which can be described as the belief a trainee has about his or her capabilities to achieve certain goals or to perform certain tasks (Bandura, 1992). In the light of training transfer this could involve beliefs about being able to achieve the learning goals set by the trainer, the trainee, and/or the organization. Moreover, self-efficacy can include beliefs about one’s ability to actually transfer this knowledge or skills into the job. The importance of self-efficacy and its positive direct effect on training transfer has been documented in previous research (Grossman & Salas, 2011; Sookhai & Budworth, 2010; Al-Eisa, Furayyan & Alhemoud, 2009; Burke & Hutchins, 2007; Ford, Smith, Weissbein, Gully & Salas, 1988). The positive effect of self-efficacy on transfer of training is attributed to the
importance of confidence in learning, on learning outcomes (Sookhai & Budworth, 2010).
Self-efficacy and transfer climate
Although there is evidence of the direct effects of self-efficacy and different dimensions of transfer climate on training transfer, their possible interactions are often left aside. Subsequently, this study investigates these possible interactions in order to improve understanding of the overall concept of training transfer.
A study by Feng, Lu, and Siu (2008), which investigated the interaction between job
insecurity and self-efficacy on job performance, shows that self-efficacy moderates the relationship between job insecurity and job performance. This indicates that self-efficacy can indeed override the effects of certain circumstances at work. Therefore, I expect that self-efficacy can also override the effects of support, opportunity to perform, and workload, on transfer of training. These
expectations lead to the following hypotheses:
compared to trainees with low self-efficacy.
H8: The positive relationship between opportunity to perform and transfer of training is moderated by the trainee’s self-efficacy, such that this relationship is weaker for trainees with high self-efficacy, compared to trainees with low self-efficacy.
H9: The negative relationship between workload and transfer of training is moderated by the trainee’s self-efficacy, such that this relationship is weaker for trainees with high self-efficacy, compared to trainees with low self-efficacy.
Trainee Characteristics: Motivation
The last trainee characteristic included in this study is motivation. Motivation - both job motivation and motivation to transfer - is an important predictor of training transfer outcomes, in the sense that high motivation for either the job or transfer leads to higher levels of training transfer (Chiaburu & Marinova, 2005; Quinones, 1995; Axtell, Maitlis & Yearta, 1997; Grossman & Salas, 2011; Franke & Felfe, 2012). In this study, both aspects are included.
Motivation and transfer climate
Despite the positive effects of motivation as well as the transfer climate on training transfer, a possible interaction between these two dimensions has not been investigated yet. Therefore, this research aims to examine this interaction.
Dysvik, Kuvaas, and Buch (2010) investigated the moderating role of intrinsic motivation on the relationship between perceptions of the training program and work effort. Their research shows that for highly motivated trainees the perceptions of the training program did not differ in terms of work effort; work effort was as high for positive as well as negative perceptions of the training program. This shows that the factor motivation can indeed override effects of the environment. Moreover, it is in line with the expectation that motivation can override effects of support, opportunity to perform, and workload, when it comes to transfer outcomes. Subsequently, it is expected that the levels of support, opportunity to perform, and workload, are less relevant - concerning training transfer - for trainees who are highly motivated. Therefore, I introduce the following hypotheses:
H10: The positive relationship between support and transfer of training is moderated by the trainee’s motivation, such that this relationship is weaker for trainees with high motivation,
compared to trainees with low motivation.
moderated by the trainee’s motivation, such that this relationship is weaker for trainees with high motivation, compared to trainees with low motivation.
H12: The negative relationship between workload and transfer of training is moderated by the trainee’s motivation, such that this relationship is weaker for trainees with high motivation, compared to trainees with low motivation.
Based on the previous theory section and hypotheses formulated, the following conceptual model can be drawn:
Figure 1: Conceptual Model
METHODS Sample and Procedure
of PostNL.
Research Design and Measures
In this correlational study, all seven variables – both independent variables and the
dependent variable – are measured in a subjective manner, focusing on the perceived levels of for example support or motivation by the participants themselves. Furthermore, all seven variables are measured through already existing scales, using a 5point Likert scale (1= completely inapplicable and 5= completely applicable).
The questionnaire was translated into Dutch. In order to make sure the translation was of good quality, three Dutch fellow students – all involved in a English master’s program - translated the questionnaire individually. First a student and I translated the English items into Dutch. In the next step two students re-translated these Dutch items into English. Only a few corrections had to be made to the original translated version. The complete Dutch version of the questionnaire can be found in the appendix.
