Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
i
ORGANISATIONAL FACTORS AFFECTING LEARNING TRANSFER IN THE
PUBLIC SERVICE
By
NDITSHENI JENNIFER RALIPHADA
A dissertation Submitted in fulfilment of the degree
Master of Philosophy
In
Human Resource Development
Faculty of Management
UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG
Study leader: Prof Jos Coetzee
2013
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the all mighty God for granting me the wisdom and opportunity
to successfully complete this project, my sincere gratitude to my daughter Murendeni
for always encouraging me when I wanted to give up. To my mom Mulatwa and
siblings Lufuno, Itani, Ephraim and Mavis for always teasing me and challenging me
to finish the project. Special thanks go to a former colleague Joseph who always
supported me. Thank you to Prof Coetzee for all the guidance that you provided and
to Amanda for her patience and administrative support. My employer who
sponsored and provided me with the opportunity to complete this project, thank you.
ii
ABSTRACT
The objective of this study was to identify and describe organisational factors that
affect learning transfer in the South African Public Service. The study was conducted
utilising a mixed method approach with both qualitative and quantitative methods
enjoying equal status and implemented concurrently.
5 participants (Managers) from the department were interviewed using semi
structured interview methodology as part of the qualitative methods and the findings
were interpreted using the thematic content analysis technique and various themes
were identified. It was found that factors that affect learning transfer include resource
availability, supervisor role, mentorship and coaching, non-alignment of training
goals with organisational goals, poor organisational planning and weak controls,
management and leadership change, resistance to change and organisational
culture. The above factors confirmed that there was a link between organisational
context and transfer of learning, this being one of the questions that the study sought
to respond to.
A survey questionnaire was distributed to 150 respondents and 90 questionnaires
were received back, this constituted a 60% response rate. The data from the
questionnaires was interpreted using exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Factors that
were identified as affecting learning transfer include opportunity to practice,
positional power and peer support, resource availability, performance culture,
management support, feedback and reward and organisational monitoring
mechanisms.
The findings from the two methods were integrated and corroborated each other
which strengthened the value add of utilising mixed method approach. A description
of the organisational factors affecting learning transfer was provided in addition to
them being identified. The study proposed that governmental institutions like Palama
conduct a large scale research throughout the public service utilising a mixed
method approach as part of impact analysis, this study will provide the basis on
which to initiate the project.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements (i)
Abstract (ii)
List of figures (viii)
List of tables (ix)
List of appendices (ix)
Chapter 1
BACKGROUND TO AND RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY
1.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………..................1
1.2 Background to the problem ……………………………………………………….2
1.3 Stating the problem …………………………………………………………………4
1.4 Purpose of study ……………………………………………………………………5
1.5 Research questions ………………………………………………………………...5
1.6 Hypothesis …………………………………………………………………………..6
1.7 Significance of the study …………………………………………………………...7
1.8 Research Design ……………………………………………………………………9
1.8.1 Setting………………………………………………………………………...9
1.8.2 Methodology………………………………………………………………..10
1.8.3 Pilot………………………………………………………………………….10
1.9 Ethical Considerations…………………………………………………………….10
1.10 Chapter Outline ……………………………………………………………………11
CHAPTER 2
LEARNING AND LEARNING TRANSFER
2.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………12
2.2 Learning…………………………………………………………………………….13
2.2 Theories on learning and learning transfer……………………………………...15
2.2.1 Behaviourism……………………………………………………………….16
2.2.2 Cognitive theories………………………………………………………….19
iv
2.2.3 Social learning and Social Cognition theories…………………………..20
2.4 Learning Transfer…………………………………………………………………..21
2.5 Organisational factors and Work environmental factors ……………………..26
2.5.1 Organisational culture……………………………………………………..27
2.5.2 Social support and organisational climate factors...…………………...29
2.5.3 Management support.………………………………………………….....33
2.5.4 Supervisor support………………………………………………………..34
2.5.5 Peer support……………………………………………………………….36
2.5.6 Feedback ………………………………………………………………….37
2.5.7 Support in the organisation………………………………………………38
2.5.8 Opportunity for transfer…………………………………………………...39
2.5.9 Task constraints…………………………………………………………...40
2.5.10 Openness to change and resistance to change……………………….41
2.5.11 Rewards and personal outcome…………………………………………41
2.5.12 Personal capacity to transfer…………………………………………….43
2.5.13 Organisational structure…………………………………………………..43
2.5.14 Organisational policies and processes………………………………….44
2.5.15 Human resources unit role……………………………………………….45
2.6 Barriers to learning transfer……………………………………………………….45
2.7 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….49
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH DESIGN
3.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………..51
3.2 Research design………………………………………………………………….51
3.3 Research approach………………………………………………………………..53
3.4 Mixed methods approach…………………………………………………………54
3.5 Philosophical foundations of mixed method..…………………………………...56
3.6 Section 1: Qualitative research design…………………………………………..56
3.6.1 Research approach…………………………………………………………56
3.6.2 Advantages and disadvantages of qualitative approach……………..57
3.6.3 Population and sampling…………………………………………………58
3.6.4 Data gathering methods………………………………………………….59
v
3.6.5 Ethical consideration……………………………………………………...61
3.6.6 Qualitative data analysis………………………………………………….63
3.7 Section 2: Quantitative research design…………………………………………65
3.7.1 Research approach……………………………………………………….65
3.7.2 Advantages and disadvantages of quantitative approach…………….65
3.7.3 Location of respondents …………………………………………………65
3.7.4 Sampling …………………………………………………………………..66
3.7.5 Research tool………………………………………………………………67
3.7.6 Quantitative data analysis………………………………………………..70
3.8 Research procedure………………………………………………………………72
3.9 Reliability and Validity…………………………………………………………….74
3.10 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….74
CHAPTER 4
MAJOR RESEARCH FINDINGS
4.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………75
4.2 The research questions..………………………………………………………….75
4.3 Research objectives……………………………………………………………….75
4.4 Section 1: Qualitative findings…………………………………………………….76
4.41 Participants profile………………………………………………………...76
4.4.2 Participants responses……………………………………………………77
4.5 Section 2: Quantitative results…………………………………………………...82
4.6 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….99
CHAPTER 5
INTERPRETATION AND SYNTHESIS
5.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………….100
5.2 Section 1: interpretation of qualitative findings………………………………100
5.2.1 Resource availability……………………………………………………..100
5.2.2 Supervisor role……………………………………………………………101
5.2.3 Mentoring and coaching…………………………………………………103
5.2.4 Role of performance management……………………………………..104
vi
5.2.5 Non alignment of training programmes with organisational goals…..105
5.2.6 Poor organisational planning and weak controls……………………...105
5.2.7 Management and leadership change…………………………………..106
5.2.8 Resistance to change…………………………………………………….106
5.2.9 Organisational culture …………………………………………………...107
5.3 Section 2: interpretation and synthesis of quantitative results……………...108
5.3.1 Opportunity to practice…………………………………………………...108
5.3.2 Peers and positional power……………………………………………...109
5.3.3 Resource availability……………………………………………………..109
5.3.4 Performance culture……………………………………………………...110
5.3.5 Management support…………………………………………………….110
5.3.6 Reward and feedback…………………………………………………...111
5.3.7 Other significant findings………………………………………………..111
5.4 Research question 2……………………………………………………………..112
5.5 Research Question 3…………………………………………………………….112
5.6 Data Integrating ………………………………………………………………….112
5.5 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………...113
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………..114
6.2 Overview of the chapters………………………………………………………...114
6.3 Summary of Major Findings…………………………………………………….115
6.3.1 Qualitative findings………………………………………………………...115
6.3.2 Quantitative findings……………………………………………………….116
6.3.3 Mixed method approach…………………………………………………..117
6.4 Contributions to body of knowledge…………………………………………….118
6.5 Limitations of the study…………………………………………………………..118
6.6 Recommendations for future research…………………………………………119
6.7 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………...119
LIST OF REFERENCES …………………………………………………………..……121
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 The hypothesis………………………………………………………………7
Figure 2.1 Transfer model, inhibiting and supporting factors………………………47
Figure 3.1 Concurrent triangulation research design……………………………….53
Figure 4.1 Tenure in the organisation………………………………………………...83
Figure 4.2 Training and development outcomes…………………………………….84
Figure 4.3 The practice of knowledge and skills…………………………………….85
Figure 4.4 Flexibility of policies for learning transfer………………………………..86
Figure 4.5 Organisational processes…………………………………………………86
Figure 4.6 Structural designs of the organisation and ability to transfer………….87
Figure 4.7 Supervisor support…………………………………………………………87
Figure 4.8 Management support………………………………………………………88
Figure 4.9 Interference with transfer by political appointees……………………….88
Figure 4.10 Availability of human resources…………………………………………..89
Figure 4.11 Provision of financial resources to implement what was learned……..89
Figure 4.12 Peer support………………………………………………………………..90
Figure 4.13 Perceived positional power.………………………………………………91
Figure 4.14 Placement within the organisation……………………………………….91
Figure 4.15 Time and mental space to implement what was learned………………93
Figure 4.16 Current workload and opportunity to practice what was learned…….93
Figure 4.17 Supervisor response to application of what was learned……………...94
Figure 4.18 Tasks that provide opportunity to practice what was learned…………94
Figure 4.19 Feedback on ability to transfer skills and knowledge on the job……...96
Figure 4.20 Reward for innovation……………………………………………………..96
Figure 4.21 Learning organisation……………………………………………………...97
Figure 4.22 Impact analysis of learning programmes………………………………..97
Figure 4.23 Certification after training………………………………………………….98
Figure 4.24 Discouragement of learning transfer……………………………………..98
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1 Ability to implement………………………………………………………..77
Table 4.2 Role of policy and procedures…………………………………………....78
Table 4.3 Effect of job title…………………………………………………………….78
Table 4.4 Reward and punishment…………………………………………………..79
Table 4.5 Support structure…………………………………………………………..80
Table 4.6 Peer role…………………………………………………………………….81
Table 4.7 Resource availability……………………………………………………….82
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Letter from University of Johannesburg
Appendix B: Sample of consent form
Appendix C: Request for permission to conduct research
Appendix D: Questionnaire
Appendix E: Descriptive statistics and factor analysis
1
CHAPTER 1
BACKGROUND TO AND RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY
1.1 Introduction
The importance of learning and learning transfer is a subject that is of importance to
Human Resource Development Practitioners. The successful transfer of skills into
performance outputs and outcomes is essential for organisations as it demonstrates
return on investment. Learning transfer is a good indicator for HRD practitioners as it
helps justify the money spent on training initiatives and the value derived from
training and development interventions.
Studies conducted globally reflect that of all the training and development initiatives
done by organisations only 10% of what was learned gets transferred into the work
place (Baldwin & Ford, 1988). The studies conducted by Michalak (1981) and
Lakewood Research (1997), although done 17 years apart, both reflected that only
10% of training and development initiatives result in learning transfer. According to
Leimbach (2010) recent studies conducted indicate that only 15 to 20% of learning
investments in organisations may actually result in work performance changes. It is
interesting to note that an average of 7% improvement in learning transfer is
recorded from 1997 to 2009.
Given the 15% to 20% of learning transfer that occurs in the workplace the focus of
this study is to identify and describe factors that may be hindering or inhibiting public
service employees from transferring what they have learned into their daily
operations. Learning transfer which in this study will be used interchangeably with
training transfer may be viewed as the effective application, generalisability and
maintenance of new knowledge, skills and abilities to the workplace as a result of
undertaking an educational strategy (Holton, 2000). There is consensus that
acquisition of knowledge, skills, behaviours and attitudes through training is of little
value if the new characteristics are not generalised to the job setting and are not
maintained over time, (Kozlowski & Salas, 1997). Learning is of little value to the
2
organisation unless it is transferred in some way to performance (Holton, Bates,
Seyler & Carvalho, 1997).
This study will focus on organisational factors that may be affecting learning transfer;
the findings will be used to provide recommendations on actions the Public Service
can use to improve learning transfer.
1.2 Background to the problem
The public sector remains the main supplier of basic services in South Africa after 18
years of democracy although the role played by private sector is also increasing. In
their day to day functions National Government Departments have a role to ensure
that the performance of employees meets the expectation of the citizens as set out in
Batho-Pele principles. The fact that the 21st century is characterised by citizens who
understand their rights does not make it any easier for Government Departments as
citizens expect efficient and effective service delivery.
The South African Government has in 1998 introduced the Skills Development Act
(SDA) no.97 of 1998 and the Skills Development Levies Act (SDLA) no.9 of 1999
which require that employers spend a minimum of 1% of their payroll on training
employees in an attempt to improve skills which may result in improved service
delivery. The Department of Labour reports indicate that employers are adhering to
the Acts (SDA and SDLA) with the majority of government departments exceeding
the statutory 1% of payroll in training and development interventions. The South
African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) on the other hand ensures that quality
programmes are delivered by institutions of learning through the introduction of Unit
Standards. Information provided above suggests that there is reasonable funding
available for training and development interventions and there is quality assurance of
programmes by SAQA. It is therefore reasonable to investigate why Public Service
Departments still deliver what is described as poor service despite the investments
made into training and development interventions.
The present study acknowledges that there are factors affecting learning transfer like
instructional design and trainee factors like motivation as outlined by Goldstein and
Ford (2002), but the study will not focus on these factors. According to Rouiller and
3
Goldstein (1993) work environmental factors such as supervisor support have
indirect influence on the job performance and may affect transfer behaviour.
Cromwell and Kolb (2004) conducted a study that aimed at examining the
relationship between four specific work environment factors and transfer of training,
the work environmental factors included organisational support, supervisor support,
peer support and participation in peer support. In an attempt to find the root cause
for factors affecting learning transfer Holton and Baldwin (2003) conducted a study
on work environmental factors that affect learning transfer. In their study Holton and
Baldwin (2003) focused on supervisor feedback and performance coaching,
supervisor and manager support, supervisor and manager opposition, work group
support, openness to change, positive personal rewards and negative personal
rewards. Various authors including Baldwin and Ford (1988) highlighted the
importance of transfer context and culture particularly processes and reward
systems as factors that can make or break the transfer of learning.
Organisational factors and work environment factors identified above will form the
basis of the survey instrument (questionnaire) that will be used for gathering data on
factors affecting learning transfer. The studies that have already been conducted
(Cromwell & Kolb, 2004; Goldstein & Ford, 2002; Holton & Baldwin, 2003) indicate
there is a link between the work environment and the ability of employees to transfer
learning. The studies however were not conducted in the public service in South
Africa while the context of the current study is Public service in South Africa.
In their study of factors affecting transfer of training in Thailand, Yamnill and
Maclean (2005) recommended that future research should not only focus on survey
instrument to collect data like the learning transfer system inventory (LTSI) but an
inclusion of interviews may add more knowledge as it may uncover more factors that
are not necessarily covered by the survey. The findings may be supplemented by the
deep potential richness of qualitative research, something which this study will
attempt to achieve by using a mixed methods approach. LTSI considers 16 Factors
likely to influence transfer of training to the workplace.
Yaghi, Goodman, Holton and Bates (2008) when validating the LTSI in the Jordanian
public sector found that rapid changes in ministerial administrations and political
4
cabinets can be a hindrance to learning as supervisors may feel unsupported by new
regime. The South African government has been experiencing rapid changes in
ministerial administrations and political cabinets and this prompted the need for this
study to add more variables in the survey instrument than those available in LTSI. In
addition to the recommendation made for further studies in this regard, the Jordanian
study also recommended a study on the role played by lack of reward on skills
transfer.
The effect of culture on learning transfer in the American and Jordanian communities
was established and it would be value adding to find how this variable affects the
public sector in South Africa.
1.3 Stating the problem
The failure of government institutions to efficiently and effectively deliver on their
mandates is an issue that has become well known to South African citizens. The
citizens are demanding and expect good service from public sector institutions and
failure or delay in service delivery is no longer acceptable.
Several interventions have been done by government to try and improve service
delivery within its human resources including the introduction of the Skills
Development Act. Despite the legislative requirement that 1% of payroll be spent on
training and development interventions the South African Government continues to
allege that skills shortage is the source of its failure to meet service expectations by
citizens.
The establishment of the Sector Education Training Authorities (SETAS) and Quality
Assurance institutions like SAQA have not adequately succeeded in improving
service delivery by public sector institutions. SETAS enable education, training and
development of employees and non-employees in various economic sectors, they
achieve this task through collection of levies from employers and in return disburse
them back to employers as grants. Although some government institutions claim they
provide conducive environment for learning transfer studies in this regard have not
been published in the South African Public Service. There is a need for the South
5
African Public Sector to establish factors that may be affecting learning transfer in
the workplace.
Well informed, highly skilled and competent employees should be the jewel of every
organisation in the 21st century as performance outputs differentiate successful
organisations from unsuccessful ones. In the public sector efficient and effective
service delivery is the competitive advantage. The ability of the employees to
execute tasks at hand can sustain or lead to the collapse of the organisation as we
see governments and departments globally coming to a halt due to lack of skills thus
learning transfer is essential.
1.4 Purpose of the study
No study has been conducted on organisational factors affecting learning transfer in
the South African Public Service. Although there are studies that have been
conducted in South Africa about learning transfer and although several studies have
been conducted on learning transfer in the public service in other countries there is a
knowledge gap in terms of what factors play a role in terms of learning transfer in the
South African Public service. It is this gap in knowledge that this study seeks to fill.
This study aims to contribute to the understanding of learning transfer in the South
African public service. The study will establish or identify organisational factors that
may be hindering or inhibiting public service employees from transferring what they
have learned into their daily operations. The study will help to determine the extent
and level to which organisational factors affect learning transfer in the public service.
The study will also provide recommendations to other organisations on factors to
consider when creating an environment conducive for learning transfer
1.5 Research questions
The main research question that this study will attempt to answer is:
What are the organisational factors that are hindering or inhibiting employees
to transfer learning into the workplace?
6
The sub questions will include:
Is there is a link between the organisational context and transfer of learning?
