Effects of choice of training on trainee motivation and training transfer

(1)

Effects of choice of training on

trainee motivation and training transfer

Master thesis, Msc Human Resource Management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

November 2012 JAAP ALBERTS Studentnumber: 1915479 Frederikstraat 13 9724 KA Groningen Tel: +31(0)613767909 E-mail: j.w.alberts@student.rug.nl Supervisor: Prof. Dr. O. Janssen

(2)

ABSTRACT

The present study examines the effects of choice of training on pre-training motivation and perceived training transfer. A total of 101 trainees were surveyed after submitting a review about a training. Linear regression analysis indicates that choice of training is positively related to pre-training motivation. Second, a positive relation between pre-training motivation and perceived training transfer was found. Moreover, pre-training motivation significantly mediated the relationship between choice of training and perceived training transfer. However, no evidence was found that overall training satisfaction moderates the relationship between pre-training motivation and perceived training transfer. For organizations and specifically HR managers, the present findings suggest that it is important, whenever possible, to grant trainees choice in training. Trainees who have the freedom to choose their training perceive a higher degree of autonomous control over their own career development. As a result, these individuals are more motivated prior to the start of the training and in turn are more motivated to transfer any new skills to the workplace than their counterparts who had to follow a mandatory training.

(3)

1. INTRODUCTION

Rapid advancements in knowledge and technology require organizations to develop themselves continually. Any business that wants to survive and prosper in such conditions must keep on learning, developing and innovating to boost productivity and to build competitive advantages. (Evta, 1998). As organizations try to improve their performance, investments are made to increase the performance of employees through professional development (Cromwell & Kolb, 2004). Training is one of the most important investments because it enhances the knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviour of employees: the human resource (HR). Investments in HR develop, maintain and update the appropriate skills of employees, and hence create an inimitable core competency vital for the organization’s competitive sustainability (Barney, 1991).

Although a large amount of money is spent on training, it is estimated that only 10–20 percent from what is learned during the training is applied in the workplace (Kirwan & Birchall, 2006). For training to be beneﬁciary, individuals participating in training need to take new knowledge back to the workplace and apply what they have learned (Hatala & Fleming, 2007; Wang & Wilcox, 2006). This effective and continuing application of the knowledge and skills gained by trainees to their jobs is known as transfer of training (Broad & Newstrom, 1992; Kirwan & Birchall, 2006).

(5)

5 (Newstrom & Lilyquist, 1979; Oppenheimer, 1982; Wlodkowski, 1985). Adult learning theorists (Knowles, 1984; Scheer, 1979) posit that because adults will learn only when they feel a desire to learn, involvement in the selection of training is potentially a potent motivator. Unfortunately, empirical evidence supporting the notion that trainee involvement in selecting a training enhances pre-training motivation and learning is sparse. Therefore, the purpose of the present study is to empirically examine the effects of trainee choice on pre-training motivation and perceived pre-training transfer. Specifically, I am interested in exploring if choice in training will enhance the pre-training motivation of the trainees and subsequently their training transfer.

First, in the theory section, I outline theories on choice, pre-training motivation, perceived training transfer and overall satisfaction with the training. I then formulate hypotheses and present a conceptual model, followed by the methodology of the research. A further section shows the resultant findings. The final section discusses the findings, draws conclusions and highlights the implications for both researchers and practitioners.

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Choice and pre-training motivation.

Perceived choice is defined as the perception that an experience or an outcome is caused by an individual’s own decision (Wortman, 1975). When applied to training, Reeves (1993) states that choice is the degree to which an individual is given control over various training programs. For instance, participation in the assessment stage of the training process or the freedom to choose the training they desire. Adult learning theorists (Scheer, 1979; Knowles, 1984) posit that since adults will learn only when they feel a desire to learn, involvement in the selection of training is potentially a potent motivator.

Motivation for training or pre-training motivation is the degree to which employees are willing to make efforts to improve themselves and their task and job performances by training (Robinson, 1985). According to Noe (1986) pre-training motivation is defined as the desire on the part of the individual to learn the content of the training program.

(6)

6 required to participate in training, reported higher levels of motivation (Quinones, 1997), had stronger beliefs that the training was appropriate, were more satisfied with the training (Hicks and Klimoski., 1987), received higher test scores (Baldwin, Magjuka, & Loher, 1991), and were more committed to a situation or decision (Salancik, 1977, Hicks and Klimoski., 1987). This is in alignment with the findings of Gagne and Deci, (2005) and Folger et.al. (1979) who found that pre-training motivation increases when employees engage in an activity because they want to, because they ﬁnd it interesting, and because it aligns with their personal goals and choices.