A pretest with 22 participants was done to check if the questionnaire was understandable and reliable. The Cronbach’s Alpha was calculated for all variables, and in line with statistical standards any alpha above .7 was accepted. Based on the outcomes of the pretest, a few items were deleted or rephrased.
Below the specific measurements for all variables included are further explained:
Support. As support includes both supervisor and peer support, both constructs are measured.
Supervisor support is measured through the 6-item scale of Wieland Handy (2008) and peer support was measured via a combination of a 4item scale of Wieland Handy (2008), and 5 items designed for this study; 1 for peer support and 4 items about gossip at work. An example item of supervisor support: “My supervisor set goals for me that encourage me to apply my training on the job”. An example item of peer support: “At work, my colleagues expect me to use what I learned in training”. The alpha of supervisor support is .95, the alpha of peer support .96. Together, the construct support had an alpha of .95.
Opportunity to perform. Opportunity to perform was measured through a 4item scale of
Wieland Handy (2008) (α = .95). An example item: “There are enough occasions within my job that allow me to use skills acquired in training”.
Workload. Workload was measured through a shortened version (5 out of 7 items) of the
demanding”.
Achievement goals. Achievement goals were measured through a shortened scale designed by
Elliot and Murayama (2008). The shortened scale consists of 6 items. The items for mastery orientation had an alpha of .84, and the items for performance orientation had an alpha of .90. An example item of the mastery orientation items: “In my training, it was my aim to completely master the material presented”. An example item of the performance orientation items: “I was striving to do well compared to my fellow trainees”.
Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy was measured through the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE),
which includes 10 items (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995), but was narrowed down to 6 items and rephrased to measure self-efficacy concerning learning accurately (α = .89). An example item: “During the training, it was easy for me to stick to my aims and accomplish my goals”.
Motivation. As motivation includes job motivation as well as motivation to transfer, the
constructs were measured separately. Job motivation was measured through a shortened version (8 out of 12 items) of the Work Motivation scale, designed by Björklund (2001) (α = .70). Motivation to transfer was measured through a 4-item scale of Wieland Handy (2008) (α = .90). Together, the construct motivation resulted in an alpha of .80. An example item of job motivation: “I perceive my job as challenging”. An example of motivation to transfer: “I had the belief that the training would help me do my current job better”.
Transfer of training. Transfer of training was measured through a combination of three
interview questions by Kanu (2002) and two items designed by Tesluk et al. (1995) (α = .92). An example item: “I am able to apply what I have learned from the training I received”.
Training. Data gathering concerning the attended training included the following: Training
topic, what was learned during this training, how the training was organized, who else were present (colleagues, employees from other companies, etc.), date started, and date finished.
Demographics. Data gathering concerning demographics of the trainees included the
following: Age, gender, job function, duration current job, number of previous attended trainings, and education level.
Data Analysis
characteristics (mastery orientation, performance orientation, self-efficacy, and motivation) were tested. In the second step, the interaction term was added to the model to test the moderations.
RESULTS Descriptive Statistics
The means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations of all variables included are
presented in Table 1. All predictors correlate with the dependent variable training transfer positively and significantly, except for workload. This finding is in overall line with previous research and it indicates that the direct relationships, on which the hypotheses stated in this study are based, indeed exist. Moreover, all predictors are correlated positively and significantly to other predictors as well, again except for workload. The variable workload is only correlated significantly to performance orientation (r = .17, p = .05). The significant correlations among different independent variables indicate that there is overlap between variables, regarding their effects on transfer of training.
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations
Hypotheses Test
The results of the hierarchical regression analysis are shown in Table 2 and 3.
Table 3: Results Hierarchical Regression Hypotheses 7 – 12
would be weaker for trainees with a high mastery orientation, compared to trainees with a low mastery orientation. This interaction was not found to be significant, therefore there was no support found for this hypothesis (β = .01, n.s.). Hypothesis 3 predicted that the negative effect of workload would be weaker for trainees with a high mastery orientation, compared to trainees with a low mastery orientation. Results showed that this interaction was of only marginally significant effect, hence there was no support found for this hypothesis (β = .07, p = .10). Thus, regression analyses showed that moderating effects of mastery orientation on the relationship between different dimensions of transfer climate on training transfer were insignificant, except for a marginally significant effect of mastery orientation on the relationship between workload and training transfer. Consequently, hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 were rejected.