To what extent do organisational factors affect learning transfer?
What are the challenges that employees are facing that affect them in
transferring what they have learned?
The research questions will be explored using semi structured interviews and this
includes the perceptions of supervisors/ managers on learning transfer in the
organisation. The experiences that employees have with regard to implementing
what they have learned and what contexts or situations have affected employees’
ability to transfer learning will be explored using questionnaires.
1.6 Hypothesis
The hypotheses provided relate to the quantitative methodology of the study.
The research hypothesis (1) is: organisational factors such as peer support,
management support and rewards, positively affect (encourage) the ability of
employees to transfer learning in the public service if they are present and well
managed.
Research hypothesis (2) is: the absence of organisational factors such as
management support and peer support and rewards negatively affect (inhibit)
learning transfer.
7
Figure 1.1 The hypothesis
Source: Own construction
In this study organisational factors will include what some researchers refer to as
work environment factors, situational factors as well as work climate factors such as
management relations and style, time available, autonomy and responsibility, team
style, peer support, guidance available and satisfaction in the workplace
environment. Learning transfer will refer to the effective application, generalisability
and maintenance of new knowledge, skills and abilities to the workplace as a result
of undertaking an educational strategy. Affect will refer to influence which may mean
positive influence, negative influence or no influence.
1.7 Significance of the study
The failure of employees to transfer learning into the workplace, specifically in the
public service, imply that the country has to accommodate service delivery backlogs
and challenges for years to come. It is imperative that organisational factors affecting
Independent
Variable Dependent
Variable
Policies
Organisational
factors affecting
learning
transfer in
public service
Peer Support
Rewards
Management
Support Learning
Transfer
8
learning transfer in the workplace are explored, the discovery of those factors will
make it easier for corrective measures to be designed and implemented so that
learning transfer occurs and thus resulting in return on investment for employers and
improved service delivery for society.
The amounts spent on training and development initiatives are huge (1% of public
service salary bill as determined by the Skills Development Act) and they also take
much out of what could be utilised for other societal needs. Allowing investment on
training and development to continue without that necessarily translating into
improved services is not only fruitless and wasteful expenditure of public money but
also a crime to humanity. Human resource development (HRD) practitioners should
assist in ensuring that the value of money spent on training is realised by helping
identifying some of the learning transfer barriers and recommending appropriate
interventions
Employers and governments not only in South Africa but in other countries are
questioning their return on investment when it comes to money spent on training.
The identification of factors that affect learning transfer will assist organisations to
plan better to minimise the negative effects of non-transference of learning.
It is evident that there is a need to improve learning transfer in the South African
Public Service. These departments need to improve service delivery in order to
remain relevant as the civil society is constantly pushing for privatisation to get better
service as well as accountability for money people contribute in terms of tax. HRD
practitioners will need to study the phenomenon of factors affecting learning transfer,
not only to justify the expenditure on training when organisations are faced with
competing demands during recession time, but also to justify the existence of the
HRD function and practitioners in organisations. The successful identification of
factors affecting learning transfer may assist public service management to develop
interventions that will remove or minimise barriers hindering transfer in instances
where non-transfer is occurring. It is also essential to identify positive factors
affecting learning transfer so as to encourage the creation of a conducive
environment that will yield better returns for investment done through training.
9
The findings of this study should be a valuable contribution to the understanding of
the factors that affect learning transfer in the public service. The knowledge gained
may help Departments create conducive environments to improve learning transfer.
The Public Service Departments will realise the return on investment for money
spent on training as practical steps are taken to support learning transfer. The
findings may also contribute to existing theory and stop the fruitless and wasteful
expenditure currently experienced when minimal learning transfer occurs. HRD
practitioners stand to gain from the findings as the information may be helpful when
they design learning transfer models and frameworks.
1.8. Research design
1.8.1 Setting
The study will follow a mixed method concurrent triangulation research design.
Mixed method design uses both inductive and deductive scientific methods, has
multiple forms of data collection and produces eclectic and pragmatic reports. A
mixed method research design is said to represent research that involves collecting,
analysing and interpreting quantitative and qualitative data in a single study or in a
series of studies that investigate the same underlying phenomenon (Onwuegbuzie &
Leech, 2004). In studying the factors affecting learning transfer in the public service it
was important to use mixed method for the following reasons:
Public service represent complex organisations
Mixed method enhances the strength of the research
The use of mixed methods will ensure that the problem is researched from
both perspectives (qualitative and quantitative)
The usage of different approaches will help confirm data accuracy,
complimenting results from one type of research with the other.
The mixed method research will be appropriate for this study as it can neutralise or
cancel out some of the disadvantages and limitations of both qualitative and
quantitative methods through triangulation.
10
1.8.2 Methodology
The study is located in a South African Public Service Department. In presenting the
methodology the study will separate the qualitative and quantitative methodology.
The qualitative methodology will be presented first and the quantitative methodology
will follow. A total of 5 Managers will be invited to participate in the semi structured
interviews. The questionnaire will be distributed to 150 respondents.
A questionnaire will be distributed in the participating Department and participants
will be chosen using stratified random sampling. Creswell (2009) describes a sample
as a finite part of statistical population whose properties are studied to gain
information about the whole. According to Kumar (2011) Sampling is a processor
technique of selecting a sample which allows one to draw conclusions about a
population. Random sampling will be used in this study and Stratified random
sampling involves selecting individual units to measure from the population. In this
study groups of employees who have been exposed to training intervention will
participate and this is the strata that will be used.
1.8.3 Pilot
The two most critical aspects of any research project are validity and reliability.
Validity as stated by Golafshani (2003) refers to the extent to which the instrument
can measure what it was intended for. The questionnaire instrument was piloted and
30 responses were received. Statkon at the University of Johannesburg assisted in
validating the instrument and minor adjustments were made on the instrument as per
Statkon’s recommendations. More details will be provided in chapter 3.
1.9 Ethical consideration
The study will comply with ethical standards of confidentiality with regard to
information gathered during data collection. A signed informed Consent form shall be
requested from participants and stored in a safe environment. The information
gathered through questionnaires and semi structured interviews will only be shared
with the supervisor when requested and Statkon for statistical analysis. A copy of
11
participant / respondent information and informed consent form is attached as
Annexure.
The researcher will as part of good ethical conduct follow an appropriate research
methodology, be impartial when reporting results of the study and will not use
information in a way that will adversely affect the employees and the department that
participated in the study.
1.10 Chapter outline
The study will be covered following the outline provided below:
Chapter 2 Learning and learning transfer
Chapter 3 Research design
Chapter 4 Discussion of Major Findings
Chapter 5 Interpretation and Synthesis
Chapter 6 Conclusions and recommendations
12
CHAPTER 2
LEARNING AND LEARNING TRANSFER
2.1 Introduction
The literature review of this study is structured according to 4 sections. The first
section deals with learning. Learning forms the core of this study and thus it is critical
to define the concept and how it is conceptualised in the study.
The second section deals with a theoretical framework. The purpose of providing the
theoretical framework is to highlight theories outlining how learning takes place.
Understanding the theory will help make sense of the observations in learning
transfer. The theoretical framework will help guide the design of the study for
example when designing the survey instrument and when interpreting the findings.
This study will among others focus on behaviourist theories as well as social learning
theories.
The third section deals with learning transfer. Different authors have used the
concept differently for different purposes. Learning transfer in this study may have
different meanings and this need to be clarified.
The fourth section deals with organisational factors affecting learning transfer. Using
the literature search an attempt will be made to identify some of the factors said to
influence learning transfer in the workplace, what studies have been conducted in
this regard and what were the findings and gaps. The literature survey and its
findings will help locate where the current study features in the learning transfer
knowledge base.
Holton, Bates and Ruona (2000) recommend that organisations that want to
enhance return on investment from learning or training investment must understand
the factors that affect transfer of learning. The understanding of the factors
negatively affecting or inhibiting transfer of learning to the workplace will help public
13
service department‘s decision makers to develop appropriate interventions. The
public service departments are going through an error where improving service
delivery is no longer a choice but a requirement given the fact that the tax
contributors expect value for money and the findings of this study will therefore be
valuable.
According to Van Buren and Erskine (2002) positive transfer of training into skills and
behaviours that enhance workplace performance often determines the competitive
advantage and validates the substantial financial investments made. Yet according
to Phillips and Phillips (2007) 60%-90% of job related skills and knowledge in a
learning programme do not get implemented in the job. Brinkerhoff (2006) claims
that only 15 out of the 100 people who receive training eventually use it in ways that
produce valuable performance results.
2.2 Learning
Learning is defined as lasting change in behaviour or beliefs that result from
experience. Gilley and Maycunich (2000) define learning as the art of acquiring
knowledge, skills, competence and attitudes as well as the change of behaviour
through experience. It can be summarised as the translation of stored knowledge to
action. It is the change in employee behaviour (learning) after training that translate
to improved service delivery which is important for this study, thus employees should
be able to perform better which affirms that learning transfer has occurred.
Employers need to create a conducive environment for learning transfer and the
understanding of some of the learning principles will make it easier for employers to
create that conducive environment. Some of the principles of learning which will be
explored during the data collection process in an attempt to establish factors that
affect learning transfer were identified by Figgis, Alderson, Blackwell, Butorac,
Mitchell and Zubrich (2001). Figgis et.al (2001) identified the following principles of
learning:
Opportunity to learn
Connection and challenge
14
Action and reflection
Motivation and purpose
Independence and collaboration
A supportive environment
Learning as defined by Malone (2003) is the process which brings about persistent
change in behaviour. It is said to give a person increased competence to deal
successfully with his environment by acquiring knowledge, skills and attitudes. It is
this expected change in behaviour that forms the crux of the current study. Learning
on its own is of no value if it is not transferred, there is strong consensus that
acquisition of knowledge, skills, behaviour and attitudes through training is of little
value if the new characteristics are not generalised to the job setting and are not
maintained over time (Kozlowski & Salas, 1997 in Yamnill & Mclean 2001). Malone
(2003) also supports Kozlowski and Salas’ view when they say learning is of no use
if not applied, as the intention for training is to facilitate actual application in the
workplace.
There is agreement by above authors that transfer of learning is not automatic but
needs to be encouraged and supported including through coaching and mentoring,
this then creates the notion that learning transfer is critical. Rogers (2003) views
learning as task-conscious or acquisition learning which may be further unpacked as
concrete, immediate and not confined to specific activity. Learning is further
described as learning-conscious or formalised learning which refers to educative
learning rather than accumulation of experience. Learning in this study will involve
the combination of two perspectives (task-conscious and learning-conscious) as
outlined by Rogers (2003).
Ivergard and Hunt (2004) defined learning at work as observed changes in work
behaviour attributable to knowledge and skills. The aim of training is to create
learning processes that contribute towards improving the performance of workers in
their current job. The American Society of Training and Development (cited in Biech,
2008) define learning as “the process of gaining knowledge, understanding or skill by
15
study, instruction or experience”. This study will attempt to explore the experiences
of employees when applying their knowledge in the workplace.
According to Knowles, Holton and Swanson (2005) learning involves behavioural
change, and the acquisition of knowledge, skills and attitudes on the part of the
learner. It is said to be largely influenced by training which explains the reasons why
organisations invests large sums on money on training. Training however may be
viewed as the systematic acquisition of skills, rules, concepts, or attitudes that result
in improved performance in another environment. Rothwell and Sredl (2000) define
training as a short term intervention designed to change the individual by equipping
them with the necessary sufficient knowledge, skills and attitudes they need to meet
or exceed customer requirements and achieve results. As previously explained
training can be viewed as a systematic process attempting to develop knowledge,
skills for current and future jobs. Learning on the other hand may be viewed as a
long term outcome and thus the focus of this study is on learning, specifically
implementation and outcomes.
The process of learning and transfer is what inspired this study. According to Cheng
and Ho (2001) it is clear that human resource development (HRD) practitioners
adopt a trial and error approach when it comes to managing learning transfer, they
do not have a thorough understanding of the underlying principles of learning
transfer and are often puzzled by the outcomes when it does not produce the
expected outcome. The understanding of learning transfer will help HRD
practitioners and leaders in the Public service develop strategies that encourage
transfer.
2.3 Theories on learning and learning transfer
The process through which learning takes place has been explored by several
authors. Various learning theories have been developed and in his book Noe (2013)
outline some of the theories which include: reinforcement theory, social learning
theory, goal setting theory, goal orientation theory, need theory, expectancy theory,
adult learning theory, information processing theory, theory of identical elements and
cognitive theory. For the purpose of this study only a brief overview of the theories
16
will be provided as their understanding may assist in unpacking organisational
factors that affect learning transfer to the workplace.
2.3.1 Behaviourism
Behaviourism as outlined by Ormrod (2011) is a school of thought that was
pioneered by behaviourists like Ivan Pavlov, John Watson, Skinner, Edward
Thorndike and Clark Hull. Behaviourism is based on the belief that behaviour can be
measured, trained and changed. Papalia, Olds and Feldman (2007) propagate that
as learning theory behaviourism advocates that behaviour is acquired through
conditioning. The theory also advocates that conditioning happens through
interaction with the environment. The understanding of how the environment
stimulates behaviour is paramount for the South African Public Service as it might
help unearth factors that are in the environment which are affecting learning transfer.
The behaviourist perspective dominated the study of learning throughout the 1st half
of the 20th century. According to Ormrod (2011) the two major types of learning
include Operant/ Instrumental conditioning and Classical conditioning.
Thorndike in 1913 found that learning can be understood in terms of the relationship
between stimulus and response (S-R theory) and the theory has since been
improved by contemporary theorists (Hinrichs, 2004). Hinrichs (2004) further
proposed that learning can be studied by observing events in the environment and
measuring responses to those events. According to Morris and Maisto (2009) in
advancing his theory Thorndike between 1913 and 1932 introduced Connectionism
which also emphasised the importance of association. Understanding the principle of
connectionism will help public service leadership to understand human behaviour
and introduce systems and processes that will help induce desired behaviour, which
in this regard is transferring learning to the workplace. Understanding this principle
will also assist in that this study will specifically probe through its survey instrument
the stimuli required by employees for them to transfer learning,).
Connectionism theory claims that connections become strengthened with practice
and weakened when practice is discontinued and this process is referred to as the
17
Law of Exercise, (Ormrod, 2011 & Underhill, 2006). The theory suggests that
transfer depends upon the presence of identical elements in the original and new
learning structures. In this study employees will be requested to indicate the impact
that the similarity of training environment and actual workplace have on transfer of
learning. Understanding of this factor may help change and fill the gaps on factors
that affect learning transfer.
According to Morris and Maisto (2009) the proponent of operant conditioning Skinner
advocates that learning occurs through rewards and punishment. In unpacking the
organisational factors affecting learning transfer this study will test the extent to
which rewards and punishment are encouraging or hindering transfer of learning to
the workplace. Skinner discusses the importance of reinforcements in his law of
conditioning and law of extinction. Understanding environmental factors (reinforcers)
that affect learning and how it is transferred will assist in data collection in this study,
the interpretation of findings as well as outlining the recommendations for
interventions.
The current study is focusing on organisational factors affecting learning transfer and
not inherent personalities of employees. The interest in the behaviourist theory of
how learning takes place is therefore important, Behaviourists believe that change in
behaviour is the only appropriate indicator that learning has occurred thus internal
mental states are impossible topics for scientific inquiry. This study however does
not share the view that internal mental states are impossible to study but that is not
the focus here. Siemens (2008) believes that behaviourism is based on observable
behaviours which make it easy to quantify, collect data and information when
conducting research.
Reinforcement theory as outlined by Noe (2013) suggests that people are motivated
to perform in order to avoid certain outcomes that were associated with the
behaviour in the past. An example is if an employee failed to execute a function and
they were taken through a disciplinary process in future they may not repeat the
same behaviour for fear of punishment. It can be inferred that effectiveness of
learning is dependent on the way in which reinforcers and benefits are provided.
18
Managers’ understanding of reinforcers in the workplace may help to ensure that
learning transfer occurs.
The Expectancy Theory pioneered by Vroom suggests that people views of
perceived outcome determine their level of performance. According to Chen and
Fang (2008) the theory emphasizes individual perceptions of the environment and
subsequent interactions arising as a consequence of personal expectations. It is
important for leaders in the public service to understand this theory as it will help
them create a conducive environment for learning transfer. According to Johnson
(2009) some of the conditions that are said to enhance expectancy include
availability of resources and support required to get the job done accordingly and
rewards. The conditions for enhanced expectancy will be tested in this study to
check if they affect the transfer of learning in the workplace. The Expectancy theory
advocates that certain behaviour is reinforced based on desirable outcomes-
rewards. Merriam and Leahy (2005) found that trainees with positive expectations
are likely to attempt transfer learning from training setting to work setting.
The Equity theory in the workplace first developed by Adams in 1963 may play a
critical role in understanding learning transfer. According to Al- Zawahreh and Al-
Madi (2012) the theory is based on the assumption that individuals need to feel that
they are getting fair rewards for the input they make in the workplace. Ormrod (2011)
highlights that any perceived unequal treatment by employees can de-motivate
employees to transfer skills and perform maximally and in certain instances may
even lead to disruptive behaviour. The Equity theory can be linked with workplace
issues such as salaries, work hours, vacations, and size of jobs and tasks which may
influence employees to think positively about work.
Locke and Latham (2002) in their advocacy for the Goal Setting Theory highlighted
the importance of setting clear goals and receiving feedback. They further suggested
that the Goal setting theory assumes that behaviour reflects conscious intentions
which to a large extent are affected by time. In their attempt to enrich the goal setting
theory Fried and Slowik (2004) found that although organisations initially undermined
the importance of time in goal attainment, time has become a critical factor.
Organisations have recently begun to view time as a scarce and measurable
19
resource which should be controlled and allocated appropriately to enhance
individual and organisational productivity and efficiency. The time factor and how it
can affect employees’ attempts to practise newly acquired skills will form part of this
study. The organisation‘s priorities on affording employees opportunity to learn which
sometimes competes with the need to meet customers’ expectations has from
observation posed practical challenge for learning transfer .