Both cognitive evaluation theory (Deci & Ryan, 1980) and action regulation theory (Hacker, 1994) imply that individuals need to feel autonomous in order to be motivated. Choice exerts a motivational effect on trainees, by enhancing individual autonomy related to the training (Latham, Winters, & Locke, 1994). Autonomy is thought to determine motivational behaviors related to goal pursuits, effort, and persistence (Bandura, 1977). A central component of autonomy is having the experience of control or choice. Therefore, individuals with higher autonomy in the context of a training course will be more likely to believe that they will learn during the training course, and thus, will have more positive reactions to the training course in general. In addition, autonomy serves a motivational purpose, directing task persistence and behavior. Individuals who have high autonomy for a specific training course will be more likely to learn (Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Having a choice in training can create a sense of control on the part of trainees and result in greater commitment to a goal or activity (Locke & Schweiger, 1979). Trainees who are given a choice in training should then feel more control, and thus, are less uncertain about the training course which results in greater motivation and commitment toward the training course. When control is perceived as coming from an external source, the degree of autonomy is reduced (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Gagne´ & Deci, 2005). Therefore I expect that trainees having a choice in training will perceive greater autonomy and control, thus, leading to increased pre-training motivation than trainees receiving no choice.

(7)

7

Pre-training motivation and training transfer.

Transfer of training can be defined as the extent to which trainees effectively apply the knowledge, skills, and attitudes gained in a training context back to the job (Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992). Baldwin and Ford (1988) emphasize that training transfer can be translated in generalization, or the extent to which trained skills and behaviors are exhibited in the transfer setting, or the length of time that trained skills and behaviors continue to be used on the job (i.e. maintenance). The reason for better training transfer is because motivation to learn impacts the cognitive learning outcome of declarative knowledge. This elevated level of knowledge can then lead to a higher level of training transfer (Kraiger et al. 1993). Second, training transfer is a function of the extent to which individuals are motivated to take advantage of the opportunities to apply that learning to the transfer context (Ford et al. 1992; Quiñones et al. 1996). Applying skills after training through mental rehearsal or actual practice should facilitate the generalization of acquired knowledge and skills. Ford et al. (1992) found that individuals who were more motivated to learn in training were more likely to seek out practice opportunities once on the job. I expect that participants with higher levels of pre-training motivation transfer more of their training to their job. So I hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 2: Pre-training motivation is positively related to training transfer.

The moderating effect of overall satisfaction with training.

(8)

Bo-8 Wen, 1998; Ma Fang-Ting, 1989). Fundamental aspects or dimensions underlying differences in trainee satisfaction with corporate training or learning courses are the learning environment, the quality of the teacher, the quality of the content of the program, and the relationship between the trainees and their superiors and coworkers. (Mangano & Corrado, 1979; Huang, 2002; Kao, 1997; Wei & Lu, 1993).

As stated, satisfaction is felt when the results sensed are equal to or exceed expectations, it is what one typically feels or experiences when a wish or need is fulfilled. Training satisfaction can strengthen the relationship between pre-training motivation and training transfer if the stimuli provided during the training course contains positive reinforcement which meet the needs of the trainees. That is, if the training content fulfils or exceed trainees' expectations, then, trainees learning should be strengthened and their resulting attitude made more positive (Skinner, 1971). Greater learning during the training course will enhance the effect of pre-training motivation on perceived pre-training transfer. However if negative stimuli is provided through, for example, bad quality of the given material, ineffectiveness of the instructor, or an inappropriate instructional level it will reduce trainees' learning (Skinner, 1971). In that case, when the stimuli provided do not meet trainees expectations or needs, the effect of motivation prior to the training on trainees' training transfer will be less or even diminished because of a minimized learning effect during the training. The lower overall training satisfaction, the weaker the relationship between pre-training motivation and perceived training transfer. So the influence of pre-training motivation on perceived training transfer matters less when trainees are not satisfied with their training. Therefore, I propose that the relationship between pre-training motivation and training transfer should be more prominent and significant when trainees are highly satisfied with their training than when the training does not fulfil their expectations and needs (figure 1).

(9)

9 Figure 1. The expected effect of pre-training motivation on perceived training transfer moderated by overall training satisfaction.

The mediating effect of pre-training motivation

Since we have argued that choice of training promotes pre-training motivation, and this, in turn, is expected to increase the perceived learning transfer, we have implicitly described a model in which pre-training motivation mediates the relationship between choice of training and training transfer. In other words, choice of training might influence the hypothesized outcomes through a change in pre-training motivation.

(10)

10 model tests effects of pre-training motivation as a potential mediator of choice of training on training transfer.

Hypothesis 4: Pre-training motivation mediates the relationship between choice of training and perceived training transfer.

The moderated-mediation interaction

Taking into consideration all of the above mentioned arguments, confirms the existence of a moderated-mediation interaction. It seems that perceived training transfer will be highest in case where trainees have high autonomy in choosing their training, are motivated prior to the training, and are satisfied with the training. In case trainees are not willing to make efforts to improve themselves by training, and/or, having an experience that training did not fulfil their expectations or needs, then this will negatively impact the transfer of trained skills and behaviors back to their work setting.

Below the hypothesis to test the overall construct of the relationship between choice of training, pre-training motivation, overall training satisfaction and perceived training transfer.

Hypothesis 5: Overall training satisfaction will moderate the indirect relationship between choice of training and perceived training transfer through pre-training motivation. Such that this indirect relationship is more pronounced when overall training satisfaction is high rather than low.

The conceptual model below (Figure 2) illustrates my hypotheses:

Figure 2

Conceptual model of the relationship between choice of training, pre-training motivation, overall training satisfaction and perceived training transfer.