Hypothesis 4 predicted that the positive effect of support would be stronger for trainees with a high performance orientation, compared to trainees with low performance orientation. The analyses showed that there is no significant interaction between support and performance orientation (β = -. 05, n.s.). In hypothesis 5 it was predicted that the positive effect of opportunity to perform would be stronger for trainees with a high performance orientation, compared to trainees with low
performance orientation. The results did not support this hypothesis, as there was no significant interaction between opportunity to perform and performance orientation (β = -.04, n.s.). Hypothesis 6 predicted that the positive effect of support would be stronger for trainees with a high
performance orientation, compared to trainees with low performance orientation. No support for this hypothesis was found, as the interaction tested was insignificant (β = -.00, n.s.). Thus, regression analyses showed no significant interaction effects of performance orientation with support, opportunity to perform, and workload, on training transfer. Hence, hypotheses 4, 5, and 6 were rejected.
hypotheses 7, 8, and 9 were rejected.
The last set of hypotheses contained predictions about interactions between motivation and transfer climate factors. In line with hypothesis 10, a regression analysis showed a significant interaction between motivation and support, on transfer of training (β = -.12, p < .01). This shows that the relationship between support and transfer of training is indeed moderated by the trainee’s motivation level. As expected, the level of support is of more effect on training transfer to trainees who are less motivated, and this effect is weaker for highly motivated trainees. This pattern is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Moderating effect of Motivation on relationship between Support and Transfer of Training
Figure 3: Moderating effect of Motivation on relationship between Opportunity to Perform and Transfer of Training
Hypothesis 12 predicted that the negative effect of workload on training transfer would be weaker for highly motivated trainees, compared to lower motivated trainees. Regression analysis showed an insignificant effect for this interaction (β = .02, n.s.). Therefore, hypothesis 12 was rejected.
Supplementary Analyses
Next to testing the hypotheses, extended analysis is done to see which factor has the strongest effect on the dependent variable training transfer. To do so a regression analysis is conducted, with all independent variables and moderators put into step 1. The results are presented in Table 3, and show that opportunity to perform has the most impact on transfer of training (β = .41, p = .00). The second most important factor is mastery orientation (β = .15, p = .01). The last factor that has a significant effect on transfer of training when controlling for the other variables is motivation (β = . 09, p = .10), although this effect is only marginally significant. All other factors – support,
Table 3: Results of Regression Analysis controlling for all variables
DISCUSSION
Transfer of training has been the topic of many different studies over the past years, exploring the different factors that might influence transfer outcomes. Little research is done to investigate the possible interactions between these factors. This study aimed to explore several of these
interactions, therefore seven variables were included. It was argued that the positive effects of experiencing support, having opportunities to perform and a low workload would be of less effect for trainees with a high mastery orientation, high self-efficacy and high motivation, due to the fact that one’s personal characteristics could compensate for other factors that belong to a certain environment. It was also argued that the effect of support, opportunity and workload would be stronger to trainees with a high performance orientation.
A possible explanation for not finding all factors to be of significant effect while controlling for the others is that the seven variables used are highly correlated, which means that they overlap. Therefore, the true and unique effect of a specific variable is lower when controlling for the other variables. A possible explanation of the fact that workload was not found to be of significant effect, not even through correlational analysis, could be that workload was measured generally. However, the factor workload was in previous research found to be of significant effect when it was defined and measured as the workload during training (Clarke, 2002; Bakker, 2011). This shift in focus might have caused the non-significant effect of workload on training transfer, within this study.
On the other hand, the significant effects of all variables - except for workload - found through correlational analysis are in line with existing literature and expectations within this study. Moreover, these findings contribute to existing literature by showing that opportunity to perform, mastery orientation, and motivation are still of significant effect on training transfer when
controlling for the other variables.
Next to examining main effects this study investigated possible interactions between the transfer climate and trainee characteristics. The trainee characteristic achievement orientation was tested with support, opportunity to perform, and workload (H1, H2, and H3). For mastery
orientation this resulted in a marginally significant effect for the moderation on the relationship between workload and training transfer. However, the hypothesis was rejected based on the insignificant effect of workload on training transfer. Furthermore, mastery orientation did not moderate the relationship between support and opportunity to perform on their relationships with transfer of training. The results of regression analysis on the interactions between performance orientation and different dimensions of transfer climate showed insignificant effects (H4, H5, and H6). These findings imply that achievement orientation, as well as the transfer climate dimensions, affect training transfer results independently, and they do not interact. This implies that all trainees, independent of their achievement orientations, are affected similarly by the transfer climate factors support and opportunity to perform.