The theories on behaviourism described above provide a variety of variables like
time and outcomes that should be tested when establishing organisational factors
affecting learning transfer. The theories can also provide a base for interpretation of
findings. The instrumental paradigm advocates that behaviours are learned as a
result of their consequences, this implies that employees will only put in practice
what they have learned depending on associated consequences. A challenge for
Managers and HRD Practitioners is to explore the circumstances in the organisation
that were applicable when change in behaviour or learning transfer was
demonstrated. Given the fact that public service employees operate in dynamic
environments it is important to look at other theories that explain employee actions
other than behaviourism and they may include cognitive or social theories which will
be explained below.
2.3.2 Cognitive theories
The cognitive theories unlike behaviourism theories put more emphasis on
conscious thoughts. According to Santrock (2008) and Woolfolk (2007) cognitive
theories include Piaget’s cognitive developmental theory, Vygotsky’s sociocultural
cognitive theory and information processing theories. According to Bhattacharya
(2002) meaningful learning requires knowledge to be constructed by the learner and
not transmitted by the learning facilitator to the learner, they further identified 8
attributes that should exist for learning to take place as intentional, reflective,
contextualised, conversational, complex, collaborative, constructive and manipulative
or active. The information on elements that should exist for learning and transfer to
take place will be valuable during the data analysis and interpretation stage.
20
Johnson and Crowe (2008) provided a review on Tolman as one of the pioneers of
the cognitive theories, who in his study of rats in a maze concluded that learning
involved an understanding about events and their consequences which lead to
purposive goal directed behaviour. It was further highlighted by Johnson and Crowe
(2008) that Tolman popularised the concepts of cognitive maps which highlighted the
importance of employees’ understanding of the relationship between parts of the
environment as well as organisation’s relationship to the environment. According to
Ormrod (2011) and King and Wertheimer (2007) the Contemporary cognitive
perspective which is largely influenced by the Gestalt theory puts more emphasis on
human perceptions, these perceptions and how they influence learning will be
valuable as the respondents and participants in this study will be sharing their own
perceptions of learning transfer.
2.3.3 Social learning and social cognition theory
According to Eggen and Kauchak (2007) Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory
recognised that learning is a precursor to the establishment of behaviour and culture
change. Ormrod (2011) indicated that the theory advocates that people learn through
observation, imitation and modelling. Ormrod (2011) further defined human
behaviour as a product of interaction between environment, cognitive and
behavioural influences. According to Noe (2013) Social learning may allow
knowledge to be transported across organisational jobs, departments and divisions,
which allow employees to learn from mistakes and best practices of others. It allows
learning network which ensures that employees share experiences with one another.
Rosenberg (2001) advocates for direct integration of learning into work processes
such as work, meetings and performance coaching in order for learning transfer to
be more effective. In my observation workplace structures such coaching, mentoring
and job rotation help employees recognise the direct link between learning and job
tasks and may lead to improved understanding and motivation.
The pivotal role connecting past experiences and current problems play in
supporting transfer of learning is a centrepiece of “Common Elements Theory” of
transfer as discussed by Mangal (2007). In his study of identical elements Thorndike
21
found that people transfer learning better when the training environment is similar to
the workplace environment. Some research studies that support the Common
Elements Theory and have found that similarities between the learning situation and
actual work situation for participants resulted in greater transfer of learning Siemens
(2008). Understanding of theories in this study will assist in identifying variables for
research as well as in data analysis and interpretation of findings.
2.4 Learning transfer
Torrey and Shavlik (2009) define transfer of learning as the application of knowledge
and skills gained in one setting (for example classroom setting) to another setting
(for example workplace) that may be similar or differ in terms of subject settings,
people, behaviour and time (open skills). According to Fuller, Munro and Rainbird
(2004) central to transfer of learning is increased knowledge, highly skilled
performance and problem solving that enhances workplace productivity.
Transfer of learning deals with transferring one’s knowledge and skills from one
problem solving situation to another. Lewis, Lange and Gillis (2005) propose that
knowledge embedded with trans-active system helps one to apply prior leaning to
new tasks, understand better the source of all challenges that may arise thereby
enhancing the chances of sustained performance or learning transfer. It can thus be
inferred that transfer of learning is the direct link between what was acquired from
the training room and that which happens in the real world which is performance. It is
the ability to continually apply skills, knowledge and attitudes that were learned in the
training environment to the job environment. Learning transfer is the goal for all
training and learning interventions. The objective of any training initiative is that
learning transfer should occur and training objective is not achieved until learning
transfer from one context to another is realised, for example learning transfer is not
achieved in public service until service delivery improves.
Learning transfer refers to post course application of training, for example whether
learners are implementing what they have learned and are applying it in real life
situations.
22
According to Chiaburu and Marinova (2005) positive expectations that knowledge
and skills acquired during training will be used, encouraged and actively supported
post training have been found to facilitate transfer, whereas perceived negative
expectation has a reverse effect. Santos and Stuart (2003) highlighted that there are
organisational pressures, systems and factors that influence trainees to revert back
to their former work habits and forget about training application. The authors
highlighted the importance of management practices, trainees’ perceptions of work
environment and systems of reward in explaining the change in behaviour post
training. Fried and Slowik (2004) however indicates that learners usually lack time to
effectively utilise new learned skills due to pressure to be productive and this leads
them to revert back to their former way of doing things. Lack of supervisor support
discourages employees to practice new skills.
Kontoghiorghes (2004) is of the view that transfer is more likely to happen when
employees are held accountable for transfer, this can be done through goal setting
and behavioural self-management. Rich, Lepine and Crawford (2010) said that
employees are more likely to use learned skills on the job when they are presented
with skill utilisation objective or an opportunity to determine their own goal in
consultation with the supervisor. Noe (2013) states that self-management involves
identifying obstacles to performance, planning to overcome these, setting goals to
achieve the plans, self-monitoring progress and self-reinforcing goal achievement. It
is said that self-management is perceived to enhance self-efficacy thus increasing
transfer levels. Kontoghiorghes (2005) further found that learning transfer can be
enhanced by the following factors; communication, information sharing, resource
availability time, risk tolerance, opportunity for promotion and information availability.
According to Noe (2013) that lapses remain one of the biggest threats to learning
transfer, it is said that lapses occur when employees use previously learned less
effective methods instead of applying newly trained techniques. Organisational
transfer strategies should include relapse prevention which facilitates the long term
maintenance of newly learned behaviour, by having learners anticipate and prepare
for possible relapse. Subedi (2004) identified factors that can affect learning transfer
as the organisation’s failure to provide support for skills retention, learner’s lack of
23
systematic procedure for identifying and coping with threats to learning transfer
overtime.
Learning transfer is also defined as the degree to which trainees effectively transfer
and apply the knowledge, skills and attitudes gained in the training environment to
the work environment, (Subedi, 2004). Baldwin and Ford (1988) are among the
pioneers of training transfer, they view learning transfer as the degree to which the
trainees effectively apply the knowledge, skills and attitudes gained in training
context to the job.
Learning transfer can be defined in different categories like general transfer, specific
transfer, far and near transfer. General transfer refers to the application of learned
knowledge and skills to a higher level or to a more complex work environment,
Cormier and Hagman cited in Handy (2008).
Near transfer occurs when employees apply what was acquired during training to
situations very similar to those they have been trained on. Far transfer on the other
hand occurs when employees apply training to different situations from the ones in
which they were trained, (Leberman, McDonald and Doyle, 2006). Leberman et al
(2006) identified different categories or features of learning transfer as positive,
negative or Zero transfer. Positive transfer occurs when learning from the training
situation results in better performance on the job or facilitates job performance, and
this is supported by Mestre (2005) who defines positive transfer as the degree to
which trainees effectively apply knowledge, skills and attitudes gained in a training
context to the job.
Negative transfer occurs when learning from the training situation results in poorer
performance in the job or inhibits job performance, (Haskell, 2001). Zero transfer on
the other hand occurs when learning from the training situation has no bearing on
performance, In the South African public service environment zero transfer can be
described as fruitless and wasteful expenditure in line with the Public Finance
Management Act (PFMA). According to Mishra (2008) negative and zero transfer
have detrimental effect on the organisation as it does not produce expected
outcomes and nullifies the investment made by organisations in monetary terms,
24
time wise when time and money is allocated for training and development
intervention. Training that does not result in positive transfer may be categorised as
training for activity instead of training for impact.
Mestre (2005) distinguishes between specific, nonspecific, literal and figural transfer.
Literal transfer involves transferring intact skill to a new learning task whereas figural
transfer involves using own thinking as a tool to think about problems or learning
about a particular issue. The public service environment requires that employees
make use of both literal and figural transfer in order to deal with complex challenges
facing government.
Learning transfer is defined by Holton (2000) as the effective application,
generalizability and maintenance of new knowledge, skills and abilities to the
workplace as a result of undertaking an educational strategy. (Taylor, 2000; Baldwin
& Ford, 1988; and Wexley & Latham, 2002) support the view and indicate that
transfer of learning occurs when prior knowledge or skills affect the way in which
new knowledge is performed. Kirwan (2009) added a new dimension to learning
transfer and said it should be “effective and continuously applied by learners to their
performance overtime”. According to Mahmoud (2005) generalisation refers to the
extent to which trained skills and behaviours are exhibited in the transfer setting and
maintenance refers to the length of time the trained skills and behaviours continue to
be used in the job.
Learning transfer and the success thereof is a business imperative and thus
organisations need to create, promote and support a climate where employees can
positively transfer newly acquired skills, (Holton & Baldwin, 2003). Several authors
refer to learning transfer as transfer of training and in this study the two concepts will
refer to the same and thus will be used interchangeably
There are certain assumptions about how transfer occurs and they are worth looking
at as they might be having an effect on the actual transfer process. Baldwin and Ford
(1988) are some of the pioneers that have studied factors affecting training transfer
and they came up with three categories of factors affecting transfer:
25
Category 1: Trainee characteristics, including ability, personality and
motivation
Category 2: Training design, including strong transfer design and appropriate
content
Category 3: The work environment, including support and opportunity to use.
The definition by Baldwin and Ford (1988) and other researchers like Holton, Bates
and Ruona (2000) recognise the emerging perspective that learning transfer is
multifaceted, complex and can be influenced by a number of factors within the
organisational context and events surrounding training.
The current study recognises the significant role that category 1 (trainee
characteristics) and 2 ( training design) factors play in learning transfer as identified
by Baldwin and Ford (1988) but will focus on Category 3 which is the work
environment as its area of interest. The study moves from an assumption that
category 1 and 2 are adequate. It has been stated by Foxon (1993) that work
environment factors account for 42% of why learning transfer does not occur in the
workplace. If this is true organisation should give dedicated focus into finding out
what are those organisational factors that affect training transfer. In this study the
concepts work environment factors and organisational factors will be used
interchangeably.
Obtaining value for money from training and development interventions is a major
priority, not only for human resource development practitioners but for organisations
that invest money as well and recently it has even become a concern for the ordinary
man on the street as expressed by community members during service delivery
protests.
Effective transfer of learning lies at the heart of effective skill learning, problem
solving and performance. Effective learning by individuals remains the only way in
which change can occur. Broucker (2007) summarises types of transfer into four
segments which are direction of transfer, complexity of transfer, distance and time of
26
transfer. In summary transfer is when acquired knowledge and skills add value that
improves job performance.
2.5 Organisational factors and work environment factors
Researchers like Egan, Yang and Bartlett (2004) and Kontoghiorghes (2001) have
recognised the importance of work environment factors in transfer. In their study
Cheng and Ho (2001) found that more research is still required to understand
organisational factors that affect learning transfer.
Sambrook (2005) advocates that because learning is inherently socially constructed
and contextually embedded (it is subject to influence by the environment), exploring
the contextual factors that may shape employee learning transfer is critical to help
one to understand how learning can be facilitated, encouraged, supported and
nurtured within the workplace. According to Skule (2004) the previous research data
on assessing and measuring the organisational factors that promote or impede
learning transfer at the workplace was not exhaustive therefore the need to explore
the subject further.
Lim and Johnson (2002) propose that contextual factors that may affect learning
transfer include organisational culture, industry factors (for example if the
organisation is a manufacturing or service industry) and company factors (whether
the organisation is a public or private company). According to Ashton (2004),
Dennen and Wang (2002) and Tikannen ( 2002) making time and space available for
learning, furnishing work tools and resources, building a climate of collaboration and
trust and communities of practice , task variation, structures and incentives for
knowledge sharing can enhance learning.
Merriam and Leahy (2005) found that work environment factors may motivate as well
as discourage transfer of learning, for example if there are incentives associated with
transfer of learning employees may make attempts to implement what they have
learned in order to access those incentives. Clarke (2002) acknowledged that there
are a number of variables outside the trainee’s motivation such as training design
and organisational factors that influence the ability to transfer learning. Measuring
27
organisational factors affecting learning separately makes it easier to delineate
specific factors that impact on transfer (Handy, 2008). The current study will focus
only on organisational factors to explore more in that regard.
Transfer learning theorists like Holton and Baldwin (2000) and Rouiller and Goldstein
(1993) define transfer climate as individual or group perceptions and interpretations
of conditions and processes within an organisation that promote or inhibit transfer of
learning efforts, the current study will depend on responses from employees which is
a subject of their own perception. For learning transfer to be successful a lot of
dependences are involved, similar factors can be viewed as inhibitors as well as
promoters depending on circumstances and timing. Organisational factors affecting
learning transfer may include the following:
2.5.1 Organisational Culture
Organisational culture is defined by Kreitner and Kinicki (2001) as a set of shared,
taken for granted implicit assumptions, that a group holds and that determines how it
perceives, thinks about and reacts to various environments. Kreitner and Kinicki
(2001) further indicate that culture is a pattern of basic assumptions invented,
discovered or developed by a given group as it learns to cope with its problems of
external adaptation and internal integration. The South African public service has its
own set of assumptions and perceptions. It is these assumptions and beliefs that
determine how employees respond to transfer of learning for example does the fact
that employees offer what is deemed free service justify their failure to meet
turnaround times.
Harris, Moran and Moran (2004) view culture as accepted and a shared set of
values, norms and attitudes which include group expectation, written and unwritten
rules, relationships, customs or way of doing things, language, time consciousness,
work habits and practices. The question is can culture affect learning transfer, does it
inhibit or encourage transfer? Are employees continually holding on to traditional,
familiar ways of doing things (old habits) due to fear or laziness and is this translating
to poor performance, Clarke (2002) refers to this behaviour as culture resistance and
views it as one of the factors inhibiting learning transfer.
28
According to Conner and Clawson (2004) employees who work in an environment
with a vibrant learning culture and are responsible for own learning and development
adapt quickly and intelligently to changes and perform better which may improve
their service offering. They further indicate that an organisation with a vibrant
learning culture has top management, who are committed, provide managerial
support, tools, environment and resource allocation supportive to learning.
A learning culture is the foundation for a learning organisation, according Marsick
and Watkins (2003). A learning culture assist the organisation to easily anticipate
and adapt to change, be more responsive to market place, have energetic and goal
oriented employees. One cannot help but wonder whether the absence of a learning
culture in the public service is a factor that inhibits employees from meeting the
needs of their clients which may lead to service delivery protests.
Continuous learning culture is defined as “a pattern of shared meanings of
perceptions and expectations by all organisational members that constitute an
organisational value or belief”, (Tracey, Tannenbaum and Kavanagh, 1995, p.241).
Authors who advocated the importance of learning culture include Kontoghiorghes
(2001), Lim and Morris, (2006), and Egan, Yang and Bartlett (2004) concluded that
organisational learning culture impacts on individual ability to transfer learning. They
further highlighted that culture and environment of the organisation can influence the
motivation of employees to transmit newly acquired knowledge to workplace context
for example if the organisation is not receptive to introduction of new ways of doing
things employees will be reluctant to implement what they have learned.
Van der Sluis and Poell (2002) argue that organisations with strong egalitarian
cultures create a set of norms, symbols and beliefs that encourage learning and
innovation. Organisations with egalitarian cultures promote equality, reciprocity and
inclusivity as part of their values. It can thus be proposed that reflective practice may
encourage learning. According to Cornford (2005) workplace culture created by
employers and managers create substantial barriers to effective transfer. Fuller,
Munro and Rainbird (2004) indicate that power relationships in workplace and
workplace culture can be important influences on learning. One of the main
impediments of attaining effective positive transfer is hostile environment; this refers
29
to environments where learning transfer is discouraged and in certain instances
punitive measures taken against learning transfer in a subtle manner.
According to Bates and Khasawneh (2005) learning transfer occurs within positive
organisational culture and psychological climate where learning transfer is
encouraged. Specific norms and shared beliefs need to be included in the learning
vision that the organisation would like to promote for example acknowledging the
need for curiosity, suspending judgement, supporting experimentation, shedding
fears regarding mistakes and failures, reflecting on practice, experience and
performance, being proactive, collaborating and sharing knowledge.
Subedi (2006) in his study of cultural factors and beliefs affecting transfer of training
found that cultural factors and beliefs held by managers, supervisors and employees
could influence the process as well as outcome of transfer of learning in the context
of civil and corporate sector organisations in Nepal.
2.5.2 Social support and organisational climate factors
Tracey et al (1995) refer to organisational climate as a range of characteristics of an
organisation such as policies, reward systems and managerial behaviour to which
employees attach meaning on the basis of their own values, beliefs, needs, and
other individual characteristics. According to Ivancevich, Konopaske and Matteson
(2008) climate can be defined as perceptions of the environment that evolve out of
interaction among organisational members, they further indicated that the
organisational climate is more about the influence exerted on individuals’ behaviour
by some qualities in the work environment and how the individual perceives them .
Organisational transfer climate was defined by Rouiller and Goldstein (1993) as
situations and consequences that inhibit or help trainees to apply skills gained
through training to a job setting. In his examination of transfer climate in
supermarkets Tracey et al (1995) found that managerial trainees who perceived their
transfer climate as positive encouraging improved their performance and where
better able to implement what they had learned.