(11)

11

3. METHOD

3.1 Procedure

Data were collected online from Springest (http://www.springest.nl). Springest is an independent comparison website for training programmes and courses. Training programmes and courses are classified in 21 categories and around 1000 subjects. Learning and

Development providers place their offer on Springest in order to provide the most accurate information on their training programmes and courses. Users can request a brochure if they are interested in a particular training and leave a review after completion of a training.

An online survey with 30 questions and statements was used for this research. The questions were categorized into three categories, starting with some general questions followed by

statements about choice of training, pre-training motivation, overall training satisfaction and perceived training transfer. Respondents were encountered after submitting a review about a training on both the 'thank you' page and by e-mail.

3.2 Sample

Of the 110 respondents who started filling in the questionnaire, 107 respondents completed the survey. Six respondents participated in a training of more than 100 days ago. In order to alleviate biased results these six respondents were removed from this study.

Of the remaining 101 respondents, 41 was male and 60 female. The age of the respondents ranged from 21 to 62 years old, with an average of 42 years (SD = 10.09 years). These 101 respondents had different education levels: 27 university; 46 higher vocational education; 13 intermediate vocational education; and 15 secondary education. At the time of the data collection 52 respondents had worked for more than 5 years for their present company, 22 respondents had worked between 2 and 5 years for this company, and 19 respondents had worked less than 2 years for this company. Forty-one respondents were satisfied and 34 were very satisfied with their current job against 4 dissatisfied respondents and 1 very dissatisfied respondent; 13 respondents were neutral about their job. Respondents also filled in course-related questions. The time between following the training and filling in the questionnaire ranged from 1 day to 98 days ago, with an average of 27 days (SD = 10.65 days). The

(12)

12 days). The amount of participants during the training varied from 1 to 27 participants with an average of 10 participants (SD = 5.50 participants).

3.3 Measures

The questionnaire consisted of self-reported Likerttype-items. These multi-item scales have been proven to be valid and reliable. Answers ranged from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree”.

Choice of training. Choice of training was measured using three categories from Baldwin, Magjuka and Loher (1991) (a) no choice of training; (b) choice of training - but choice not received; (c) choice of training with choice received. This was assessed by the question: (1) Was the training mandatory or could you choose between different training programs? With a follow-up: (2) If not mandatory, did you receive the choice of training you preferred?

Pre-training motivation. Motivation to learn was assessed using Noe and Schmitt’s (1986) eight-item scale. Participants rated their agreement with each item (e.g., “I am trying to learn as much as I can from this course”) using a 5-point Likert scale (1= “Strongly Disagree”, 5= “Strongly Agree). Cronbach's alpa was 0.76.

Perceived training transfer. Perceived training transfer was measured using nine items from Facteau et al. (1995) . An example item is, ‘I am able to transfer the skill learned in training courses back to my actual job.’ Responses to all of the items on the questionnaire were made on a five point Likert-type scales (1= “Strongly Disagree”, 5= “Strongly Agree). Cronbach's alpa of these items was 0.65.

Overall satisfaction with training. The measure of the moderator variable overall

(13)

13 Control variables. Several variables were controlled because they were perceived to be common predictors of pre-training motivation and perceived training transfer. The length of the course, and number of participants were used as course-related control variables. These course-related variables might affect the way people perceive the training. Length of the course represents the number of days for each course. According to most HR practitioners, people tend to be more satisﬁed with short courses rather than longer ones (Sitzmann et al. 2008), and length represents a key driver of the decision to send people to training (Saari et al. 1988). In relation to the number of participants, HR practitioners usually identify 25 persons as the maximum number for an effective training initiative. More participants means the course is no longer continuing education or vocational training. However, up to the limit of 25, more participants should result in higher satisfaction because they improve the class atmosphere, level of interaction and participation of trainees. (Giangreco et al., 2010).

3.4 Data analysis

Three hierarchical multiple linear regression analyses were performed in order to test the hypotheses. The first analysis tested the effect of choice of training on pre-training

motivation. In the first step the control variables gender, age, education, years of service, satisfaction of the current job, length of the course and number of participants during the course were added. In the second step the independent variable choice of training was added.

To measure the effects of choice of training, pre-training motivation and overall training satisfaction on perceived training transfer a second analysis was executed. The control variables were added in the first step. In the second and third step the variables choice of training, pre-training motivation and overall training satisfaction were respectively added. In the fourth and last step the product of overall training satisfaction times pre-training

(14)

14

4. RESULTS

4.1 Descriptive statistics

Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, and correlations of all the variables included in the current research. Results show a positive correlation between choice of training and pre-training motivation (r = .39, p < .01). This implies that when participants have a choice in training their motivation prior to the beginning of the training will be higher. Also a positive relationship exists between pre-training motivation and perceived training transfer (r = .27, p < .01). This means that higher motivation of the participant prior to the start of the training will lead to better transfer of their learning. In addition, overall training satisfaction

(15)