The tests on the interactions between the trainee characteristic self-efficacy and support, opportunity to perform, and workload, resulted in insignificant effects (H7, H8, and H9). These findings might be due to the fact that self-efficacy as measured was focused on learning, leaving general self-efficacy and/or job self-efficacy completely aside. The findings indicates that the transfer climate is as important for all trainees regarding transfer of training, regardless their self-efficacy level.
This resulted in significant effects for the moderation of motivation on the relationships between support and opportunity to perform on transfer of training. These findings show that motivation indeed overrides the effects of support and opportunity to perform, as predicted by hypotheses 10 and 11. This indicates that companies and training institutes should focus on selecting highly
motivated trainees, if possible. Moreover, companies should put effort in creating a positive transfer climate especially for lower motivated trainees, since these trainees are more affected by this
climate than their highly motivated fellows. The moderating effect of motivation on the relationship between workload and transfer of training was not significant. A possible explanation of this finding is that the factor workload was of insignificant effect on training transfer in the first place.
Overall, the insignificant interactions indicate that companies should put effort in improving their transfer climates, since it cannot be stated that trainee characteristics always override effects of dimensions of the transfer climate. In this finding lies the answer to the overall research question of this study; trainee characteristics do not moderate the relationship between the transfer climate of a company and training transfer outcomes, in all cases. The significant effects of both support and opportunity to perform on training transfer indicate that companies should focus on these specific factors of their climate to improve and maintain training transfer outcomes.
This study adds to existing literature on training transfer by showing that personal
characteristics cannot make up for environmental factors in any case. This is an interesting finding because it shows that selecting the right people for trainings is only one side of the coin, whereas creating a positive transfer climate is the other. The only trainee characteristic that can compensate the effect of support and opportunity to perform is motivation, which shows that a trainee’s
motivation is an important factor regarding training transfer outcomes. Moreover, this study contributed to existing literature by showing which trainee characteristics and factors of a transfer climate have true and unique effects on transfer of training, namely opportunity to perform, mastery orientation, and motivation.
Limitations
Therefore, short scales are chosen and some of them are even shortened after the pretest.
Consequently, the participants’ scores on all variables are based on only a few items. Although all constructs were found to be of enough reliability, the short scales used and their results might be a limitation to this study. Another limitation that comes with voluntarily participation, is that there might have been a case of selection bias; the participants in this study were probably higher motivated and more interested in their education. Moreover, they were willing to help their employer to improve training effectiveness.
The recency of the training attended by the participants can be seen as another limitation. In the questionnaire, all participants were asked to think of a specific training and to keep that training in mind while completing the questionnaire. However, not all participants did recently attend this training; for some it was years ago.
The high correlations between the different predictors and moderators are a limitation as well. In the hierarchical regression analyses there was no control for all other variables when testing an interaction, and it is possible that this influenced the regression outcomes.
Moreover, the balance between lower- and higher educated participants was not perfect. In the sample size used, only 22,7% was higher educated, whereas 71,6% was lower educated (5,7% of the participants could not be categorized). This in-balance, together with the fact that all participants are employees of the same company, reduces the generalizability of the findings presented in this study.
Furthermore, it is possible that the scales and phrasing used in the questionnaire was not fully appropriate for the target group. The questionnaire was pre-tested by 22 participants, of which 68,2% was higher educated, whereas only 22,7% of the actual sample size (employees of PostNL) were higher educated. Therefore, it could be that the questionnaire and its phrasing did not suit every participant very well, although there was a control question about understanding at the end of the questionnaire (the participants who indicated that they did not fully understand everything were deleted from the data).
Future Research
examined in this study, there are many more variables that have direct effect on transfer of training, such as training topic and teacher experience. Moreover, it might be useful to conduct a very broad study including all of these different variables, including training dimensions such as duration, topic, and instruction type, to examine their correlations and to find out which factors have true and unique effects on training transfer.
Future research could also examine the same interactions as in this study but in a different way. Besides adjusting the scale for workload, the factor self-efficacy can be measured differently as well. Next to learning focused self-efficacy, general self-efficacy and/or job self-efficacy could be included in measurements. These adjustments in measurements can possibly lead to different outcomes for the interactions studied in this research.
Another suggestion for future research is that the possible interactions of other factors that influence training transfer can be studied, for example the cognitive abilities of the trainees. It is also possible to include a category of variables that is left aside in this particular study, for example the training itself. Future research could look into the effects of different training methods, group size, or training duration, in relation to the categories transfer climate and trainee characteristics. This type of research can be useful in improving knowledge and understanding of the overall concept of training transfer.