30
Rouiller and Goldstein (1993) provide a conceptual framework for operationalizing
transfer climate; they identified two components of transfer climate as situational
consequences and cues. Situational consequences refer to the degree to which
employees are rewarded for applying what has been learned in training and includes
positive feedback, negative feedback, punishment and no feedback. Situational cues
on the other hand refer to the extent to which aspects of the situation encourage the
employee to use what was learned during training for example structural cues, task
and goal cues
Social support factors such as management, supervisor, peer and subordinates
support are seen as critical to learning transfer as employees may be encouraged to
believe that they are being provided with an opportunity and reinforcement to
practise skills and use knowledge gained through training, (Noe, 2010).
Bates and Khasawneh (2005) in their conceptual model of training transfer referred
to transfer climate as one of the post training factors impacting on transfer. They
further indicated that transfer climate encompassed aspects of the work environment
such as opportunity to practice what has been learned; reinforcement for applying
what has been learned in training courses. Yamnill and Mclean (2001, p. 203) define
transfer climate as the “mediating variable in the relationship between the
organisational context and an individual’s job attitudes and work behaviour” which
can support or hinder the application of newly acquired knowledge and skills to the
work setting
Subedi (2004) found that environmental cues like overt actions from supervisors and
peers as well as organisational policies and procedures have impact on learning
transfer. They further recommended that the cues should be clearly developed,
systematised and communicated to increase the positive effect. Environmental
transfer elements according to Subedi (2004) include opportunities for application,
necessary equipment and rewards; they further found that other factors such as
scorn from peers, shortage of necessary equipment and unsupportive management
may discourage skills transfer.
31
It was recognised that supportive environment alone could not influence trainees’
use of trained skills. Rouiller and Goldstein (1993) using a sample of managers of
fast food restaurants to study the effect of transfer climate on post training behaviour,
found that transfer climate was not significantly related to learning. Yet an author like
Lim (2001) found that a positive transfer climate encouraged transfer of behaviour in
the job setting
Russ-Eft (2002) argued that contextual factors influence behaviour. In their study “An
examination of Work-Environment support factors affecting transfer of supervisory
skills training to the workplace” Cromwell and Kolb (2004) found that trainees who
reported receiving high levels of organisation, supervisor and peer support, and who
also participated in a peer support network reported higher levels of knowledge and
skills transfer. They further found that trainees highlighted lack of management
support and buy–in as significant barriers to transfer.
Richman-Hirsch (2001) found that the more positive the organisational transfer
climate, for example more supportive context especially feedback and reinforcement
from supervisors the more likely employees will use their skills. Bunch (2007) further
found that the more negative the organisational transfer climate for example task
constraints being overloaded with tasks that have nothing to do with what one has
learned the less likely employees will be motivated to apply what they have learned.
According to Skule (2004) organisational factors conducive for learning transfer
include a high degree of exposure to changes, a high degree of exposure to
demands, managerial responsibilities, extensive professional contacts, superior
feedback, and management support for learning and rewarding proficiency. Lohman
(2000) identified lack of time for learning, lack of proximity to learning resources, lack
of meaningful rewards for learning and limited decision making power as some of the
inhibitors to learning transfer. However in their study Ivancevich et al (2008) maintain
that climate and resources exert the strongest influence on the ability to transfer
learning. According to Rouiller and Goldstein (1993) transfer climate refers to
conditions in the organisation that encourage or prevent the application of what was
learned in training to the job.
32
Bates and Khasawneh (2005) concluded that transfer climate refers to a person’s
perception of their work environment and is a mediating variable for transfer.
Kirkpatrick (1998) believes that for behaviour change to occur a person must be
working in the right climate. Richman- Hirsch (2001) found that trainees who
perceived a supportive transfer climate were more likely to transfer their skills to the
workplace. Lim and Morris (2006) advocate that organisational climate refers to the
collective atmosphere of a workplace created by the attitudes, perceptions and
dynamics that influence how people and organisation perform. Central to definitions
provided is the role played by employees’ perception of their environment and how it
may affect their ability to transfer learning or perform.
According to Broucker (2010) transfer climate can also be passive or neutral. He
further identifies and summarises five types of transfer climates as preventing,
discouraging, neutral, encouraging and requiring. Preventing climate refers to
situation whereupon policies are put in place to ensure that implementation of new
learning cannot easily occur, discouraging climate refers to situations where delaying
tactics may be used to discourage employees from implementing what they have
learned. A neutral environment neither encourages nor discourages learning
transfer. Encouraging climate refers to situations where learning transfer is
supported whereas a requiring climate refers to situations where policies and
processes to ensure implementation of learning are available.
Ward (2008) conducted a study which focused on a leadership development
programme, participants and their ability to transfer what they have learned to the
workplace setting. It was found that competencies from the learning program that
were transferred accounted for 50%- 80%. Organisational climate was found to be
an enhancer to transfer rather than a inhibitor. Burke and Hutchins (2007) and
Gilpin-Jackson and Bushe (2007) found that most studies on inhibiting and
enhancing factors to learning transfer focused on short term training programs rather
than long term training programmes, this study will however focus on both long term
and short term training programmes.
33
2.5.3 Management support
Evidence suggests that the support trainees receive from their managers is probably
the most consistent, powerful and dynamic driver for learning transfer (Baldwin &
Ford, 1988 & Clarke, 2002). Brinkerhoff and Montesino (1995) conducted a research
aimed at exploring the relationship between management support for training and its
transfer in the workplace. They defined management support as specific actions by
direct supervisor in setting expectations for learning and usage of learning on the job
both before and after training delivery. Their hypothesis was that trainees who
received management support will report more training transfer than those who did
not receive pre- training and post training support. They found that trainees who
reported high impact transfer perceived more encouragement and reinforcement
from their immediate supervisors than did participants who reported low transfer. The
study also confirmed that work environment factors such as management support
play an important part in facilitating or hindering transfer.
Cromwell and Kolb (2004) conducted a study that examined the relationship
between four aspects of work environment: organisation support, supervisor support,
peer support and participation in peer support network. 63 frontline staff and 18
managers participated in this study. It was found that trainees who reported receiving
higher levels of organisation, peer, supervisor and peer support network also
reported applying knowledge and skill learned during training. The study also found
that the employees and managers shared the same perception about the impact of
support on transfer.
Brinkerhoff and Montesino (1995) in their study involving 91 trainees found that
trainees who received management support had higher training usage. Ellinger
(2003) found that leadership/ management committed to learning may influence
learning transfer. He further stated that they;
Create informal learning opportunities
Serve as developer (coach and mentors)
Visibly support and make space for learning
Encourage risk taking
34
Instil the importance of knowledge sharing and
Serve as role models, provide positive feedback and recognition.
Ellinger (2003) also identified the characteristics of leadership/ management that
negatively affect learning transfer and they include:
Disrespectful leaders and managers who do not value learning transfer
Managers and Micro leaders who tell what to do
Management who do not make budget available for learning transfer.
Chiaburu, Van Dam and Hutchins (2010) in their study concluded that managerial
support has significantly contributed towards learning; this support may include
mentoring relationships. Axtell, Holman, Unsworth, Wall, Waterson and Harrington
(2000) found that employees with more supportive managers are more likely to have
their ideas implemented. Burke and Hutchins (2007) highlighted the importance of
building a supportive relationship with key executive to create atmosphere conducive
for learning transfer. It is important to note that there is a difference between
management/ leadership support and supervisor support. Employees may have
support of immediate supervisors and yet the management of the organisation does
not support any learning transfer initiative.
2.5.4 Supervisor support
Supervisory factors include positive supervisor support and reinforcement and
negative supervisor responses. Cromwell and Kolb (2004) defined supervisor
support as the extent to which supervisors reinforce and support the use of learning
on the job. In their study Huczynski and Lewis (1980) found that supervisors play an
important role in the training transfer process, they specifically identified supervisor’s
management style and attitude. The study also found that 48% of the research
participants who experimented with newly learned skills had discussed their training
with supervisors. In instances were newly learned behaviour was applied, sustained
and showed beneficial organisational results it was established that the immediate
supervisor demonstrated support for the innovation 70% of the time. The research
35
concluded that the supervisor‘s attitude and management style are crucial for
training transfer to occur.
Baldwin and Ford (1988) found that learning transfer was also more likely to occur
where supervisors were open to new methods of doing things, listened to trainees’
ideas and allowed the trainees the autonomy to experiment. Chiaburu et al (2010)
also found that supervisor attitudes and workgroup support have a direct impact on
the opportunity to perform trained tasks. Holton, Bates and Ruona (2000) found that
when positive reinforcement and praise are used to innovative attempts and
behaviour change after training in the workplace this is likely to result in learning
transfer. He further found that if supervisors display negative reinforcement such as
destructive criticism towards attempts by employees to implement what they have
learned this may discourage learning transfer.
The importance of positive transfer was also noted by Hyde (2010) who found that
trainees were more willing to attempt new things when encouraged by supervisors.
According to Hawley and Barnard (2005) lack of supervisor support may make
transfer of newly acquired skills to the workplace difficult. In their study of four forms
of social support factors (peers, subordinate, supervisor and top management) that
affect learning transfer. Chiaburu and Tekleab (2005) found that employees who
perceived greater support from immediate supervisors reported greater motivation to
attend and learn from training as well as transfer learned skills.
According to Holton and Baldwin (2003) the supervisor‘s role in training transfer is
recognised as the most influential variable as employee attempt to perform in line
with supervisors’ expectations. Holton et al (2000) indicate that supervisors can be
classified as supportive or non-supportive, they further highlight that there are
instances where supervisors actively oppose employees using new learning.
Supervisors have control over resources and can provide rewards and performance
feedback in ways to maintain learning transfer. In her study of supervisor factors and
their relationship to transfer in a sales environment Hyde (2010) found that
supervisor support play an influential role in learning transfer.
36
Supervisory support and reinforcement are demonstrated when the supervisor
recognises and reinforces the use of new skills on the job where managers need to
make tools available, provide time, opportunity and valid feedback on the employee’s
performance including praise or constructive criticism. This can also be
demonstrated when the supervisor sets goals that help employees apply learned
skills. In their study of fortune 200 companies, Brinkerhoff and Montesino (1995)
found that trainees who did not receive support reported lower training usage and
more negative perception regarding the forces mitigating against transfer.
In their study Lim and Johnson (2002) found that the likelihood for transfer was
dependent on work environment and especially supervisor role. Burke and Hutchins
(2007) propose that behaviours such as discussion, participation in training and
feedback from supervisor have a positive influence on transfer. Brinkerhoff and
Montesino (1995) found that individuals who reported higher levels of supervisor
intervention indicated more transfer learning than those who reported lower levels of
supervisor intervention. Baer and Frese (2003) found that employees are more likely
to transfer skills and be innovative in an environment where they feel psychologically
safe. My lifetime observation has made me to conclude that employees tend to look
for peer support when they perceive that there is lack of supervisor sanction or
support for their efforts to transfer learning
Contrary to most of the finding Van der Klink, Gielen and Nauta (2001) found that
there was no convincing evidence to the positive impact of supervisors on learning
transfer.
2.5.5 Peer support
The influence that peer support and peer support networks have on training transfer
is highlighted by the Team Member Exchange Theory as outlined by Summers,
Humphrey and Ferris (2012) and Social Networks Theory as outlined by Kulkarni
(2012). Ping (2010) refers to team member exchange as perceptions that individuals
have of how they relate to peers. The level of interaction of team members is said to
influence the level of performance in the job as the relationship is reciprocal. The
relationship that public service employees have with one another may influence their
ability to transfer learning.
37
Authors who advocated the importance of peer role in learning transfer include
Chiaburu and Marinova, (2005); Hawley and Barnard, (2005) and Jellema, Vischer
and Scheerens, (2006).Peer support refers to the extent to which peers reinforce
and support use of learning on the job. For example, do colleagues encourage the
use of new skills? Co-worker support has been reported to facilitate transfer (Holton,
Chen, & Naquin, 2003; Kontoghiorghes, 2001; and Tharenou, 2001). According to
Bates, Holton, Seyler and Carvalho (2000) peer support is one of the important
predictors of learning transfer.
Support from peers is believed to play a significant role when employees are called
upon to perform complex tasks. McLoughlin (2002) found that employees who
believe they have peer support often reported the ability to transfer what they have
learned. A study by Holton, Chen and Naquin (2003) showed that support from peers
significantly affected perceived learning transfer and employees are more likely to
perform better than those who received supervisor support, whereas Bates et al
(2000) further highlighted that peer support was related to motivation to transfer.
Gitonga (2006) in a study conducted with physicians ( in a large Hospital in US
Midwest region) on their perceptions on transfer of learning from continuing medical
education programs to practise, found that support from peers was important when
integrating learning into practise.
2.5.6 Feedback
The study of Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2002) indicated that trainees receiving
negative feedback resulted in less learning over time than those receiving positive
feedback and also that those who receive feedback make less errors . He further
states that positive feedback reduces anxiety and in my opinion this may lead to
improved job performance.
Rouiller and Goldstein (1993) identified workplace cues that affect the extent to
which training can be transferred. They argue that as employees return to their jobs
from a training event and begin to apply their learned behaviour they will encounter
consequences that will affect their future use of what they have learned and this may
include:
38
Positive feedback- the employee is given positive information about the use of
trained behaviour
Negative feedback-employees are informed of negative consequences of not
using their learned behaviour
Punishment- employees are punished for using trained behaviour
No feedback- no information is given to the employees about the use or
importance of the learned behaviour.
Daffron and North (2006) highlight the importance of feedback of post training as a
factor affecting learning transfer. In a study on transfer of learning from a training
program to workplace setting in the University health care organisation, Myers
(2009) found that feedback and performance coaching were environmental factors
that positively impacted on learning transfer if applied.
2.5.7 Support in the organisation
Various studies identified the four major sources of support as subordinate, peer,
supervisor and top management. The provision of good support from these sources
may help employees to perform to their maximum and thus lead to improved service
delivery. In a study conducted in a call centre setting on a fortune 200 company it
was found by Perez (2006) that managers have no statistical influence in the post
training outcomes. The findings implied that the ability of the employee to transfer
learning has nothing to do with management. Future studies should explore whether
the nature of the industry that one is involved with has influence on management
behaviour for example do mangers in private sector industries behave differently
compared to managers in public sector industry.
In their study Brinkerhoff and Montesino (1995) found that subordinates support can
facilitate learning transfer, the subordinates’ willingness to test new ventures when
introduced after a learning intervention is a form of support that is critical as their
resistance to change may mean no transfer of learning. They also found that strong
relationships among trainees, managers and trainers, prior and post training may
ensure positive transfer.
39
Allen (2007) argues that the reason why learning transfer does not occur is because
organisational leaders have not been intentional in their approach to wisdom
management for example, although most organisations cover the costs for training of
their employees there are no plans set out in advance on how the employee will be
supported to implement what they have learned once they return from training. He
further defines wisdom management as “a planned and systematic process by which
an organisation manages how its employees use and apply their knowledge and
skills in ways that benefit the organisation” Allen (2007, p.391).
2.5.8 Opportunities for transfer
In their study Meyer, Lees, Humphris and Connell (2007) found that participants who
were given a chance to apply their skills in the workplace with coaching from line
managers and competency assessors were better able to transfer learning and were
also able to perform complex tasks. Opportunities refer to ability factors which may
refer to those elements that are present in the work environment which enable
trainees to transfer learning effectively. Baldwin and Ford (1988) found that
opportunity to use tasks learned during training on the job have a direct effect on
transfer. It can be inferred that employees who are not allowed to practice trained
skills on the job lose out on the value and effectiveness of training. In a study
conducted in a federal law enforcement training academy Scott (2010) found that
given opportunity to transfer the likelihood is high that employees will utilise that
offer.
Opportunity can be sub divided into two categories which are: coaching and
opportunities to practice- this refers to instances where employees should be given
time an opportunity to practice skills immediately when returning from practice and
supervisors should coach them accordingly. Opportunity to use on the other hand
refers to the extent to which employees are provided with the necessary resources
and tasks to implement newly learned behaviour. Collings and Scullion (2006) and
Kamoche and Harvey (2006) found that placing people in unfamiliar territories
increases their chances of learning transfer as it may encourage innovation for
example when employees are thrown on the deep end they improvise. Tregaskis
40
(2003) found that the opportunity of employees to network outside their organisation
exposes them to ideas on how to implement their learning differently.
Berthoin Antal (2000) and Kidger (2002) identified expatriates deployment as one of
the mechanisms that encourage learning transfer. Deployment of public servants
form one division within the Departments or deployment to provincial governments
and local government structures may be an avenue to encourage learning transfer.
Findings in the study conducted by MacDonnell, Gunnigle and Lavelle (2010) on
learning transfer in multinational companies indicated that the redeployment of
employees to companies in other countries stimulated transfer of learning and
unearthed innovation.
According to Ali and Magalhaes (2008) time may be one of the factors that affect
learning transfer. In their study they found that employees do not have time to devote
to testing new learning due to work interruption and sometimes increased workload.
Khasawneh, Bates and Holton (2006) found that employees with higher levels of
education have been with the organisation for longer periods and more working
experience perceive learning transfer systems differently for example they perceive
organisation as more open to changes and as providing opportunities for learning.
One however would need to establish the effect of tenure on transfer of learning.
2.5.9 Task constraints
Cheng and Ho (2001, b) in their review of training studies in the past decade
reported that task constraints were negatively, but only marginally related to training
motivation. Daniels, Lauder and Porter (2009, a) and Daniels, Lauder and Porter
(2009, b) found that the overlapping of tasks and multitasking in the workplace can
be a hindrance to successful transfer of learning. In many instances employees
claim their inability to transfer is due to increased workload and this remains one of
the areas that supervisors and managers should look into. Ronen (2008) in the
study on transfer of E- learning in the workplace found that work overload has an
impact on transfer of learning. Khasawneh et al. (2006) found that employees are
more likely to transfer technical training than any other type of training; therefore this
study will attempt to explore more into the role of workload on transfer. It will also
41
seek to establish the type of training that is more likely to be transferred by
employees in the public service.