15

TABLE 1

Mean (M), Standard Deviation (SD) and Correlations of the variables

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Gender 1.59 .49

2. Age 42.08 10.09 -.23*

3. Education 5.10 1.51 .06 .14

4. Years of service (current organization)

2.35 .80 .19 -.54** -.20

5. Satisfaction current job 4.11 .88 -.01 -.10 -.02 .02

6. Length of the course 3.32 4.84 .03 -.03 .10 .15 .14

7. Number of participants 9.93 5.46 -.12 .06 -.01 .13 -.06 .04

8. Choice of training 1.89 .31 .16 -.42** .07 .25* .01 .10 -.02

9. Pre-training motivation 4.09 .57 .14 -.13 -.03 .06 -.05 .03 -.11 .39**

10 Overall training satisfaction 4.54 .66 .01 -.09 -.12 .11 -.02 .04 .02 .10 .17

11. Perceived training transfer 3.64 .42 -.13 -.07 -.12 .12 -.17 .05 -.08 -.01 .27** .39** N= 101

(16)

16

4.2 Hypotheses testing

Table 2 represents the results of the first regression analysis for the relation between choice of training and pre-training motivation. In the first step, we controlled for gender, age, education, years of service, satisfaction of the current job, length of the course and number of participants during the course. The control variables did not have a significant effect on pre-training motivation (∆R² = .05, ∆F = .58, n.s.). The second step showed that choice of

training significantly contributes to the prediction of pre-training motivation (∆R² = .18, ∆F = 13.70, p < .01). The b-weight of choice of training shows a positive relation between choice of training and pre-training motivation (b = .23, t = 3.70, p < .01). These outcomes support the first hypothesis that choice in training enhances pre-training motivation.

TABLE 2

Regression analysis for choice of training with pre-training motivation as dependent variable

Variable Step 1 Step 2

1. Gender .07 .05

2. Age -.07 .04

3. Education -.02 -.04

4. Years of service (current organization) -.02 -.02

5. Satisfaction current job -.04 -.03

6. Length of the course .02 .00

(17)

17 The results of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis to examine the effects of pre-training motivation and overall pre-training satisfaction on perceived pre-training transfer are shown in table 3. The control variables did not significantly contribute to the prediction of perceived training transfer (∆R² = .10, ∆F = 1.33, n.s.). In the second step, pre-training motivation contributed significantly to the prediction of training transfer (∆R² = .08, ∆F = 4.19, p < .05). Inspection of the b-coefficients showed that the relationship between pre-training motivation and perceived training transfer was significant (b = .13 , t = 2.87 , p < .01). Therefore,

hypothesis 2, predicting that pre-training motivation is positively related to perceived training transfer, is supported. In the third step we added overall training satisfaction to determine any direct relationship between overall training satisfaction and perceived training transfer. As can be seen in step 3, overall training satisfaction contributes to the prediction of perceived training transfer transfer (∆R² = .14, ∆F = 17.10, p < .001). The b-coefficient was also significant (b = .16, t = 4.14, p < .001). In the fourth step we tested our interaction of overall training satisfaction on the relation between pre-training motivation and perceived training transfer. The fourth step was not significant (∆R² = .02, ∆F = 1.92, n.s.). Also the

b-coefficient was very small and not significant (b = -.07, t = -1.4, n.s.) Thus, hypothesis 3 was not supported.

TABLE 3

Multiple regression analysis of pre-training motivation and overall training satisfaction on perceived training transfer

Variable Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

1. Gender -.08 -.09 -.09* -.10*

2. Age -.03 -.05 -.06 -.05

3. Education -.04 -.03 -.02 -.02

4. Years of service (current organization)

.04 .04 .03 .02

5. Satisfaction current job -.09 -.08 -.08 -.08*

(18)

18

7. Number of participants -.04 -.03 -.02 -.02

8. Choice of training -.07 -.07 -.06

9. Pre-training motivation .13** .11* .11*

10. Overall training satisfaction .16*** .16***

11. Pre-training motivation x Overall training satisfaction

-.07

R² .10 .18* .32*** .34

∆R² .10 .08* .14*** .02

N= 101

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

In testing the mediating model, the guidelines for statistically testing a mediation process by Shrout and Bolger (2002) were followed. This guideline constitutes three steps:

1. Testing the association between choice of training with pre-training motivation.

2. Testing the association between pre-training motivation with perceived training transfer. 3. Testing whether the indirect effect of choice of training on perceived training transfer via pre-training motivation is statistically significant.

Based on the analysis of the regression analysis for choice of training with pre-training motivation (Table 4, step 2) support was found for the first criterion of the mediation model: choice of training has a positive relationship with the mediating variable pre-training

(19)

19

TABLE 4

Multiple regression analysis of the mediation model in which pre-training motivation mediates the relationship between choice of training and perceived training transfer

Pre-training motivation

Perceived training transfer

Variable 1 2 1 2 3 1. Gender .07 .05 -.08 -.08 -.09 2. Age -.07 .04 -.03 -.04 -.05 3. Education -.02 -.04 -.04 -.04 -.03 4. Years of service (current organization) -.02 -.02 .04 .04 .04

5. Satisfaction current job -.04 -.03 -.09 -.09 -.08

6. Length of the course .02 .00 .04 .04 .04

7. Number of participants -.05 -.05 -.04 -.04 -.03 8. Choice of training .23*** -.02 -.07 9. Pre-training motivation .13** ∆R² .05 .13 .10 .00 .08 ∆F .58 13.67*** 1.33 .11 8.26** R² .05 .18 .10 .10 .18 F .58 2.29* 1.33 1.16 2.04*

Indirect effect of choice of training on perceived training transfer through pre-training motivation

Indirect effect Sobel Z p

.031 2.27 .023

N= 101

(20)

20 A Sobel test is conducted to test whether the indirect effect of choice of training on perceived training transfer is significantly mediated by pre-training motivation. The calculation yields a z-value of 2.27 which is significant at p < .05. Thus, we can conclude that pre-training motivation significantly mediates the relationship between choice of training and perceived training transfer.