Additional future research would need to examine mediation effects among the variables studied in this research. Mediation effects could be investigated both ways: future research could look at the mediating effects of transfer climate as well of trainee characteristics. It might be the case that the transfer climate influences certain trainee characteristics, which lead to certain transfer of training outcomes. It is also possible that trainee characteristics influence the transfer climate, resulting in different levels of training transfer. Further research is necessary to examine these possible patterns.
Practical Implications
was of significant effect (although marginally) on training transfer, when controlling for the other variables, was motivation.
The interactions found in this research also indicate some practical implications. Looking at the results, motivation is found to be of significant moderation on both support and opportunity to perform. This means that the levels of support and opportunity to perform are less important in terms of training transfer to highly motivated trainees. Their high motivation is able to make up for the negative effects of lack of support and opportunities. This implicates that companies should focus on selecting highly motivated trainees for their expensive training programs; they are the most likely to be successful regardless of the transfer climate. Furthermore, the moderations found imply that companies should put more effort in creating a supporting environment when their trainees are low in motivation. On the other hand, companies can save time and effort by not focusing so much on support when their trainees are highly motivated; these trainees will be less affected by the support provided by their supervisor and peers. When it comes to opportunity to perform it is always useful for companies to provide as many opportunities as possible, since this factor is found to be of the strongest effect on training transfer. However, lower motivated trainees are even more affected by the amount of opportunities to perform than their higher motivated fellows, which indicates that companies should make sure that their trainees – especially the lower motivated ones - are aware of the opportunities they have.
CONCLUSION
This study contributed to existing literature by confirming the main effects of different variables on transfer of training, and by examining several interactions. Only two of the interactions studied were found to be significant. In line with the hypothesis, motivation indeed moderates the relationship between support and transfer of training. Furthermore, motivation also moderates the relationship between opportunity to perform and transfer of training. All of the other interaction hypotheses had to be rejected, due to their insignificant outcomes. Therefore, it can be concluded that trainee characteristics do not moderate the relationship between transfer climate and training transfer in all cases.
The findings suggest that companies would be wise to focus on creating and providing opportunity to perform to their employees. Moreover, companies and training institutes can be advised to select employees for trainings based on their motivation and mastery orientation.
measurements. It is also possible to involve other factors that can influence transfer of training outcomes or to look at mediation effects, in order to improve the overall knowledge about the occurrence of transfer of training.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, I would like to thank Mrs. Martinescu for her guidance and feedback during the set up of this study and writing my master’s thesis. Moreover, I would like to thank Mr. Hofman for letting me conduct research at PostNL and the effort he made in the data gathering. Furthermore, I would like to thank several friends who contributed to my thesis in different ways, by translating the
REFERENCES
Al-Eisa, A. S., Furayyan, M. A., & Alhemoud A. M. (2009). An empirical examination of the effects of self-efficacy, supervisor support and motivation to learn on transfer intention. Management Decision 47(8), 1221-1244.
Anseel, F., Van Yperen, N. W., Janssen, O., & Duyck, W. (2011). Feedback type as a moderator of the relationship between achievement goals and feedback reactions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 84, 703-722.
ASTD. (2012). More than $156 billion was spent by U.S. organizations on employee learning last year. Astd.org. Retrieved July 1, 2013, from http://www.astd.org/Publications/Magazines/TD/TD-Archive/2012/11/ASTD-2012-State-of-the-Industry-Report
Axtell, C. M., Maitlis, S., & Yearta, S. K. (1997). Predicting immediate and longer term transfer of training. Personnel Review, 26(3), 201–213.
Bakker, A. M. (2011). De effectiviteit van trainingen. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, faculteit Gedrags- en Maatschappij Wetenschappen.
Bandura, A. (1992). Exercise of personal agency through the self-efficacy mechanism. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action, 3-38. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2005). Yes, personality matters: Moving on to more important matters. Human Performance, 18(4), 359-372.
Belenky, D. M., & Nokes-Malach, T. J. (2012). Motivation and transfer: the role of mastery-approach goals in preparation for future learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences 21(3), 399-432.
Björklund, C. (2001). Work Motivation - Studies of its determinants and outcomes. Stockholm School of Economies, PhD dissertation.
Burke, L. A., & Hutchins, H. M. (2007). Training Transfer: An integrative literature review. Human Resource Development Review 6(3), 263-296.
Burns, R. A., & Machin, M. A. (2013). Employee and workplace well-being: a multi-level analysis of teacher personality and organizational climate in Norwegian teachers from rural, urban, and city schools. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 57(3), 309-324.