2.5.10 Openness to change and resistance to change
Openness to change refers to the degrees which employees perceive their
organisation in general and work group specifically to be open to new ideas and
support and invest in change (Donovan, Hannigan & Crowe, 2001). In their study
Bates et al (2000) found that resistance to change negatively affected the ability of
employees to transfer what they have learned. According to Bates and Khasawneh
(2005) the organisational environment that is open to new ideas and supports and
invests in change may facilitate the transfer process.
In their study Ali and Magalhaes (2008) found that no matter how well aligned the
goals of the organisation might be to the training intervention, it is likely to fail if
employees resist change. Employees are likely to resort to previous ways of doing
things if they are faced with a slight challenge in implementing new interventions.
Employees need to embrace change and managers need to support it if
organisations want to realise value from training interventions. Khasawneh, Bates
and Holton (2006) found that employees with lower levels of education are more is of
open to change, have lower levels of resistance to learning transfer and more often
than not believe that training is consistent with their job requirements.
2.5.11 Rewards and positive personal outcomes
Steers, Mowday and Shapiro (2004) established that the Expectancy Theory
provides a good explanation for employees’ motivation or performance behaviour.
The theory infers that employees may transfer learning if their actions lead to some
type of reward. According to and Kontoghiorghes (2004) employees may perform
better if they believe learning transfer will lead to rewards. Positive personal outcome
as described in the Learning Transfer System Inventory (LTSI) model refers to the
degree to which applying learned skills on the job leads to outcomes that are positive
for the individual, for example do employees in the identified organisations receive
“perks” when they utilise newly learned skills on the job.
42
In their study of “factors that motivate business faculty to conduct research”, Chen,
Gupta and Hoshower (2006) found that faculties that gave rewards had more
published articles as advocated by Expectancy Theory. Kontoghiorghes (2001)
suggests that environmental factors such as opportunities for advancement and
rewards encourage transfer. Negative personal outcomes however refers to the
extent to which individuals believe that not applying skills and knowledge learned
during training will lead to outcomes that are negative for example an employee may
not be recommended to participate in team activities for failure to demonstrate
previously learned skills.
Taylor (2000) identified lack of communication between employees and employer,
low morale, an organisation’s lack of commitment to learning and lack of rewards for
knowledge as being specific barriers to learning transfer.
Coutu (2002) found that organisations tend to use “stick” instead of “carrot” to
encourage people to learn which builds resentment and resistance to a learning
organisation. Organisations may have penalties for failure to perform instead of good
rewards for good performance. Sloman (2002) identified the following barriers to
learning transfer in organisations—fear of demonstrating lack of skills, knowledge
and ability, blaming others for poor performance or ability and lack of personal
confidence, learning opportunities, tools and equipment and lack of managerial
support. It is also important to look at the employee’s capacity to deliver should it be
found that rewards and punishment do not negatively affect learning transfer.
In their study Khasawneh et al (2006) found that employees with lower levels of
education are likely to perceive that transfer efforts will result in some kind of
performance improvement which in turn will lead to a desirable outcome like salary
increase. In their study titled the relationship between learning approaches to part-
time study of management courses and transfer of learning to the workplace.
Murphy and Tyler (2005) found that verbal rewards such as praise and
encouragement generally have an enhancing effect on intrinsic motivation which
then results in the learner developing interest in implementation. This survey
instrument will provide an opportunity to further explore this variable.
43
2.5.12 Personal capacity for transfer
The extent to which individuals have time , energy and mental space in their work
lives to make changes required to transfer learning to the job and the question
remains does the workload allow the employee time to practice new skills learned.
Suh (2002), Currie and Proctor (2005) and Hung and Wong (2007) found that job
performance can be enhanced through encouragement of risk taking, supportive
evaluation of new ideas, reward and recognition of creativity and free flow of ideas.
Nair (2007) in a study conducted in Texas on path analysis of relationships among
job stress, job satisfaction and transfer of learning found that a relationship exists
between stress levels, anxiety, job satisfaction and ability to transfer learning.
Organisations should seek to establish the root course as this might assist in
resolving learning transfer challenges.
2.5.13 Organisational structure
In their study of factors influencing learning in European learning oriented
organisations and issues for management, Sambrook and Stewart (2000)
acknowledged that changes in organisational structure and job design supported
development of a learning culture. Researchers like Ashton (2004) and Billet (2001)
have focused on structural factors such as power that may affect workplace learning.
Ashton (2004) found that the learning transfer process is shaped by organisational
decisions and practices, provision and access to knowledge which is influenced by
the position of the employee in the organisational structure.
Some of the structural elements conducive for learning transfer include learning and
development structure, work, communication, information and document
management, reward and recognitions, technology as well as the supervisor.
According to Minbaeva and Michailova (2004) structures like project teams, steering
committees and international boards play a role in learning transfer.
Edwards, Collings, Quintanilla and Temple (2006) found that the size of the
organisation plays a role in learning transfer, Government departments are usually
44
sizeable and this may have an effect on how learning transfer takes place. Edwards
et al (2006) also found that sizeable organisations are most likely to utilise multiple
learning transfer methods. Although most researchers found that the size of the
organisation positively impacted on learning transfer due to availability of resources,
in their study of learning transfer in multi nationals McDonnell, Gunnigle and Lavelle
(2010) could not get data to confirm the hypothesis on impact of the size of the
organisation. Having worked in both small and large organisations observations have
indicated that large organisations provide better opportunities for transfer of learning.
Storck and Hill (2000) found that although knowledge sharing occurs in matrix
structures, unlike hierarchical structures, community structures play a more effective
role in learning transfer as activities across a number of geographical, product and
service divisions occur simultaneously.
2.5.14 Organisational policies and processes
Tacit but effective opposition to effective transfer and learning in organisation comes
not just from managers and owners of organisation but also through policies
established through political processes. There are claims that government policies
sometimes may have unintended negative consequences simply because of failure
to consider implementation issues and practical outcome when policies are drafted.
Cornford (2005) emphasises the need to educate politicians and bureaucrats about
transfer, the importance of learning and how to achieve in order to influence
government culture.
In their study of learning transfer in multinational companies McDonnell et al (2010)
found that the existence of learning transfer policy in an organisation, the use of
expatriate assignments, international project groups, international formal
committees, international informal networks and secondments to other organisations
internationally has an effect on learning transfer. Tregaskis, Glover and Ferner
(2005) argue that the availability of a formal learning transfer policy can serve as an
indicator to employees that transferring what you have learned to the workplace is a
legitimate activity. In their study Tregaskis, Edwards, Edwards, Ferner and
45
Marginson (2010) found that a global organisational learning policy can play a key
role in coordinating learning structures that promote development.
2.5.15 Human Resources unit role
In most organisations the Human Resources unit (HR) is entrusted with the
responsibility of human resource development and thus it plays an influential role in
learning transfer. Tregaskis et al. (2005) and Tregaskis et al. (2010) agree that the
way in which the HR function is organised may be critical in providing organisational
capabilities. Taylor (2006) argues that HR networks may lead to improved efficiency
in learning transfer as HR practitioners share best practises and it influences ways of
doing things in their organisations. The information sharing during the public service
trainers’ forum in my view has succeeded in achieving this goal.
HR policy formulation committees are seen as critical in terms of encouraging the
creation of a conducive environment. The observations made by Tregaskis et al.
(2010) might explain why the South African Skills Development Act has enacted the
establishment of skills development committees in all organisations. Kostova and
Roth (2003), Inkpen and Tsang (2005) and MacDonnell et al. (2010) found that HR
policy and organisational learning policy play a significant role in learning transfer as
they help create a conducive learning environment. The role played by HR unit will
be explored during the semi structured interviews to be conducted with managers.
2.6 Barriers to Learning Transfer
Barriers to learning transfer based on review of different studies by Bates and
Khasawneh (2005), Holton et al. (2000), Lim and Morris (2006), Schilling and Kluge
(2009) and Sun and Scott (2005) include the following:
Lack of reinforcement on the job
Difficulties in the work environment
Non-supportive organisational culture
Learner perception that new skills are impractical
46
Learners discomfort with change
Negative peer pressure
Lack of feedback
Lack of clarified expectation
Lack of tools to do the job
Lack of incentive for example recognition
Lack of supervisor managers’ support
However according Leberman et al. (2006) the Gestalt Theory and Haskell’ General
Theory, transfer of learning can best be accomplished when it meets the needs of
the context. This study seeks to identify barriers to learning transfer so that the
Public Sector can begin to focus on improving service delivery as well as creating
value from training and development investments.
In their study of barriers to implementing E-learning in Kuwait Ali and Magalhaes
(2008) found that organisational barriers may include lack of time costs related to
implementation, language problems as well as the appropriateness of training
content to the organisational needs. Baldwin-Evans (2004) and Bernardez (2002)
found that the organisation’s lack of strategic planning and direction particularly
when there is no alignment with business objectives can affect learning transfer.
Johnstal (2010) found that lack of learning transfer strategies in the workplace acts
as a barrier to transfer. She further found that lack of evaluation programmes by
organisations after training has taken place made employees revert back to previous
behaviour.
Harrell (2006) found that time lapse between training and opportunity to use skills
forms a barrier as the longer the waiting period the likelihood of participants
forgetting what they have learned.
47
In summary Foxon (1994) described the organisational factors affecting transfer in a
diagrammatic representation as follows:
Figure 2.1 Transfer Model, inhibiting and supporting factors
Source: Foxon (1994, p.1)
The concepts as identified in 2.5, 2.6 and the figure 2.1 are summarised below to
create a common understanding of what they refer to in this study although they are
not exhaustive as new concepts may be added after the interview processes.
Unfavourable organisational climate
No obvious application of training
Low motivation to transfer
Perceived lack of supervisor support
Unsure how to use skills
Inhibiting
factors
Organisational
environment
Workplace
Training
environm
ent Intention to transfer
Supporting
factors
Favourable organisational climate
Relevance of training content
Motivation to use the skills
Transfer strategies internalised
Perceived supervisor support
Potential applications identified
48
Feedback/ Performance coaching- formal and informal feedback from the
organisation about an individual’s job performance. The extent to which
employees receive constructive input, assistance and feedback from people in
their work environment (Peers, Employees, Colleagues, Managers) when
applying new skills or attempting to improve work performance.
Supervisor/ manager support- the extent to which manager’s support and
reinforce the use of learning on the job, this may include supervisors clarifying
performance expectations after training, identifying opportunities to apply new
skills and knowledge, setting realistic goals based on training.
Supervisor/ manager sanction- the extent to which individuals perceive
negative responses from managers when applying skills learned in training
Peer support- the extent to which peers reinforce and support use of learning
in the job. This may include patience demonstrated by peers when challenges
or delays are experienced due to difficulties in applying new skills.
Resistance / openness to change- the extent to which prevailing group norms
are perceived by individuals to resist or discourage the use of skills
knowledge acquired in training
Personal outcomes positive- the degree to which applying training on the job
leads to outcomes that are positive for the individual for example rewards like
promotion or salary increase
Personal outcomes negative- the extent to which employees believe that
applying skills learned during training will attract negative consequences for
example reprimands
Opportunity to use training- the extent to which employees are provided with
resources and/ or tasks within the job environment that allows them to use
skills learned during training
49
2.7. Conclusion
In this chapter literature was reviewed on the previous studies that were conducted
with regard to learning transfer and an account was provided of the findings of those
studies. What was critical in understanding organisational factors affecting learning
transfer was the historical appreciation of how learning and learning transfer as
advocated by learning theories like behaviourism, cognition and social learning
theory to mention a few. Understanding of learning theories will assist when
inferences are made in the study during the data interpretation and synthesis stage.
The information and knowledge gathered from the literature review will assist in the
research design and the data collection instruments that will be utilised in Chapter 3.
50
51
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH DESIGN
3.1 Introduction
Learning as a concept and how it is transferred together with organisational factors
that may affect transfer to the workplace were the focus of Chapter 2. Performance
improvement as a result of learning has been a focus of various studies globally and
the South African Public Service remains an area of interest considering the regular
service delivery protests the country is experiencing. Organisational factors that
affect learning transfer were outlined although the list was not exhaustive and this
explains the reason why the study will use semi structured interviews with managers
to establish similar or other organisational factors that affect learning transfer.
This chapter will outline the research design, approach and methodology to obtain
the required data.
3.2 Research design
Research design is the strategy to integrate the different components of the research
project in a cohesive and coherent way. It is a means to structure a research project
in order to address a defined set of questions and it can also be described as a
logical structure of inquiry. Creswell (2009) defined research design as plans and
procedures that span decision from broad assumptions to detail methods of data
collection and data analysis. According to Burns and Grove (2003) research design
involve philosophies and strategies of inquiry that guide a study.
This study is influenced by a pragmatic worldview, this philosophical worldview is
congruent with mixed method. Morgan (2007) and Creswell (2003) highlight the
reasons why pragmatism may be preferred to include the following:
52
More than one philosophy can be used in a study for example in this study
both quantitative and qualitative assumptions are used
It allows individual researchers to choose from a combination of methods and
procedures
It is largely influenced by truth and reality of the time when research is
conducted
The what and how of the research guides the study
Pragmatists acknowledge that research occurs within social, political and
historical contexts
Pragmatic worldview was adopted for this study as it allows the use of multiple
philosophies, data collection methods and data analysis methods.
The study is descriptive, correlational and explanatory in nature as it establishes only
association between variables and not causality, it unpacks the what. A descriptive
study can accommodate both qualitative and quantitative in the same study and thus
is best fit when one is using mixed method. According to (Burns and Grove, 2003) in
a descriptive study there is no attempt made to change behaviour and things are
measured as they present. (Dempsey and Dempsey, 2000) highlight the importance
of new knowledge that descriptive studies can add in the field of study. In this regard
descriptive research will add more information on the organisational factors that
affect public servants when they are required to transfer learning to the workplace.
More information on research design will be presented in the sections on qualitative
and quantitative research design that will follow below.
53
3.3 Research approach
The study adopted a mixed method concurrent triangulation research design
diagrammatically represented below.
Figure 3.1: Concurrent triangulation research design
Source: Own construction guided by Creswell’s presentation at UKZN
Non empirical and empirical research methods were used. The use of empirical
research including qualitative and quantitative methods was guided by lessons
gathered when conducting literature review to assess previous studies that have
been done on factors affecting learning transfer.
A number of frameworks, models and theories have been used to explore factors
that affect learning transfer with some studies using the qualitative research
approach, some using the quantitative approach and others were using mixed
Quantitative
data
collection
Qualitative
data
collection
Qualitative
analysis Quantitative
analysis
Results
comparing
Findings and
proposed
interventions
Procedure
Product
Procedure
Product
Statistical analysis- descriptive/ factor analysis
Survey (questionnaire)
Numeric
data
Factor
structure
Semi structured interviews
Thematic analysis
Text
data
Themes
54
method approach. Eisenkraft (2003) used the 7E model to try and understand factors
affecting learning transfer, the 7E model attempts to understand learning transfer
from eliciting, engaging, exploring, explaining, elaborating, evaluating through to
extending. Holton and Baldwin (2003) used the LTSI framework to explore factors
affecting learning transfer. Mouton (2001) proposes that to satisfy the need of any
study or research project an appropriate methodology has to be selected and
suitable data collection and analysis have to be chosen. This study although
influenced by LTSI included other variables as part of organizational factors affecting
transfer.
3.4 Mixed method approach
The traditional approaches, qualitative and quantitative approaches have strengths
and limitations. This study will therefore utilise the mixed method approach. A mixed
method approach also lends itself as a form of triangulation, which implies that
techniques are used in parallel sense thus providing overlapping information, making
it possible to check results from more than one viewpoint (Creswell, 2008). A mixed
method research design is said to represent research that involves collecting,
analysing and interpreting quantitative and qualitative data in a single study or in a
series of studies that investigate the same underlying phenomenon (Onwuegbuzie &
Leech, 2004).
Collins, Onwuegbuzie and Sutton (2006) proposed four reasons for mixing
qualitative and quantitative approaches as firstly enhancing the significance of data
when interpreted, secondly participant enrichment as it widens the diversity of the
sample, thirdly instrument fidelity as more than one instrument is used to gather data
and fourthly treatment integrity
Collins et al (2006) provided a framework on why mixed methods should be utilised
in research studies and they included:
Complementarity when reporting results which enhances the value of the
study
55
Opportunity to reframe research questions which can be picked up at initiation
stage should contradictions be identified
Using results from one study to inform the other if methods are not used
concurrently which means mixed method can be developmental in nature
The breadth and range of the study can be expanded by application of more
than one method
Triangulation can be achieved by corroborating findings from both quantitative
and qualitative methods.
Mixed method design uses both inductive and deductive scientific methods, has
multiple forms of data collection and produces eclectic and pragmatic reports. In
studying the factors affecting learning transfer in the public service it is important to
use mixed method for the following reasons:
Public Service represent complex organisations
Mixed method enhances the strength of the research
Comprehensive analysis of research problem
The use of mixed methods will ensure that the problem is researched from
both perspectives (qualitative and quantitative)
The usage of different approaches will help confirm data accuracy,
complimenting results from one type of research with the other.
The mixed method research was appropriate for this study as it can neutralise or
cancel out some of the disadvantages and limitations of both qualitative and
quantitative methods when applied separately (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). The
data collection happened concurrently and data was integrated. As the word
concurrent triangulation explains qualitative and quantitative data collection
happened simultaneously. The questionnaires were distributed at the same time
when semi structured interviews were conducted. The quantitative data analysis was
be done by University of Johannesburg.