5. DISCUSSION

5.1 Findings

The aim of this study was to examine the role of choice of training on pre-training motivation and respectively on perceived training transfer and whether overall training satisfaction will moderate the indirect relationship between choice of training and perceived training transfer through pre-training motivation. Such that this indirect relationship is more pronounced when overall training satisfaction is high rather than low. The results of the

questionnaire study among 101 trainees showed that choice of training is positively related to pre-training motivation. This means that when people have a choice in training it result in higher motivation prior to the beginning of the training. This finding is in line with our reasoning described in the theoretical framework. Apparently, increased motivation occurs under conditions of choice (Salancik, 1977). Furthermore, we found that pre-training motivation was positively associated with perceived training transfer. This means that the stronger the motivation prior to the training the higher the perceived training transfer (Blume et al. 2010; Colquitt et al. 2000). The confirmation of this hypothesis is in line with our theoretical framework where we stated that trainees who were more motivated to learn in training were more likely to seek out practice opportunities once on the job.

(21)

21 overall training satisfaction did affect perceived training transfer directly, but overall training satisfaction did not moderated the relationship between pre-training motivation and perceived training transfer. One of the potential reasons for the lack of this effect may be that the mean of both pre-training motivation and perceived training transfer were relatively high, respectively (M = 4.09, SD = 0.57) and (M = 3.64, SD = 0.42). The mean of overall training satisfaction was also very high (M = 4.54, SD = .66).

Overall training satisfaction may in this case not significantly add extra variance in the relationship between pre-training motivation and perceived training transfer. When the opposite had been the case, and pre-training motivation had been very low, a significant moderating effect of overall training satisfaction might have been found. In that kind of situation, when weakly motivated participants prior to the training received positive stimuli during the training course, their learning could be strengthened and their resulting attitudes being more positive which might enhance their learning transfer.

5.2 Strengths and limitations

The completion rate of the online questionnaire was high. Of the 110 respondents who filled in the questionnaire, 107 respondents completed the survey. Participants who participated in training courses longer than 100 days ago were removed from further research in order to alleviate biased results. A strong point in this research is the diversity of respondents. This leaded to heterogeneity of the respondents in age and followed training courses. Thereby reducing the possibility that trainee characteristics matched. Therefore these results can be generalized to other samples.

During this study, data was collected form one source. The use of a mono/single source could be a possible limitation (Donaldson & Grant-Vallone, 2002). By using a single method, unauthentic relationships may appeared between variables. Method variance can reduce the chance of unauthentic relationships. Oral interviews with the trainees or instructor,

(22)

22 workplace.

The questionnaire had self-reported questions. Meaning that participants rated themselves. It is common that participants tend to over-report behaviors considered as

appropriate and under-report behaviors that are inappropriate. The high scores on pre-training motivation and perceived training transfer could have been influenced by self-report bias. Self-report bias is very likely in organizational behavior research (Donaldson & Grant-Vallone, 2002). On the other hand, answers in online surveys are significantly longer and of higher quality than those in offline surveys (Macroy, 2002). Miller and Panjikaran (2001) found that in studies where offline surveys are used (eg telephone survey), socially desirable answers are used more often. Because of the absence of an interviewer in online surveys, sensitive information is provided more often.

5.3 Implications and future research

Choice of training. In this study we have introduced choice of training as a novel and

(23)

23

Pre-training motivation. Consistent with the extant literature, pre-training motivation is

positively related to training transfer. Individuals who are more motivated to learn in training are more likely to seek out practice opportunities once on the job. An unique finding to this study was the mediation of pre-training motivation. Pre-training motivation significantly mediated the relationship between choice of training and perceived training transfer. Autonomy in the choice of training is an important aspect in the creation of pre-training motivation. Consequently, this kind of motivation is vital for the perceived training transfer of the trainee. That makes that we can conclude that there is an essential link between the three concepts choice of training, pre-training motivation and perceived training transfer. Trainees with high autonomy in choosing their training are more motivated prior to the start of the training and are more able to practice their learning back to the workplace.

Overall training satisfaction. In this study we proposed that overall training satisfaction

will moderate the relation between pre-training motivation and training transfer. Such that this relationship should be more prominent and significant when trainees are highly satisfied with their training than when the training does not fulfil their expectations and needs. Unfortunately, this moderation was not significant. In future research it is interesting to add more contextual factors. Researchers have suggested that perceived management support or peer support facilitates the transfer of learned skills to the job (Baldwin & Ford, 1988) and behavior change (Hanna, 2002). Future research should integrate more of these contextual factors.