CBS. (2011). Just over one in three workers do company training. Cbs.nl. Retrieved July 1, 2013, from http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/onderwijs/publicaties/artikelen/archief/
2011/2011-3532-wm.htm
Cheng, E. W. L., & Ho, D. C. K. (2001). A review of transfer of training studies in the past decade. Personnel Review, 30(1-2), 102-118.
Training and Development, 9, 110–123.
Clarke, N. (2002). Job/work environment factors influencing training transfer within a human service agency: some indicative support for Baldwin and Ford’s transfer climate construct. International Journal of Training and Development 6(3), 146-162.
Cromwell, S. E., & Kolb, J. A. (2004). An examination of work-environment support factors affecting transfer of supervisory skills training to the workplace. Human Resource Development Quaterly, 15(4), 449-471.
Dysvik, A., Kuvaas, B., & Buch, R. (2010). Trainee programme reactions and work performance: The moderating role of intrinsic motivation. Human Resource Development International, 13(4), 409-423.
Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the Measurement of Achievement Goals: Critique, Illustration, and Application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 613–628.
Feng, D. D., Lu, C. Q., & Siu, O. L. (2008). Job insecurity, well being, and job performance: The role of self-efficacy. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 40(4), 448-455.
Franke, F., & Felfe, J. (2012). Transfer of leadership skills: The influence of motivation to transfer and organizational support in managerial training. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 11(3),
138-147.
Ford, J. K., Smith, E. M., Weissbein, D. A., Gully, S. M., & Salas, E. (1998). Relationships of goal orientation, metacognitive activity, and practice strategies with learning outcomes and transfer. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 218–233.
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International Journal of Training and Development 15(2), 103-120.
Hart, S., & Staveland, L. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research, 139-183. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Kanu, Y. (2002). Leadership Development Training Transfer: A Case Study Assessment of Exterior Post-Training Factors of a Year Long Leadership Development Program. Faculty of Business Administration, Simon Fraser University.
Landy, F. J., & Conte, J. M. (2010). Work in the 21st century (3rd ed.). Danvers, MA: Wiley.
Martin, H. J. (2010). Workplace climate and peer support as determinants of training transfer. Human Resource Development Quaterly 21(1), 87-104.
Newstrom, J. W. (1986). Leveraging management development through the management of transfer. Journal of Management Development, 5(5), 33–45.
(7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin
Paulick, I., Watermann, R., & Nuckless, M. (2013). Achievement goals and school achievement: the transition to different school tracks in secondary school. Contemporary Educational Psychology 38(1), 75-86.
Quinones, M. A. (1995). Pretraining context effects: Training assignment as feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 226–238.
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston, Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs. Windsor, UK: NFER-NELSON.
Simosi, M. (2012). The moderating role of self-efficacy in the organizational culture – training transfer relationship. International Journal of Training and Development 16(2), 92-106.
Sookhai, F., & Budworth, M-H. (2010). The trainee in context: examining the relationship between self-efficacy and transfer climate for transfer of training. Human Resource Development Quaterly, 21(3), 257-272.
Tesluk, P. E., Farr, J. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Vance, R. J. (1995). Generalization of employee involvement training to the job setting: Individual and situational effects. Personnel Psychology, 48(3), 607-632.
Appendix: Questionnaire (Dutch)
Beste medewerker,
Welkom bij dit onderzoek dat gaat over de effectiviteit van werk-gerelateerde trainingen en werkplekopleidingen. In deze enquête vragen we naar jouw eigen leerervaringen bij PostNL. Je antwoorden zullen worden gebruikt om vast te stellen waar verbeteringen kunnen worden aangebracht in de trainingen/werkplekopleidingen van PostNL om de effectiviteit hiervan te verhogen waar mogelijk.
Aan het eind is er de mogelijkheid om op- en of aanmerkingen toe te voegen, zowel wat betreft de enquête zelf als de onderwerpen die aan bod zijn gekomen.
Je deelname in dit onderzoek is geheel anoniem en je antwoorden zijn vertrouwelijk; er zal niet gevraagd worden naar informatie die jou aan je antwoorden kan koppelen. Beantwoord alle vragen zo serieus en eerlijk mogelijk. Het compleet invullen van de enquête zal ongeveer 15 minuten duren.
Voordat je aan de enquête begint, willen we je vragen om terug te denken aan een bepaalde training, werkplekopleiding, e-learning programma of digitale vakkennistoets. Neem even de tijd om je weer in deze situatie in te leven en beantwoord alle komende vragen met deze specifieke leerervaring in gedachten.
Zodra je er klaar voor bent kun je beginnen met de enquête.