56
3.5 Philosophical foundations of mixed method
According to Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) the general characteristics of
pragmatism include:
The recognition of the existence and importance of natural or physical world
and how it is influenced by language, culture, and subjective thoughts
(perceptions)
The recognition of the role of the organisation as a human institution, and
Rejects traditional dualism and adopts more moderate philosophical dualism
of solving problems, preferring action rather than philosophising
Endorses eclecticism and pluralism- different and conflicting theories and
perspectives can be useful
Instrumental truths are a matter of degree
Provisional truth- views current truth, meaning and knowledge as tentative
and changing overtime
Perceptions of employees in the public service on organisational factors affecting
learning transfer are the centre of this study and the utilisation of mixed method was
viewed as suitable for the study. The mixed method design will be outlined in detail
below and has been divided into two sections for ease of replicability of the study
and to provide a systematic account of methodology that was followed. Section 1 will
unpack the qualitative design and Section 2 the quantitative design.
3.6 Section 1: Qualitative research design
3.6.1 Research approach
The qualitative approach is grounded in the interpretive social sciences paradigm
and it tends to be biased on recognition of the importance of a subjective,
experiential worldview (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011). Since qualitative reports
are not presented as statistical summation but rather adopt a descriptive, narrative
style they become particularly beneficial to practitioners, (Johnson and
Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Creswell (2003) identifies the limitations of qualitative research
57
as the time required for data collection, analysis and interpretation as well as the
problem of adequate reliability and validity, because of the subjective nature of data
and its origin in single contexts. The current study is not longitudinal in nature and
will be conducted in one public service department.
3.6.2 Advantages and disadvantages of qualitative approach
Qualitative research is valuable in that it helps one to understand the nature of the
research problem from the people who have direct experience or have observed a
phenomenon, Berg (2007). The approach is effective in obtaining perceptions about
events and social contexts from specific populations.
According to Berg (2007) and Tewksbury (2009) advantages of the qualitative
approach include:
It is naturalistic – it occurs in the natural environment of the participant
Its ability to provide complex and yet detailed outlines of how people
experience the research problem
The ability to identify intangible factors which may not be readily apparent
It is not mechanistic and thus allows an opportunity for the human side to
surface
It is explorative in nature
Provides a holistic perspective
Follows an interpretive and rational approach
The disadvantages of the approach may include:
According to Denzin and Lincoln (2005) qualitative methods are faced with three
challenges which are praxis, representation and legitimation. Praxis requires mutual
collaboration between researcher and community is action oriented and longitudinal
in nature. Legitimation refers to the ability of the method to address issues of
generalizability, reliability and validity and representation refers to the level of
58
accuracy to which the researcher is able to capture data that was received as well as
to interpret it accordingly. The disadvantages include:
Its limited ability to be generalised
Data overload can be created by open ended questions and may take longer
to analyse
Transcribing of recorded interviews can take longer and thus delay finalisation
of the research project
It is difficult to determine the influence the presence of the interviewer had on
the participants
It is sometimes seen as more subjective than objective
Difficult to determine validity and reliability of data
3.6.3 Population and sampling
Population selection and sampling in qualitative studies is guided by the research
objectives. Various sampling methods like purposive, quota and snowballing
sampling can be used however for this study purposive sampling was used.
The sampling size as outlined by Bartlett, Kotrlik and Higgins (2001) is determined
by the research question and as study plans for qualitative research are iterative and
flexible the sample size may change with the unfolding of the research.
Three broad approaches to qualitative sampling have been identified by Marshall
and Rossman (2011) as convenience sampling involving selection of most
accessible subjects, theoretical sampling which is based on theory to be developed
and largely implemented when doing grounded theory and the judgement sampling.
In this study judgement sampling was utilised. Judgement sampling which may also
be referred to as purposeful sampling involve a process whereby the researcher
actively selects the most appropriate sample to answer the research question. It
further involves the development of framework based on variables the researcher
would like to establish, the sampling strategy and it is also highly influenced by the
knowledge the researcher has on the subject.
59
A framework was developed of variables that needed to be established in this study
and it included inviting managers from various branches of the department so that
the data can be representative of the manager’s perspectives on organisational
factors affecting transfer. The sample included managers from core as well as
support functions of the organisation. A total of 5 participants were invited to
participate in the semi structured interviews.
The strategy was deliberate to target relevant managers. Judgement sampling to be
specific was used to determine managers to participate in the study.
3.6.4 Data gathering method
Semi structured interviews were utilised to gather data. In this study the researcher
chose to use semi structured interviews as opposed to observations because they
are low cost and can be done within short times considering that this is not a
longitudinal study, therefore semi structured interviews were seen to be the best
alternative. The advantages for using semi structured interviews are that difficult
questions can be clarified, provides an opportunity for researcher to guide the
interview as well as probe whenever necessary (David & Sutton, 2004; Gray, 2004).
Semi structured interviews also offered the researcher an opportunity to observe
non- verbal cues. Semi structured interviews as a data collection method has both
advantages and disadvantages and various authors have discussed this like Gray
(2004), Heaton (2004), David and Sutton (2004), and Corbetta (2003).
Hockey, Robinson and Meah (2005) define a semi structured interviews as a flexible
interview which does not follow a formalised list of questions, instead the researcher
has a list of general topics, called an interviewee guide. This way of data collection
was chosen because it permits a two way communication, both interviewer and
interviewee can ask each other question. Semi structured interviews also allow for
exploration of emergent themes and ideas rather than relying on concepts and
questions defined in advance for the interview.
60
Advantages of semi structured interviews are:
Provide opportunity for prompting and probing deeper on the topic
Possibility of good return rate
Inclusive of participants who cannot write
Participants are specifically targeted (purposeful sampling)
Can be used for sensitive topics
Provide an opportunity to observe non-verbal cues (expression of feelings
During the interviewing process the researcher enjoyed the opportunity to ask follow
up questions something which could not be done with the questionnaires.
The ability of the researcher to implement the interviewing technique assisted in
steering the discussion to a moderate extent.
Disadvantages of semi structured interviews
Limitations of the method which were identified by (Gray, 2004; Kajornboon, 2004)
include:
Participants/ respondents being reluctant to answer if they consider the
question personal or sensitive/ confidential
Participants providing answers that they think the researcher wants to hear
in an attempt to shorten the interview time
Unavailability of participants to be interviewed due to busy schedules
Less seasoned interviewers may not prompt or probe deeper on topic
Participants may not be open to discuss especially if the conversation is
being recorded (trust issues)
Time consuming and may be resource intensive
The researcher experienced challenges with regard to gaining access to participants
due to their busy schedules and to some extent this delayed the finalisation of the
data collection process.
61
3.6.5 Ethical considerations
History has overtime highlighted the importance of ethics when conducting any
research project. According to Orb, Eisenhauer and Wynaden (2000) the relationship
between the researcher and the participants should be guided by the below
mentioned principle:
Respect for persons, this principle requires that participants be treated with dignity,
their autonomy be respected and that they should be protected from exploitation.
The principle of beneficence which outlines the benefits that accrue to participants
and the minimisation of risks that may be incurred is one of the principles that were
considered when planning this research project. Justice as a research principle is
very important and this refers to fairness as well as the contribution that the research
project will provide in participant’s lives.
In the planning and execution of the research project ethical issues to anticipate
were identified and strategies were developed to mitigate against them. The study
was presented to the faculty research proposal approval committee during the
research proposal stage. The role of the committee among other things is to ensure
that the study conforms and adheres to the ethical considerations of academic
studies and to guard against the violation and marginalisation of participants’ rights.
It was proposed at this stage by the committee that a pilot study be conducted so
that areas of marginalisation can be detected and validity of the instrument can be
determined prior to full implementation of the study
To establish trust and to assure participants that they are not being deceived a letter
was supplied by the University as proof that permission was granted for the study to
be conducted in fulfilment of a Master’s programme (see Appendix A– letter form
UJ). A cover letter outlining the purpose of the study was issued to participants to
ensure that they feel at ease.
During the data collection process an informed consent form was issued to
participants to sign before they engage in the study (see Appendix B- informed
consent sample). An informed consent is a tool for ensuring that participants fully
understand and make conscious decision to participate in the research project.
62
According to Creswell (2003) a well-designed consent form should include the
following elements:
The purpose and nature of the study and how it may affect them
How the study will be conducted- procedures to be followed
The right to participate and withdraw from the study
The right to ask questions and have their privacy respected
Benefits from the study that the individual may gain if applicable
Opportunity to sign off on the document
How confidentiality will be dealt with and
What is expected from the research participant.
The permission was sought from the gatekeepers. A letter was written to the
Department to provide the researcher with access to participants (see Appendix C-
letter to department requesting permission to conduct research- the name of the
department has been removed to protect their identity). Participants were reassured
of confidentiality and non-disclosure of information shared with their superiors.
During the analysis and interpretation of data anonymity of individuals was protected
and their names were never revealed but instead the researcher referred to them as
participants 1 to participant 5. The name of the department were data was collected
from was never referred to in the study.
The analysed data will be safely kept for duration of five years and will only be
accessed by the researcher when required to do so as a password will be required to
access data.
During the research writing process the researcher will not deliberately falsify or
suppress information that was gathered through interviews. Neuman (2000)
proposes that falsifying and suppressing information should be considered
misconduct.
63
3.6.6 Qualitative data analysis
Data analysis is viewed by Punch (2005) as a non-linear and recursive process
characterized by noticing, collecting and thinking. Qualitative data analysis involves
words, observations and numbers. It is said that there are no prescribed post
positivist ways to analyse qualitative data. In this study thematic content data
analysis technique was used. The thematic content analysis involves the
identification of common themes and should be done from an objective
epistemological stance. A theme refers to a cluster of linked categories carrying
more or less similar meaning and reached through the inductive analytic process
which is reflective of a qualitative paradigm.
Braun and Clarke (2006) referred to thematic analysis as a method for identifying,
analysing and reporting patterns (themes) within data”. Charmaz (2006) refers to
“theme” as the description of elements from text or data in an integrated and
relational manner.
Thematic content analysis (TCA) technique was chosen as it was best suited to the
research question. By its nature TCA is also good for exploratory studies and this
makes it easier for people less knowledgeable in a particular research topic to use it.
A combination of thematic and content analysis was used as it allows for more
discursive interpretation of individual codes and yet allows for predefined mutually
exclusive categories that can be used to test a hypothesis. Considering that this is a
mixed method study the ability to use the TCA technique is important for
triangulation.
The following steps were followed as part of the data analysis process:
Preparation of data
Data was collected and recorded using tapes. A summary of notes was also taken
during the interviewing process just to provide cues. Note taking was kept at a
minimal level to avoid losing eye contact with participants and to increase an
opportunity to observe non-verbal cues. The data was transcribed into text verbatim.
Open coding
64
Major issues from the primary material were noted in order to acquire a sense of
various topics from the data. Data was grouped to reduce the number of categories
by collapsing those that are similar or dissimilar into broader higher order categories.
Also referred to as substantive coding this is the first step were data from field notes
is compared, modified and sharpened. Open coding includes labelling concepts,
defining and developing categories based on their properties. In this study pen and
paper coding was done and no software’s like Saturate and Atlas.ti were used.
The coding system assisted in the creation of descriptive, multiple categories that
provided a framework for analysis.
Sorting
Items relating to similar topics were sorted into categories or proto themes. This
stage relates to a process wherein themes begin to emerge. It is a fluid process and
categories can be modified and developed or even clustered
Initial definition of proto themes
Provisional names were created for the emerging themes
Axial coding
Each theme was considered and re-examined in relation to original data to check
against any contradictions and possible oversight that may be caused by selective
human perception
Construction of final themes
Final themes were constructed as will be demonstrated during interpretation and
synthesis in chapter 5.
65
3.7 Section 2: Quantitative research design
3.7.1 Research approach
The quantitative approach is grounded in the social sciences paradigm, which
reflects the scientific method of the natural sciences (Creswell, 2008). This paradigm
adopts a deductive approach and its main strength is precision and control. Punch
(2005) however identified the quantitative approach’s limitation as the fact that it
denigrates human individuality and ability to think. Gilbert (1993) argues that its
mechanistic ethos tends to exclude notions of freedom, choice and moral
responsibility. Quantification can become an end in itself rather than a human
endeavour seeking to explore the human condition. Punch (2005) indicates that the
quantitative approach fails to take account of the unique ability of people to interpret
their experiences, construct their own meanings and act on them.
3.7.2 Advantages and disadvantages of quantitative approach
The advantages and disadvantages of this approach according to Neuman (2005)
can be summarised as follows:
The advantages include:
Emphasis on testing of hypothesis and verification
Focus on facts
Logical and critical approach
Controlled measurement
Objective outsider, distant from data
Deductive
Result oriented
Generalizable results
Reductionist philosophical foundation
Study plan stepwise
The disadvantages of the approach include:
The results are limited as they provide numerical rather than narrative data
66
Provide less elaborate accounts of human perceptions
Preset answers may not necessarily reflect how respondents really feel about
the subject
The development of standard questions by researchers may lead to structural
bias and false representation largely reflecting the researcher’s views
3.7.3 Location of respondents
The study will focus on employees in the Public Service with specific focus on a
National Government Department, whose name has been withheld as per
agreement when approval for data collection was granted. There was no particular
reason for the department in question to be chosen for data collection.
The Department has a population of 3000 employees in total. The Department has 6
divisions, with staff in both national as well as in provincial offices. The respondents
to the study were based at national office only. By its nature descriptive studies
offers an opportunity for large quantities of employees to participate in a study,
however as this study is not a census it was not be possible for all employees to
participate.
3.7.4 Sampling
A sample is a finite part of statistical population whose properties are studies to gain
information about the whole (Creswell, 2009). Sampling is a processor technique of
selecting a sample that allows one to draw conclusions about a population, Jupp
(2006). Random sampling will be used in this study and Stratified random sampling
involves selecting individual units to measure from the population. Random sampling
is also referred to as probability or chance sampling will be used to determine
respondents to the survey questionnaire. It is important in this study to use random
sampling as it gives every employee an equal opportunity to participate in the study
A sample of 150 respondents was invited to participate in this study using stratified
sampling. In this study groups of employees who have been exposed to a training
67
intervention participated as part of the strata that was used. The researcher
requested from the Human Resource Division of the Department a list of employees
who have attended training interventions in the past 24 months. The size of the
population was large enough to enable for valid inferences. According to Bartlett et al
(2001) some researchers base sample size on the margin of error that can be
tolerated or precision required of estimates
Fincham (2008) indicated that at least 80% of the face to face interviews may be
deemed as good response rate, whereas 60% - 70% of response rate for
questionnaires may be deemed as good response rate. 150 questionnaires were
distributed and the researcher received 90 questionnaires back, the response rate
can be deemed good as it translate to 60% response rate.
The target population of 150 respondents was decided on to help minimise the
likelihood of biasness that is usually associated with small populations. The results
or findings of the study were not gender biased as there was also a fair
representation of both males (42.6%) and females (57.4%). In general sample size
decision must be made on a case by case basis, considering a variety of goals to be
achieved by a particular study especially issues of research design. If there is
complete homogeneity a small sample size would be sufficient whereas a larger
sample would be required if there is wide heterogeneity.
3.7.5 Research tool
Data collection is a critical step in the research process. According to O’Leary (2004)
data collection is not an easy process and may be complex, however he also
highlights that no data collection method is better than the other. It is important to
note that the suitability of the data collection method will be largely influenced by the
research goal although time and availability of funds may also influence the choice of
data collection method. The researcher used survey questionnaires which were
distributed to respondents to collect data. The researcher developed a survey
questionnaire— (see appendix D).
68
According to Mitchell and Jolley (2010) the survey instrument which is a
questionnaire has both advantages and disadvantages which can be outlined as
follows:
Advantages of questionnaires
The results of the questionnaire can usually be quickly and easily quantified
by either a researcher or through the use of a software package
The distribution or administration of the questionnaire can be carried out by
the researcher or by a number of people with limited affect to its validity and
reliability
Large amounts of information can be collected from large number of people in
short period of time and in a relatively cost effective way
Can be analysed more scientifically and objectively in comparison with other
forms of research
When data has been quantified , it can be used to compare and contrast other
research and measure change
Disadvantages of the questionnaire
Makes it difficult to observe respondent’s non-verbal cues like changes in
behaviour
Open to misinterpretation of concepts by respondent if they do not understand
questions as no explanation is provided
The researcher may not know whether the questionnaire was completed by
targeted audience or not
Closed ended questions do not provide the opportunity for respondents to
justify their responses in writing
The researcher and her supervisor consulted University of Johannesburg to discuss
and request for guidance on whether the survey questionnaire can be analysed.
According to Wegner (2000) a questionnaire as a survey instrument must be clear
and unambiguous. When drafting the questionnaire the following factors were
considered:
69
The questions were guided by the objective of the study
The questionnaire was divided in two sections. Section 1 was on demographic
information guided by the nature of research.
Section 2 dealt with organisational factors affecting learning transfer and was
further subdivided into 2 subsections.
Subsection 1 dealt with the extent to which employees were affected by the
hypothetical organisational factors and subsection 2 dealt with the frequency
at which the organisational factors occurred.
The questionnaire was largely guided by the LTSI, however LTSI could not be
automatically adopted for this study as it also includes trainee characteristics
and training design. The focus for this study was only work environmental
factors that affect learning transfer.
The following guidelines were followed when constructing the questionnaire
(appendix D)
Questions were one dimensional, there were no double barrelled questions
The questions were formulated such that there were no escape routes for
example no options for “no comment” or “don’t’ know”.
The language used was straight forward
The questionnaire was piloted and submitted to Statkon to determine its validity. Van
Teijlingen and Hundley (2001) refer to a pilot study as a mini version or trial run done
in preparation for a major study. They further view a pilot study as pre testing of a
research instrument. In this study the piloting process was basically the pre testing of
the adequacy of the survey instrument as well as the feasibility of a full scale study
During the pilot study the Researcher followed the same data collection as in the full
scale study as the questionnaire was administered by department representative and
not the Researcher. According to Peat, Mellis, Williams and Xuan (2002) some of the
value of conducting pilot studies include:
An opportunity to eliminate questions that are not necessary
An opportunity to revise ambiguous questions
An opportunity to establish if responses can be interpreted
70
30 questionnaires were submitted to Statkon for the pilot. Feedback from Statkon
recommended that changes and adjustments be done on the questionnaire. In line
with recommendations from Statkon changes were done and questionnaire was
deemed appropriate for use.