Training transfer. In this study, self-reported questions measured training transfer. As

(24)

24

Practical implications

The present findings suggest that it is important for HR managers, whenever possible, to grant trainees their choice of training. Trainees who have the freedom to choose their training perceive a higher degree of autonomous control over their own career development. As a result, these individuals are more motivated prior to the start of the training and in turn are more motivated to transfer any new skills to the workplace than their counterparts who had to follow a mandatory training.

5.4 Conclusion

(25)

25

REFERENCES

Arthur, W., Winston, B., Edens, P. S., Bell, T. 2003. Effectiveness of training in organizations: A meta-analysis of design and evaluation features, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88:234–45

Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, K. 1988. Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41:63-105

Baldwin, T., Magjuka T., Richard, J., Loher, B. T. 1991. The perils of participation: effects of choice of training on training motivation and learning. Personnel Psychology, 44(1):51-65

Bandura, A. 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a unified theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Barney, J.B. 1991. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1):99–120

Broad, M., Newstrom, J. 1996. Transfer of training. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Rhodenizer, L., Salas, E. and Bowers, C. 1988. A framework for understanding prepractice conditions and their impact on learning. Personnel Psychology.

51:291–320.

Campbell, D.T., Fiske, D.W. 1959. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56:81-105.

(26)

26 Chih J., Liu C., Lee H. 2008. Relationship between trainee attitudes and dimensions of training satisfaction: an empirical study with training institute employees. International Journal of Management, 25(4):756-765

Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., 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, 85:679–707.

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 Quarterly, 15(4):449-471

Dean, P. J., Dean, M. R., Rebalsky, R. M. 1996, Employee perceptions of workplace factors that will most improve their performance, Performance Improvement Quarterly, 9:75–89

Donaldson, S.I., Grant-Vallone, E.J. 2002. Understanding self-report bias in organizational behavior research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(2): 245-260.

Facteau, J. D., Dobbins F., Gregory H., Russell D, Joyce E. A., Ladd, R. T., Kudisch R. 1995. The Influence of General Perceptions of the Training Environment on Pretraining Motivation and Perceived Training Transfer. Journal of Management, 21(1):1-25

Folger R, Rosenfleld D, Grove J, Corkran L. 1979. Effects of voice and peer opinions on responses to inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 37:2253-2261.

(27)

27 Giangreco, A., Carugati, A., Sebastiano, A., Bella, D.D. 2010. Trainees' reactions to training: shaping groups and courses for happier trainees. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(13):2468-2487

Gist, M. E. 1997. Training design and pedagogy: Implications for skill acquisition,

maintenance and generalization. Training for a rapidly changing workforce: Application of psychological research. 201–22. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Harvey, J. H., & Harris, B. 1975. Determinants of perceived choice and the relationship between perceived choice and expectancy about feelings of internal control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31:101-106.

Hatala J., Fleming P.R., 2007. Making transfer climate visible: Utilizing social network analysis to facilitate the transfer of training. Human Resource Development Review, 6(1):1-31

Hicks WD, Klimoski RJ. 1987. Entry into training programs and its effects on training outcomes: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal. 30:542-552.

Holton, E. F., Baldwin, T. T. 2000. Making transfer happen: An action perspective on learning transfer systems. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 2(4):1–6.

John, O.P., Robbins, R. W. 1991. Accuracy in self-perception, self-enhancement bias, and narcissism: The power of individual differences. Unpublished manuscript. Institute of Personality Assessment and Reserch, University of California, Berkely.

(28)

28 Kao, Y.S., Tsai, Y.C., Liao, S.D., Lee, H.C., Hsu, Y.C. 1997. Learning Satisfaction of De-Yu Medical College, De-De-Yu Press. 13:65-78.

Kirwan, C., Birchall, D. 2006. Transfer of learning from management development

programmes: testing the Holton model. International Journal of Training & Development, 10(4)

Klein, H. J., Noe, R. A., Chongwei W. 2006. Motivation to learn and course outcomes: the impact of delivery mode, learning goal orientation, and perceived barriers and enablers. Personnel Psychology, 59(3):665-702

Knowles M. 1984. The adult learner A neglected species. Houston: Gulf Publishing

Kraiger, K., Salas, E. and Cannon-Bowers, J. A. 1995. Measuring knowledge organization as a method for assessing learning during training. Human Factors. 37:804–16.

Latham. G. P., Winters, D. C., & Locke, E. A. 1994. Cognitive and motivational effects of participation: A mediator study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 49-63.

Lim, D. H. and Johnson, S. D. 2002, Trainee perception of factors that influence learning transfer, International Journal of Training and Development, 6:36–48

Lim, D. H., Morris M.L. 2006. Influence of trainee characteristics, instructional satisfaction, and organizational climate on perceived learning and training transfer. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 17(1):85-115

(29)

29 Mangano, J & Coorado, T. 1979. Adult Students’ Satisfaction at Six Two-Year Colleges. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED180 563).

Martin, C. L. 1988. Enhancing Children’s Satisfaction and Participation Using a Predictive Regression Model of Bowling Performance Norms, The Physical Educator, 45(4):196-209.

Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, Scott I., Salas, Eduardo. 1992. Influences of individual and situational characteristics on measures of training effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 35(4):828-847

Miller, Thomas.W. and Panjikaran, Kurian.J. (2001), “Studies in Comparability: The Propensity Scoring Apporach”, A.C. Nielsen Center for Marketing Research, University of Winconsin-Madison, 23(2):23-25

Newstrom J, Lilyquist J. 1979. Selecting needs analysis methods. Training and Development Journal, 33(10):52-56.

Noe, R. A. 1986. Trainees' Attributes and Attitudes: Neglected Influences on Training Effectiveness. Academy of Management Review, 11(4):736-749

Noe, R. A., Schmitt, N. 1986. The influence of trainees attitudes on training effectiveness: test of a model. Personnel Psychology, 39(3):497-523

Olsen, J. H., Jr. 1998. The evaluation and enhancement of training transfer, International Journal of Training and Development, 2:61–75.

Oppenheimer R. 1982. An alternative approach to assessing management development needs. Training and Development Journal, 36(1):72-76.

(30)

30 biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88:879–903.

Quiñones, M. A. 1997. Contextual influences on training effectiveness. In M. A. Quiñones & A. Ehrenstein. Training for a rapidly changing workplace: Applications of psychological research. 177-199. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Robinson, K. A. 1985. Handbook of Training Management (London: Kogan Page).

Saari, L.M., Johnson, T.R., McLaughin, S.D., Zimmerle, D.M. 1988. A Survey of

Management Training and Education Practices in US Companies. Personnel Psychology. 41:731–743.

Salancik GR. 1977. Commitment and the control of organizational behavior and belief. In Staw BM, Salancik GR (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior. 1-54. Chicago: St. Clair Press.

Scheer W. 1979. Personnel Administration Handbook (2nd ed.). Chicago: The Dartness Corp.

Scheier, M. F., Buss, A. H., & Buss, D. M. 1976. Selfconsciousness, self-report of aggressiveness, and aggression. Journal of Research in Personality. 44:637-644.

Schweiger DM, Leana CR. 1986. Participation in decision making. In Ixicke EA (Ed.), Generalizing from laboratory to field settings.147-166. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Siero, F.W., Huisman, M., & Kiers, H.A.L. 2009. Voortgezette Regressie- en Variantieanalyse. Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum.

(31)

31 interviews as a function of their participation in rating scale development. Personnel

psychology. 37:703-710.

Sitzmann, T., Brown, K.G., Casper, W.J., Ely, K., Zimmerman, R.D. 2008. A Review and Meta–Analysis of the Nomological Network of Trainee Reactions. paper presented at the 2007 AMC, Journal of Applied Psychology.

Skinner, B. F. 1971. Contingencies of Reinforcement, East Norwalk, Conn.: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Steele-Johnson, Debra N., Anupama D., Kristin M.; Cole, Phyllis. 2010. Pretraining influences and readiness to change dimensions: A Focus on Static Versus Dynamic Issues. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 46(2):245-274

Tannenbaum, Scott I.; Mathieu, J. E.; Salas, Eduardo; Cannon-Bowers, Janis A. 1991. Meeting Trainees' Expectations: The Influence of Training Fulfillment on the Development of Commitment, Self-Efficacy, and Motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6):759-769

Tannenbaum, Scott I., Yukl, Gary. 1992. Training and development in work organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 43(1):399

Van Buren, M. E., Erskine, W. 2002, The 2002 ASTD state of the industry report (Alexandria, VA: American Society of Training and Development).

Vroom VH, Jago AG. 1988. The new leadership: Managing participation in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

(32)

32 Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. 2000. Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 132-142.

Wang, G., Wilcox D. 2006. Training Evaluation: Knowing More Than Is Practiced. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 8(4):528-539.

Warr, P. and Bunce, D. 1995. Trainee characteristics and the outcomes of open learning, Personnel Psychology. 48:347–75.

Wei, S.T., Lu, M.S. 1993. Learning Satisfaction and Related Factors Analysis. Taipei Medical University Press. 22:53-178.

Wlodkowski R. 1985. Enhancing adult motivation to leam. San Francisco: Josscy-Bass.

Wortman, C. B. 1975. Some determinants of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31:282-294.

(33)

33

APPENDIX

Online questionnaire

Enquête: keuzevrijheid in trainingen

Springest doet in samenwerking met de Universiteit Groningen onderzoek naar keuzevrijheid in trainingen. Was uw training verplicht of had u een keuze tussen verschillende trainingen? Hoe was uw motivatie vooraf, en heeft u het geleerde in de praktijk kunnen brengen? Invullen van de vragenlijst bedraagt 5 minuten. Doe mee met het onderzoek en vul uw gegevens in!

Stap 1 van 3: Algemene vragen

1) Uw geslacht* ( ) Man

( ) Vrouw

2) Uw geboortejaar …...

3) Uw hoogst voltooide opleiding* ( ) MAVO ( ) HAVO ( ) VWO ( ) MBO ( ) HBO ( ) Universiteit

4) Hoe lang bent u werkzaam bij uw huidige organisatie?* ( ) Korter dan 2 jaar

( ) Tussen 2 en 5 jaar ( ) Langer dan 5 jaar

(34)

34 ( ) Tussen 2 en 5 jaar

( ) Langer dan 5 jaar

6) Hoe tevreden bent u met uw huidige baan?* ( ) Zeer ontevreden

( ) Ontevreden ( ) Neutraal ( ) Tevreden ( ) Zeer tevreden

7) Naam van de gevolgde training* …...