Succes!
Het eerste gedeelte van het onderzoek bevat een aantal algemene vragen over jezelf, je werk en de training(en)/werkplekopleiding(en) die je gevolgd hebt. Selecteer telkens het juiste antwoord en beantwoord de open vragen zo compleet mogelijk.
1. Wat is je leeftijd? …
2. Wat is je geslacht? Man/Vrouw 3. Wat is je huidige functie bij PostNL?
- Chauffeur autobedrijf - Planner autobedrijf - Lijnmanager autobedrijf - Yepper - Loopbaankandidaat 2e fase - Anders, namelijk: …
4. Hoe lang vervul je deze functie al? … jaren 5. Wat is je hoogst afgeronde opleiding?
- Anders, namelijk: …
6. Hoeveel werkgerelateerde trainingen/leertrajecten/e-learning programma’s heb je afgerond? … 7. Wat was het onderwerp van de training/werkplekopleiding die je in gedachten hebt genomen? … 8. Wat heb je geleerd van deze training/werkplekopleiding? …
9. Hoe was deze training/werkplekopleiding georganiseerd? Hierbij kun je denken aan het verplichte of vrijwillige karakter van de training, of de training georganiseerd werd door je werkgever of door een trainingsinstituut, het aantal trainingsdagen, etc. …
10. Wie waren er verder aanwezig bij de training/werkplekopleiding? - Collega’s van PostNL
- Werknemers van andere bedrijven - Zelfstandige ondernemers
- Anders, namelijk: …
11. Wanneer is deze training/werkplekopleiding voor jou van start gegaan?... 12. Wanneer is deze training/werkplekopleiding voor jou afgerond? …
Vanaf nu zal de leerervaring die je zojuist beschreven hebt worden aangeduid met 'training'. Beantwoord alle komende vragen met deze specifieke situatie in gedachten.
In het volgende gedeelte van de enquête vragen we je over de ondersteuning die jij hebt ervaren van je leidinggevende en collega’s wat betreft de training. Geef aan in hoeverre elke stelling op jouw situatie van toepassing is, door een cijfer te geven op een schaal van 1 (helemaal niet waar) tot 5 (helemaal waar).
Ondersteuning van de leidinggevende
1. Mijn leidinggevende spreekt regelmatig met me af om te werken aan problemen die ik tegen kan komen bij het toepassen van mijn training
2. Mijn leidinggevende spreekt met mij af om de manieren om de training toe te passen op het werk met mij te bespreken
3. Mijn leidinggevende toont interesse in wat ik leer in mijn training
4. Mijn leidinggevende stelde doelen voor me die mij aanmoedigen om het geleerde toe te passen in mijn werk
5. Mijn leidinggevende laat me weten dat ik goed bezig ben wanneer ik de training toepas in mijn werk
6. Mijn leidinggevende helpt me om realistische doelen te stellen gebaseerd op mijn training
Ondersteuning van collega's
1. Mijn collega’s waarderen mijn gebruik van nieuwe vaardigheden die ik heb verworven door de training
2. Mijn collega’s moedigen me aan om de vaardigheden te gebruiken die ik in de training heb geleerd
3. Op het werk verwachten mijn collega’s dat ik gebruik maak van wat ik leer in de training 4. Mijn collega’s zijn geduldig met me wanneer ik nieuwe vaardigheden of technieken uitprobeer 5. Mijn collega's tonen interesse in wat ik leer in mijn training
6. Een collega zei iets over de manier waarop ik gebruik maak van mijn nieuwe kennis en/of vaardigheden
9. Een collega zei dat ik goed bezig ben omdat ik alles wat ik leer probeer toe te passen in mijn werk
De volgende set vragen gaat over de mogelijkheden die je hebt om wat je geleerd hebt toe te passen in je werk en de door jou ervaren werkdruk. Geef aan in hoeverre elke stelling op jouw situatie van toepassing is, door een cijfer te geven op een schaal van 1 (helemaal niet waar) tot 5 (helemaal waar).