3.7.6 Quantitative data analysis
Descriptive analysis was used to analyse data collected through the questionnaires.
The rationale for choosing descriptive statistics is that it has added immeasurably to
our knowledge of the shape and nature of society as good description helps us
determine the facts and dimensions of the phenomenon. It provides a basic premise
for action. Factor analysis which is a subset of descriptive analysis was used to
analyse data. Field (2000) describes factor analysis as a correlation matrix in which
inter-correlations between the studied variables are presented. In this study
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was used. The research hypothesis in this study
is that organisational factors such as organisational processes and systems,
supervisor support and organisational culture hinder the ability of employees to
transfer learning.
The EFA was done by Statkon as all the data from the questionnaires was provided
to them. According to Field (2005) EFA is suitable in instances where a large number
of variables are to be measured. It attempts to bring inter-correlated variables
together and data is analysed using multivariate statistical techniques. It is important
for summarising overall behavioural characteristics and the uniqueness of individual
observation. The goal as indicated by Habing (2003) is to reduce the dimensionality
of the original factors by interpreting new dimensions using latent factors. In this
study an attempt will be made to analyse organisational factors following the EFA.
Below is an outline of the value and objectives of EFA as described by Williams,
Onsman and Brown (2010).
It reduces a large number of variables into smaller set of variables
It establishes underlying dimensions between measured variable and content
constructs thereby allowing for the formation and refinement of theory
71
Provides constructs validity evidence of self-reporting scales
The objectives of EFA
To reduce the number of variables
Examine structural relationship between variables
Detect and assess the uni-dimensionality of theoretical constructs
Evaluate the construct validity of a scale or instrument
Develop a simple analysis and interpretation
Address multi-collinearity
Prove or disprove proposed theories
Assumptions when using EFA according to Williams et.al (2010) include:
Data is at interval level and normally distributed (linearity – regression), unlike
dichotomised data used for Principle confirmatory analysis (PCA). Nominal or
ordinal data should not be used
There should be no specific error in the model and this may refer to deliberate
exclusion of relevant variables from analysis or inclusion of irrelevant
variables in the model
There should be sufficient sample size upon which to form base of the
analysis
Thompson (2004) proposes that one should develop a step by step guide to be
followed when implementing EFA and this include:
Examination of data (is the data suitable for analysis?)
Preliminary analysis and diagnostic test
Factor extraction- how will factors be extracted
What criteria will assist in determining factor extraction
Factor rotation- selection of rotation method
Interpretation and labelling
Use of factors in other analyses
72
EFA is Heuristic in nature and the researcher has no expectation of the number and
nature of variables as this study is also exploratory. Field (2000) however provides
criteria for the factors to be retained when conducting data analyses and they
include:
Retaining of only those factors with Eigen value larger than 1
Keeping factors which in total account for about 70-80% of the variance
Making a screen plot and keeping all factors before the breaking point or
elbow
Sample size is said to be important when considering communalities
EFA as data analysis method has its own shortfalls and the following criticisms are
levelled against it:
The results can be subjective
Decisions about number of factors or rotational schemes are pragmatic rather
than based on theoretical criteria , (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007)
EFA is sequential, linear yet has a complex statistical approach involving
several options
There is no consensus on the sample size that is suitable, Hair, Anderson, Tatham
and Black (1995) propose 100 respondents whereas Sapnas and Zeller (2002)
indicate that 50 respondents are sufficient. In this study correlation matrix as
advocated by Henson and Roberts (2006) will be used. The questionnaire in this
study was distributed to 150 respondents, with a total of 42 questions that
respondents were required to complete.
3.8 Research procedure
The Researcher submitted letters to Divisional Heads within the identified
Department requesting approval to conduct the research. The letters served as a
point of entry for the researcher to introduce herself. Telephonic arrangements were
73
made as follow up to organise appointment with the head of divisions or their
delegate if such decisions were made from the Divisional side.
The divisional heads assigned contact people who would assist the researcher with
the logistics. Logistics of how the data gathering process would unfold was
discussed during the set appointments and a timeframe was allocated when data
gathering should be finalised. An agreement was reached that the researcher should
supply the questionnaires and the divisional contact person would distribute them. It
was further agreed that with regard to semi structured interviews with managers that
the researcher should write e- mails or telephonically contact managers to request
for appointments and a list containing managers with their titles and contact details
was supplied to the researcher.
The interviews were conducted in the respective divisions within the Department
and request for appointments were made 2 weeks in advance. Employees based in
regions were deliberately excluded from participating in the semi structured
interviews in order to reduce costs of the study as the researcher would not have
funds to visit all the 9 provinces.
The researcher developed an interview guide as the study followed the semi
structured interview. Appointments were set with the 5 participants two weeks in
advance. The interviews were conducted in the offices of the managers who were
interviewed and this supported the advantage of using qualitative approach which
advocates for minimum interruption with the natural environment. The interviews
were conducted within a minimum of 45 minutes each while some lasted an hour.
The researcher, after introducing herself and outlining the purpose of the study,
requested approval to use an audio recorder and consent was granted. Note taking
was done during the interviewing process using short hand. This would have been a
good back up plan should technical glitches have been experienced during audio
recording. Letters thanking participants were sent after the interviews
74
3.9 Reliability and validity
Reliability refers to the extent to which scales produce consistent results when
repeated at a later stage under similar conditions, Malhotra (2004). Cronbach’s alpha
was used to determine the extent of agreement between respondents for each
dimension. A higher score indicated a higher reliability with the range from 0-1.
According to Golafshani (2003) validity may be viewed as the extent to which a
particular measure is free from both systematic and random error, The Kaiser Meyer
Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.851 which is above 0.5 this
meant that the data was adequate for analysis. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was
1093.8.
3.10 Conclusion
This chapter focused on the research design and the methods which were utilised to
collect data. As the study is a mixed method study the data collection was done
concurrently. The advantages and disadvantages of both qualitative and quantitative
were outlined before providing detail regarding the approach and the process. In
chapter 4 the findings of the unstructured interviews and responses from the
questionnaire will be presented.
75
CHAPTER 4
THE MAJOR RESEARCH FINDINGS
4.1 Introduction
In chapter 3 a detail account was provided of the research design, the research
instruments and the data collection procedures that were utilised. This chapter will
focus on data analysis and discussion of findings and results from both qualitative
and quantitative data collection methods. The presentation of findings will be done
in two sections; section 1 will deal with presentation of findings and section 2 with
presentation of results. It is important to contextualise the discussion of findings and
results with the research question and the objectives of the study and a summary of
the research questions and research objectives is provided below.
4.2 The research questions
The questions which were stated in Chapter 1 are:
What are the organisational factors that are hindering/inhibiting employees to
transfer learning into the workplace?
Is there is a link between the organisational context and transfer of learning?
To what extent do organisational factors affect learning transfer?
What are the challenges that employees are facing that affect them in
transferring what they have learned?
4.3 Research objectives
The main objective of the study was to identify and describe organisational factors
that affect learning transfer in the South African Public Service
The sub objectives were:
76
To establish organisational factors that are hindering or inhibiting employees
to transfer learning into the workplace
To establish if there is a link between the organisational context and transfer
of learning
To determine the extent to which organisational factors affect learning
transfer
To identify the challenges that employees are facing that affect them in
transferring what they have learned
The results presented will provide the responses provided by both participants during
semi structured interviews and respondents to the questionnaires that were
distributed.
4.4 Section 1: Qualitative findings
In chapter 3 it was indicated that semi structured interviews were conducted. A total
of 5 participants were interviewed for this study and they were all at middle
management level. The interviewed candidates were of mixed gender (male and
female). Managers from Human Resources as well as line function units of the
Department were interviewed. The objective for interviewing managers from Human
resources and line function units was to increase the possibility of fair representivity
and inclusivity of different perspectives.
4.4.1 Participants profile
Participant 1- female, has worked for the department for five years
Participant 2 – male, has worked for the department for 5 years
Participant 3- male has worked for the department for 10 years
Participant 4- male, has worked for the department for 9 years
Participant 5- female has worked for the department for 8 years
77
4.4.2 Participants responses
5 participants were interviewed and the researcher was guided by an interview guide
as these were semi structured interviews. Semi structured interviews allows for
flexibility and probing where necessary and they were not necessarily asked in
sequence but as follow ups in situations where the interviewees had not volunteered
information upfront.
The findings as outlined below only provide a snapshot of how participants
responded to questions posed to them during the interview. More details will be
provided during the interpretation of the findings in chapter 5.
1. Do you think employees are implementing what they have learned after exposure
to a training intervention?
Table 4.1: Ability to implement post training
Participant Response
Participant 1 No, employees are not implementing what they have learned the
reason being they have no resources
Participant 2 I think maybe out of 100% maybe 25-30% are implementing what
they have acquired from learning programmes
Participant 3 Government is focusing on generic training and not on job specific
training. People from different areas of the organisation are trained
on one and the same field, that is why because training is not
directly related to the strategic objectives of a particular component.
43% of the organisation where there is job specific training is
implementing what they have learned.
Participant 4 That is a very difficult one, lack of approved policies and role clarity
in the department makes it difficult for one to tell whether learning
transfer is taking place or not. In one year we were subjected to four
managers
78
Participant 5 No, Employees at lower levels do not have implementation manuals.
People were just taken from this function, this branch and the
experience they have mismatched.
2. What role do Departmental policies and procedures play in the ability of
employees to transfer learning?
Table 4.2: Role of policy and procedures
Participant Response
Participant 1 They play a role, they are mentioned here and there, but funding is
not made available. It starts with performance management system,
people have their personal development plans and they review
thereafter
Participant 2 Performance management system in the organisation allows for
quarterly reviews.
Participant 3 It is very difficult to say they encourage. Departmental policies and
procedures can encourage learning transfer if one is not ignorant
Participant 4 Some policies were last reviewed in 2007, it is hard to implement with
no approved and reviewed policies there are no policies in terms of
new developments
Participant 5 There are no approved policies in certain components, only drafts.
No information sessions and no complete product to refer to when
dealing with communities
3. Do you think one’s position (job title) in the organisation affect their ability to
transfer?
Table 4.3: effect of job title
Participant Response
79
Participant 1 Employees have the same opportunity to implement what they have
learned from training and development interventions irrespective of
their position or job title. It is important to immediately practice what
they have learned as skills have been transferred.
Participant 2 The problem is protocol in the public service. If you can check the
culture and the way people were taught about protocol it is still there.
Maybe 80% of people in each and every government department
they are so much afraid of bridging protocol
Participant 3 Sometimes management do not understand what you do and the
way you have been trained to do a job or they do not agree with the
way you should do it, the way you were trained. They do not give us
the autonomy to apply our potentiality in terms of the principles,
process and procedures in our specific functional areas. There is a
culture of mistrust and dictatorship
Participant 4 I cannot even determine training interventions when I am not placed
properly. In one year I have been moved in 3 separate jobs with 4
supervisors.
Participant 5 Communiqués are only addressed to senior managers in most cases,
so if I was a senior officer in a provincial office I would not know half
of the changes required for job implementation
4. Does the department encourage or discourage transfer of learning?
Table 4.4: Reward and punishment
Participant Response
Participant 1 It is non-responsive at this stage, reason being maybe it will only be
1-2% or less percentage of people that would realise that there
change after training, unless it is channelled properly like having an
impact analysis template
Participant 2 It is encouraged, there are lots of people getting promotions internally
80
as a result of learning transfer
Participant 3 Although we do not have an incentive scheme around that, those
managers who are fair in terms of performance management
systems, people are getting bonuses. That is the reward.
Participant 4 Nobody cares, nobody cares
Participant 5 The participant did not respond to this question
5. Do you think the employees are receiving support to implement what they have
learned from training interventions?
Table 4.5: Support structure
Participant Response
Participant 1 They have supervisors that are so rigid and do not understand what
has been learned by these people that are coming from training.
Supervisors and Managers are the people who are blocking the
progress of implementation. Supervisors and mangers do not know
what people at lower levels are being trained on so they cannot
provide the necessary support to them when they return from
training. Without the necessary knowledge supervisors cannot make
a follow up plan
Participant 2 I think it’s a catch 22 situation, because there are leaders who are
flexible enough to give their staff an opportunity to go and implement
what they are supposed to do but in other sections there is still a
challenge of giving people the responsibility to implement. It also
depends on leadership qualities of managers, if they believe in
empowerment and producing other leaders as well as trusting their
subordinates they will create space. If managers feel threatened they
will suppress subordinates because they are afraid the subordinates
will take their position
Participant 3 There is no specific system of support to the people that are being
trained. Another thing might be supervisors were not trained , did not
81
go for that particular training. It will be very difficult for that person to
come back and implement, the manager may say no when you come
up with new things. You know he will resist change , it is very difficult
Participant 4 Supervisors do not care. They are supposed to know who you are,
your skills and abilities and to be able to say you are better suited
here.
Participant 5 Our supervisors don’t understand the core function. If our heads
understood the core functions of the directorate they would maybe be
in a position to help
6. What do you think is the role of peers in learning transfer?
Table 4.6: Peer role
Participant Response
Participant 1 The participant did not respond to this aspect
Participant 2 Colleagues have a critical role to play, teamwork is encouraged.
Sharing of ideas makes it easy for one to implement what they have
learned
Participant 3 We go on workshop if a colleague has attended any training alone
Participant 4 My hunch is new employees they learn as they go, in their provinces
through their colleagues
Participant 5 It depends. If they are your friends they are supportive. Some
colleagues are not even interested, others provide help only when
requested, especially the experienced employees.
7. Do you think the department is providing resources for employees to implement
what they have learned?
82
Table 4.7: Resource availability
Participant Response
Participant 1 There is lack of resources especially the projects people, it will be
your cars, they do not have the resources to deal with their projects
cause they have to go out. A person is in the office whereas the
project is waiting for him or her in the field. If we can try by all means
to give them the necessary support.
Participant 2 In terms of providing resources to implement after training
interventions the department is doing well
Participant 3 You need to have resources, different resources, let us say maybe
programmes, like in our case they are very expensive.
Participant 4 Previously resources used to be made available for one to do their
job. But now I cannot comment on that as roles are not clarified.
Participant 5 Resources are made available. Employees fly to provinces to do their
work
4.5 Section 2: Quantitative results
In this section focus will be in presenting results that were gathered from the
questionnaire, for details of descriptive statistics and factor analysis see appendix E.
The questionnaire was organised in 2 sections:
Section A- biographical information
Section B-1 the extent to which learning is affected by organisational factors
Section B-2 the frequency at which some organisational factors affect learning
transfer in the public service
83
Section A: Biographical data
57.4% of employees who responded to this survey were females and 42.6% were
male employees. 87.5% of respondents were African, 5.2 % were of White decent,
4.2% Coloured and 3.1% Indian, (see appendix E- descriptive statistics).
Figure 4.1: Tenure in the organisation
According to the above graph 56% of employees have been working for the
department for duration of 1-5 years. 18.7% have been working for the department
for 6-10 years, 14.3% for 0-11 months and 6.6% have been working for the
department for 11-15 years and 4.4% of the respondents have worked in the
department for16 Years and above .
It was found that 34.4 % of employees have a total working experience of 3-5 years,
24% of employees have worked for 6-10years, 19.8% have worked for 0-2 years,
13.5% have worked for 11-15 years and 8.3% have working experience above 16
years. There was a fair spread of representation across different age groups which
can be accounted for as follows: 54.7% of the employees fall within the age group of
26-35 years, 26.3 % are between the ages of 30-45 years, 14.7% are within the ages
of 19-25 whereas 4.2% of employees are above 46 years of age.
TENURE
0-11 months
1-5 years
6-10 years
11-15 years
over 16 years
84
Respondents who participated in this study had attended training programmes over
periods ranging from of 0 -2 years.43% of employees had attended their latest
training and development in the past 0-6 months, 22.6% in the past 7-11 months,
19.4% in a period beyond 2 years and 15.1% of the employees had attended their
recent training programme in the past 1-2 years. The duration of the training was
categorised as follows: 78.3% of employees reflected that they have attended 1-5
days training programme, 7.6% have attended a 6030days programme, 7.6% have
attended programmes longer than 1 year and 6.5% of the employees have attended
2-12 months training programmes.
Figure 4.2: Training and development outcomes
43% of employees who attended training programmes received certificate of
attendance, 38% received certificate of competence. 10.1% received NQF level 4
qualifications and 8.9% of the employees received qualifications above NQF level 6.
Only 79 respondents answered this question whereas 18 respondents did not
answer the question. 77.4% of the employees attended training that included a
practical component whereas 22.6% of the employees attended training with no
practical component.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Certificate ofattendance
certificate ofcompetence
NQF level 4 NQF level 6
85
Section B-1
The questionnaire was a 6 point Likert scale with responses varying from to a very
large extent – to no extent. An example is provided below
To a very
large extent
To a large
extent
To a moderate
extent
To a small
extent
To a very
small extent
To no
extent
In response to the questionnaire that was distributed the below outlined responses
were received:
Figure 4.3: The practice of knowledge and skills
80 % of the employees indicated that the department has to a great extent afforded
them the opportunity to practise what they have learned.
34.4% of employees reported that policies in the organisation allow them to practise
what they have learned to a moderate extent, 21.5% to a large extent and 20.4%
said to a very large extent. 5.4% of the employees reported that the policies in the
organisation do not affect their ability to practise what they have learned from
training programmes, a similar percentage of 5.4% employees said policies affected
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
very largeextent
largeextent
moderateextent
smallextent
very smallextent
no extent
86
them to a very small extent and 12.9% said they are affected to a small extent, (see
table 4.4).
Figure 4.4: Flexibility of policies for learning transfer
Figure 4.5: Organisational processes
An overwhelming number (75.4%) of employees described the effect of
organisational processes on ability to transfer as moderate.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
very largeextent
largeextent
moderateextent
smallextent
very smallextent
no extent
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
very largeextent
largeextent
moderateextent
smallextent
very smallextent
no exnt
87
Figure 4.6: The structural design of the organisation and ability to practice what was
learned.