8) Trainingsduur in dagen* …... dag(en)

9) Aantal deelnemers tijdens de training* …... deelnemers

10) Wat was de startdatum van de training? (indicatie is mogelijk)* …... (dd-mm-yyyy)

11) Had u een keuze tussen verschillende trainingen?* ( ) Ja, ik had keuzevrijheid

( ) Nee, de training was verplicht

12) Indien u een keuze had, heeft u de gewenste keuze qua training ontvangen? ( ) Ja

(35)

35

Motivatie voorafgaand aan de training

Stap 2 van 3: In welke mate bent u het eens met de volgende vragen:

Onderstaande vragen gaan over uw motivatie voordat u de training ging volgen. Beantwoord deze vragen dan ook zoals u dat voorafgaand aan de training zou hebben gedaan.

13) Ik was sterk gemotiveerd om zoveel mogelijk te leren van deze training.* ( ) Volledig oneens

( ) Oneens ( ) Neutraal ( ) Eens

( ) Volledig eens

14) Ik was bereid om mij flink in te spannen voor deze training teneinde mijn vaardigheden te verbeteren.* ( ) Volledig oneens ( ) Oneens ( ) Neutraal ( ) Eens ( ) Volledig eens

15) Ik geloofde dat ik mijn vaardigheden drastisch zou kunnen verbeteren door deelname aan deze training.* ( ) Volledig oneens ( ) Oneens ( ) Neutraal ( ) Eens ( ) Volledig eens

16) Ik was er van overtuigd dat ik capabel genoeg was om de trainingsstof te leren.* ( ) Volledig oneens

(36)

36 17) Ik was vooraf van mening dat deelname aan deze training weinig nut zou hebben omdat ik reeds alle kennis en vaardigheden bezit die ik nodig heb om mijn werk succesvol uit te voeren.* ( ) Volledig oneens ( ) Oneens ( ) Neutraal ( ) Eens ( ) Volledig eens

18) Ik was vooraf aan de training sterk bereid om moeite te doen om vaardigheden en competenties te ontwikkelen die gerelateerd zijn aan mijn huidige werk.*

( ) Volledig oneens ( ) Oneens

( ) Neutraal ( ) Eens

( ) Volledig eens

19) Ik was vooraf aan de training sterk bereid om moeite te doen om vaardigheden en competenties te ontwikkelen zodat ik mijzelf kan voorbereiden voor een promotie.* ( ) Volledig oneens ( ) Oneens ( ) Neutraal ( ) Eens ( ) Volledig eens

Waargenomen trainingsoverdracht

Stap 3 van 3: Bijna klaar, nog 11 vragen

20) Hoe tevreden bent u achteraf over deze training in zijn geheel?* ( ) Zeer ontevreden

( ) Ontevreden ( ) Neutraal ( ) Tevreden ( ) Zeer tevreden

In welke mate kunt u het geleerde tijdens de training daadwerkelijk in de praktijk brengen? 21) Ik bespreek met mijn leidinggevende manieren om de vaardigheden die ik heb geleerd te ontwikkelen en toe te passen.*

(37)

37 ( ) Neutraal

( ) Eens

( ) Volledig eens

22) Ik bespreek met mijn collega's manieren om de vaardigheden die ik heb geleerd te ontwikkelen en toe te passen.*

( ) Volledig eens

23) Ik zoek naar mogelijkheden om de geleerde vaardigheden toe te passen in de praktijk.* ( ) Volledig oneens

( ) Volledig eens

24) Leidinggevenden, collega's of ondergeschikten hebben mij verteld dat mijn werkgedrag is verbeterd na het volgen van de training.*

( ) Volledig eens

25) Ik ben productiever geworden na het volgen van de training.* ( ) Volledig oneens

( ) Volledig eens

26) Ik ben in staat om de geleerde vaardigheden tijdens de training toe te passen in mijn huidige werk.*

(38)

38 ( ) Eens

( ) Volledig eens

27) Ik heb mijn werkgedrag veranderd zodat dit meer in lijn is met wat ik heb geleerd tijdens de training.* ( ) Volledig oneens ( ) Oneens ( ) Neutraal ( ) Eens ( ) Volledig eens

28) Mijn prestaties op het werk zijn verbeterd ten gevolg van de vaardigheden die ik heb geleerd in de training* ( ) Volledig oneens ( ) Oneens ( ) Neutraal ( ) Eens ( ) Volledig eens

29) Ik stel specifieke doelen om de vaardigheden die ik heb geleerd in de training te behouden.* ( ) Volledig oneens ( ) Oneens ( ) Neutraal ( ) Eens ( ) Volledig eens

30) Mijn werkomgeving vormt een belemmering om de geleerde vaardigheden toe te passen in de praktijk.* ( ) Volledig oneens ( ) Oneens ( ) Neutraal ( ) Eens ( ) Volledig eens

Effects of choice of training on trainee motivation and training transfer