Gelegenheid voor toepassing
1. Er zijn situaties op het werk waarin het nodig is om gebruik te maken van wat ik leerde in de training
2. Er zijn genoeg gelegenheden in mijn werk waarin ik wat ik leerde in de training kan gebruiken 3. De manier waarop mijn werk georganiseerd is nodigt mij uit om gebruik te maken van de kennis en/of vaardigheden die ik heb opgedaan in de training
4. Het is makkelijk om mogelijkheden te vinden voor het gebruiken van de kennis en/of vaardigheden die ik door de training heb verkregen
Werkdruk
1. Mijn werk is erg veeleisend 2. Ik werk onder grote tijdsdruk
3. Ik kan mijn taken volbrengen in de gegeven tijd
4. Ik moet hard werken om een hoog prestatieniveau te bereiken 5. Ik ervaar stress wanneer ik mijn taken uitvoer
Het volgende gedeelte van de enquête gaat over de doelen die je hebt aangaande leren en training en hoe je je eigen capaciteiten hierin ziet. Geef aan in hoeverre elke stelling op jouw situatie van toepassing is, door een cijfer te geven op een schaal van 1 (helemaal niet waar) tot 5 (helemaal waar).
Prestatie-doelen
1. In mijn training was het mijn doel om de verschillende onderdelen van de cursus volledig te beheersen
2. Ik streefde er naar om de inhoud van de training zo grondig mogelijk te begrijpen 3. Het was mijn doel om zo veel mogelijk te leren
4. In de training was het mijn doel om in relatie tot mijn collega's/de andere deelnemers goed te presteren
5. Ik streefde er naar om goed te presteren in vergelijking met mijn collega's/de andere deelnemers 6. Het was mijn doel om hogere resultaten te halen dan mijn collega's/de andere deelnemers
Zelfvertrouwen
1. Als iemand mij tegenwerkt in mijn leerproces, vind ik toch wel manieren om te bereiken wat ik wil
2. Tijdens een training is het voor mij makkelijk om vast te houden aan mijn plannen en mijn doel te bereiken
6. Wat er ook gebeurt tijdens de training, ik kom er wel uit
De een-na-laatste set vragen gaat over jouw motivatie, voor zowel het werk zelf als voor het toepassen van nieuwe kennis en/of vaardigheden op het werk. Vervolgens zijn er een paar vragen over hoe jij de toepassing van wat je geleerd hebt op je werk ervaart. Geef aan in hoeverre elke stelling op jouw situatie van toepassing is, door een cijfer te geven op een schaal van 1 (helemaal niet waar) tot 5 (helemaal waar).
Motivatie voor het werk
1. Ik voel me gemotiveerd op mijn werk
2. Ik zou het leuk vinden als mijn kinderen voor hetzelfde werk kiezen als ik 3. Ik neem vrijwillig werk mee naar huis
4. Ik ervaar mijn werk als uitdagend
5. Ik heb het gevoel dat de tijd snel gaat op het werk
6. Ik zie er naar uit om weer aan het werk te gaan aan het einde van mijn zomervakantie 7. Ik zou wat meer tijd willen besteden aan mijn werk
8. Ik zou graag minder uren per week werken als dat financieel mogelijk was
Motivatie voor toepassing
1. Toen ik de training volgde wist ik zeker dat het mijn persoonlijke prestatie zou verbeteren
2. Toen de training voorbij was kon ik niet wachten om op mijn werk uit te proberen wat ik geleerd had
3. Ik had het vertrouwen dat de training me zou helpen om mijn werk beter te doen
4. Tijdens de training werd ik enthousiast om het geleerde te gaan toepassen in de praktijk
Toepassing
1. Ik ben in staat om wat ik heb geleerd in de training toe te passen in mijn werk 2. De training heeft geleid tot tastbare positieve resultaten wat betreft mijn werk 3. In mijn werk heb ik verschil gemerkt tussen vóór en ná de training
4. Ik gebruik de kennis en/of vaardigheden verworven door de training om mijn prestaties te verbeteren
5. Ik heb de nieuw verworven vaardigheden in mijn dagelijkse werk activiteiten opgenomen
Het laatste gedeelte van deze enquête gaat over hoe jij deze ervaren hebt en het is daarbij ook mogelijk om op -en/of aanmerkingen toe te voegen. Daarnaast zouden we je willen vragen of je misschien geïnteresseerd bent in een kort interview over de onderwerpen die aan bod gekomen zijn in deze enquête.
1. Heb je alle vragen begrepen? Ja/Nee
2. Heb je alle vragen eerlijk en serieus beantwoord? Ja/Nee 3. Heb je op- en/of aanmerkingen over de enquête? … 4. Zou je nog iets toe willen voegen aan de enquête? …
Ben je geïnteresseerd in een kort interview over de onderwerpen die zojuist aan bod gekomen zijn? Ja/Nee
In verband met de anonimiteit van alle deelnemers is het niet mogelijk jouw contactgegevens te vragen. Als je wilt deelnemen aan een interview, neem dan alsjeblieft contact op via
06 30 40 10 81.