66.4% of the respondents indicate that the structural design of the organisation has
an effect on their ability to transfer what was learned.
Figure 4.7: Supervisor Support
A total of 30.1% of the employees highlighted that to a large extent their immediate
supervisors provide them with the necessary support to practise what they have
learned and 28% of the employees highlighted that they felt supported to a moderate
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
very largeextent
largeextent
moderateextent
smallextent
very smallextent
no extent
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
very largeextent
largeextent
moderateextent
smallextent
very smallextent
no extent
88
extent and 17.2% felt supported to a very large extent. 10.8% highlighted that they
are do not feel supported at all, 9.7% said they felt supported to a small and 4.3%
highlighted that they felt supported by their immediate supervisors only to a very
small extent.
Figure 4.8: Management Support
65.7% of the respondents reported that the management support is positive
Figure 4.9: Interference with learning transfer by political appointees
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
very largeextent
largeextent
moderateextent
smallextent
very smallextent
no extent
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
very largeextent
largeextent
moderateextent
smallextent
very smallextent
no extent
89
It was interesting to note that an overwhelming majority (70.4%) reported that
political appointees do not interfere to practise what they have learned.
Figure 4.10: Availability of human resources
32.3% reported that the available human resources assist them to practice what they
have learned to a moderate extent, whereas 25.8% felt it assisted them to a large
extent and 7.5% said to a very large extent. 17.2% of the employees felt the
available human resources assisted them to no extent, with 11.8% feeling it assisted
their ability to practice what they have learned to a small extent and 5.4% reporting it
assisted them to a very small extent.
Figure 4.11: Provision of financial resources to implement what was learned
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
very largeextent
largeextent
moderateextent
smallextent
very smallextent
no extent
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
very largeextent
largeextent
moderateextent
smallextent
very smallextent
no extent
90
33.7% of the employees reported that financial resources to implement what they
have learned is provided to a moderate extent, 15.7% reported that they have
financial resources to implement to a large extent whereas7.9% reported to a very
large extent. 18% employees reported financial resources are not provided to
implement what they have learned, with 13.5% saying financial resources are
provide to a small extent and 11.2% said financial resources are provided to a very
small extent.
Figure 4.12: Peer support
Colleagues were said to provide the necessary support to implement what was
learned to a large extent by 28.3% of the employees, with 26.1% saying to a
moderate extent and 16.3% saying to a very large extent. 10.9% of the employees
said the colleagues do not provide support and 13% said colleagues provide support
to practice what was learned to a small extent and 5.4% said to a very small extent.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
very largeextent
largeextent
moderateextent
smallextent
very smallextent
no extent
91
Figure 4.13: Perceived positional power
31.5% perceived their positions to provide them with the necessary authority to
practice what they have learned to a large extent, 17.4% of the employees said to a
very large extent and 26.1% said to a moderate extent.13% of the employees
perceived their position to provide them with the necessary authority to practise what
was learned only to a small extent, with 4.3 reporting to a very small extent and 7.6
perceiving position to have no effect at all on their ability to practice what they have
learned.
Figure 4.14: Placement within the organisation
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
very largeextent
large extent moderateextent
small extent very smallextent
no extent
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
very largeextent
largeextent
moderateextent
smallextent
very smallextent
no extent
92
Placement within the organisation was reported by 33.7% of employees as providing
to a large extent opportunity to practise what they have learned. 17.9% reported that
placement to a very large extent provided one with the opportunity to practise what
was learned and 23.2% reported that placement provide them with the opportunity to
practice to a moderate extent. 11.6% reported that placement provided them with
opportunity only to a small extent, 4.2% said it provided them with an opportunity to
practise to a very small extent whereas 9.5% said it has no effect at all.
With regard to positive outcomes as a result of implementing skills acquired during
training employees responded as follows:
44.7% of the employees reported that applying training on the job will lead to positive
outcomes to a very large extent, with 39.4% reporting to a large extent and 10.6%
said to a moderate extent. 2.1% reported that to a small extent will applying training
on the job lead to positive outcomes and 3.2% of employees reported to no extent.
With regard to negative outcomes associated with learning transfer employees
responded as follows:
31.6% of employees indicated that failure to apply skill and knowledge acquired
during training will lead to negative outcomes to a very large extent, with 28.4%
indicating the effect will be to a large extent and 10.5% said to a moderate extent.
8.4% indicated failure to apply what was learned will not have negative outcomes
whereas 8.4% acknowledged the effect will be to a small extent and 12.6% indicated
the effect will be to a very small extent.
93
Figure 4.15: Time and mental space to implement what was learned
A significant majority of employees (71%) perceived work environment to provide
time and mental space for one to implement what was learned.
Figure 4.16: Current workload and opportunity to implement what was learned
35.1% of the employees reported that their current workload allow them the
opportunity to implement what they have learned to a moderate extent, with 26.6% of
the employees reporting that workload affects them to a large extent and 5.3%
saying it affects them to a very large extent. 17% of the employees reported that
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
very largeextent
largeextent
moderateextent
smallextent
very smallextent
no extent
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
very largeextent
largeextent
moderateextent
smallextent
very smallextent
no extent
94
workload affects their ability to implement what was learned to a small extent, with
9.6% saying it affects them to a very small extent and 6.4% of the employees
reporting that the workload does not affect their ability to implement at all.
Figure 4.17: Supervisor response to application of learned skills
A significant number of the employees (77%) highlighted that the supervisors do not
respond negatively when they apply learned skills.
Figure 4.18: Tasks that provide opportunity to practice newly learned skills
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
very largeextent
largeextent
moderateextent
smallextent
very smallextent
no extent
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
very largeextent
largeextent
moderateextent
smallextent
very smallextent
no extent
95
The figure above depicts that 33.3% of employees are to a large extent given tasks
that provide them with the opportunity to practise what they have learned, with 6.5%
saying to a very large extent and 26.9% to a moderate extent. 17.2% are given tasks
that provide them with the opportunity to practise what they have learned to a small
extent, 7.5% to a very small extent whereas 8.6% reported to no extent.
With regard to the link between job performance and valued outcomes it can be
reported that 45.2% of employees think job performance to a very large extent lead
to valued outcomes, 34.4% think job performance lead to valued outcomes to a large
extent, 16.1% said to a moderate extent and 4.3% said to a small extent. Reports
with regard to organisational norms and their effect on the use of skills and
knowledge acquired during training had this reflection; 30.4% reported that the
prevailing organisational norms discourage the use of skills and knowledge acquired
through training to a moderate extent, with 21.7% reporting that it discourages to a
small extent and 9.8 %said to a very small extent. 19.6% of employees reported that
prevailing organisational norms do not discourage the use of skills and knowledge
acquired during training.19.9% of the respondents reported that to large extent
organisational norms discourage the use of skills acquired during training and 7.6%
said it discourages to a very large extent.
A considerable number of respondents (36%) reported that formal and informal
indicators reflect training acquired to a moderate extent whereas 22.3%. A further
22.3% reported that formal and informal indicators reflect training acquired to a small
extent.
96
Figure 4.19: Feedback on the ability to transfer kills and knowledge on the job
Figure 4.20: Reward for innovation
33.3% indicated that innovation is rewarded to a moderate extent. 15.6% indicated
that innovation is rewarded to a small extent, 12.2% said to a very small extent
whereas 17.8% indicted that innovation is rewarded to no extent in their work
environment. A further 17.8% reported that innovation is rewarded to a large extent
and 3.3% of the respondent said to a very large extent.
Results for Section B-2
A 5 point-Likert scale was used and example provided below
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
very largeextent
largeextent
moderateextent
smallextent
very smallextent
no extent
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
very largeextent
largeextent
moderateextent
smallextent
very smallextent
no extent
97
All the time Often Sometime Hardly ever Never
Figure 4.21: Learning organisation
The majority of the employees (95%) indicated that they can at all times refer to
their organisation as a learning organisation. 69% reported that their organisation
sometimes requires one to indicate in advance how they will implement knowledge
and skills prior to them attending a training programme.
Figure 4.22: Impact analysis of learning programmes
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
all the time often sometime hardly ever never
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
all the time often sometime hardly ever never
98
Figure 4.23: Certification after training
73% of the employees reported that the organisation never conducts gap analysis
prior to training. 79% of the employees indicated that the organisation never provides
any incentive to encourage learning transfer.
Figure 4.24: Discouragement of learning transfer?
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
all the time often sometime hardly ever never
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
all the time often sometime hardly ever never
99
An overwhelming majority of the employees (90%) reported that the organisation
never discourages learning transfer. 88% employees reported that the organisation
does not apply punitive measures when one attempts to implement what was
learned.
4.6 Conclusion
This chapter focused on presenting the findings obtained through semi structured
interviews and the outlining the results of the questionnaire instrument that was
distributed to respondents. The next chapter will focus on the interpretation and
synthesis of the major findings and results.
100
CHAPTER 5
INTERPRETATION AND SYNTHESIS
5.1 Introduction
Chapter 4 reflected the responses by participants in Section 1 which were provided
during the interview process, while Section 2 was a reflection of the responses
provided through questionnaires. Chapter 5 will attempt to interpret the most
significant findings and provide explanation guided by theoretical evidence as
outlined in chapter 2. The interpretation will further be guided by the research
questions as indicated in chapter 1. Interpretations will be discussed in two sections,
section 1 will discuss qualitative findings and section 2 will deal with quantitative
findings.
5.2 Section 1: Interpretation of qualitative findings
In attempting to respond to the research questions the following themes were
identified from the analysis of data:
5.2.1 Resource availability
The business dictionary defines a resource as “an economic or productive factor
required to accomplish an activity, or as a means to undertake an enterprise and
achieve the desired outcome. The resources may include time, capital, labour, land,
management information, etc.
Helfat and Peteraf (2003) refer to resources as assets that an organisation owns or
accesses which enable the employee to achieve organisational goals. Resources
when well utilized may increase the efficiency and effectiveness of an organisation
which is one of the primary objectives of public service institutions.
Lack of resources like cars, telephones was cited as a hindrance in ensuring that
employees implement what they have learned. It was indicated that lack of resources
101
like cars makes it difficult for project managers to reach the communities that they
are servicing, an example provided was that of an office with 10 project officers with
only three cars which may result in poor supervision of projects as there will be
minimal site visits. Barney (1991) indicated that the environmental context in which
assets are applied for example the cars or telephones determine whether that asset
is a resource or not.
Insufficient funds to carry out new initiatives were cited as a factor that led to non-
implementation of initiatives or innovations emanating from training interventions. An
example was given where the procurement of new software would have enhanced
the quality and turnaround times of services offered. The abilities of the new software
had been demonstrated at a training session wherein the participant was exposed.
On returning to the workplace a proposal was made to have the same software
utilized by the Department, but due to lack of funds it could not be implemented.
According to Katila and Shane (2005) financial resources influences innovation
because access to capital allows the employee to follow through on their plan that
would have emanated from exposure to training and development.
It can be inferred from the examples cited above resource availability is critical to
learning transfer. The organisation as the employer, supervisors, and human
resource practitioners should plan for resources to be available post training
interventions so that learning transfer can be supported and facilitated.
5.2.2 Supervisor role
A supervisor is defined by business dictionary as a person in the first-line
management who monitors and regulates employees in their performance of
assigned or delegated tasks. Supervisors are usually authorized to recommend and/
or effect hiring, disciplining, promoting, punishing, rewarding and other associated
activities regarding employees in their departments. Kirwan (2009) identifies the role
of supervisors as coach, mentor, advocate for organisation and advocate for
employee. He further identified the responsibilities of a supervisor as;
Staffing, employee training and development and employee performance
management (goals, delegating, feedback, and performance review among others)
102
All the participants highlighted the role that the supervisor can play in terms of either
enabling or inhibiting learning transfer. It was further highlighted that lack of
knowledge of what subordinates have been exposed to during the training
interventions leads to the failure to buy-in to new initiatives by the supervisors.
Employees already anticipate that they won’t be supported even prior to them
returning to their work stations, there is negative expectation on the side of
subordinates which may affect the whole implementation process.
The readiness of supervisors to assume their role was also identified as one of the
barriers to allowing learning transfer. According to the participant this may be caused
by the supervisor having not gone through the ranks as well as lack of exposure in
the new area that the subordinate was exposed to. The lack of knowledge on what
the subordinate was trained on and is expected to implement leads to failure by the
supervisor to follow up on learning transfer.
Participants also indicted that “supervisors just don’t have interest” on the growth
and development of subordinates. There was a sense of frustration that the
researcher observed when participants shared this information. Supervisors are said
to just allow employees to attend training programmes without understanding the
course content and providing the necessary guidance. No effort goes into unpacking
specific areas that the subordinate needs development on so that proper monitoring
can be carried out at a later stage.
In addition to the fact that Supervisors lacked knowledge and understanding of areas
that subordinates want to transfer their learning on, mistrust was cited as another
barrier to learning transfer. Supervisor were said not to trust subordinates to allow
them to independently execute. “They are not willing to empower, they do not believe
in empowerment”. The supervisors were said to be inflexible, and subordinates are
not given freedom to implement.
Nijman, Nijhof, Wognum and Veldkamp (2006) highlight the importance of supervisor
support for learning transfer. They refer to supervisor support as behaviour exhibited
by supervisor which optimizes employee’s use of knowledge, skills and attitudes
gained in training on the job, the support may be instrumental or emotional. In their
103
qualitative study of environmental factors affecting transfer, Lim and Johnson (2002)
found that supervisor involvement and familiarity with training, positive feedback and
discussion on the use of learning are important for learning transfer. A positive
relationship was found to exist between supervisor support and transfer of training,
(Cromwell & Kolb, 2004 and Gumuseli & Ergin, 2002).
In summary the relationship between supervisor and subordinates plays a pivotal
role in unlocking potential for learning transfer. A positive relationship can lead to
positive transfer whereas a negative relationship can lead to inaction on the part of
the subordinate. Programmes for supervisors should be seriously considered if
learning transfer is to be effective. Attributes of successful supervisors should be
explored so that lessons thereof can be shard for enhancement of transfer of
learning.
5.2.3. Mentorship and coaching
The participants reported that lack of mentorship and coaching as factors that may
be affecting learning transfer. It was indicated that the willingness to coach and
mentor is non-existent. Mentoring can be viewed as a developmental relationship
between a more experienced individual, a mentor and a less experienced employee.
The purpose of the mentoring process is for the mentee to receive guidance, share
best practise in a less coercive environment. Coaching on the other hand is provided
by the supervisor and is related to job performance.
Lim and Morris (2006) found that mentoring and coaching play a role in learning
transfer. Swap, Leonard, Shields and Abrams (2001) found that mentor feedback is
important for learning transfer although they concluded there is little evidence of
direct relationship between mentoring and organisational performance. It can be
inferred from the interviews conducted that there is minimal or no formal mentoring
and coaching programmes in the department. A survey may be required for the
department to gather information on employees’ perception about mentoring and
coaching and the value thereof.
104
Coaching is a skill that should be harnessed and can be learned by supervisors.
Support mechanisms especially exposure to coaching techniques might help
supervisors in the organisation to execute their role with ease and this may also
improve the success of learning transfer by subordinates.
5.2.4. Role of performance management
Bersin and Associates (2005) define performance management as” management
processes, which set measurable goals and objectives for employees, assess
achievement and attainment of such objectives and then use this information to
improve performance through coaching, compensation, training and other means.
The participants indicated that there is no follow up on implementation after training.
They indicated that monitoring is not done in the department. There is no checklist
post training and as managers they are not empowered to follow up on whether
training has improved performance or not. It was observed that there is lack of
ownership by managers in terms of their role with regard to impact assessment of
training and development initiatives. The participants would say “there is no impact
analysis template to monitor change after training
Participants indicated that supervisors are not genuinely engaging in performance
review sessions; this makes it difficult to identify accurately the employees gaps, so
that employees can be referred for correct interventions. No discipline measures
taken for non-performance. Managers are afraid to take decisions on non-
performing employees
Fuller et al (2004) indicated that highly skilled performance and ability to enhance
productivity in the workplace are demonstration that learning transfer has taken
place. It can be inferred that skills transfer is being inhibited by the failure of the
organisation to recognise the link between both individual and organisational
performance and learning transfer. In their study Argote, Ingram, Levine and
Moreland (2000) found that there is a link between knowledge transfer and individual
performance in the organisation. The department needs to incorporate training and
development initiatives into employees’ performance contracts; this will improve the
management and monitoring of learning transfer.
105
5.2.5. Non alignment of training programmes with organisational goals
Generic training reduces employee’s productivity level. The over-emphasis of
generic training makes it difficult for employees to implement. “Employees are
exposed to loose courses like your excel and project management, not to say they
are not important”. The employees on coming back do not have to pursue the
implementation of generic courses as it does not directly increase productivity in their
line of work. It becomes training for certification.
Non alignment of training and job outputs and performance indicators makes it
difficult for learning transfer. The training provided is said not to be practical in most
of the instances. It can be inferred that the misalignment between training received
and its relevancy to the organisation inhibits learning transfer. It will be beneficial for
the organisation to ensure that mechanisms are put in place to expose employees to
training programmes that have practical impact on the day to day activities of the
organisation. Training for impact and not training for activity in order to submit the
annual training report as required by the Skills Development Act.
5.2.6. Poor organisational planning and weak controls
The role played by the organisation prior training and development intervention was
discussed at length by participants. The importance of skills audit and training needs
analysis as well as identification of gaps was seen as one way of ensuring that
employees receive targeted training which leads to achievement of objectives. The
inability of human resource training and development unit to conduct skills audit and
provide report to guide supervisors on skills gap was seen as an inhibitor to learning
transfer. It was explained by participants that due to lack of skills audit supervisors
do not have grounds to restrict subordinate to go on courses, thus employees end up
attending irrelevant courses that are not implementable when they come back to the
workplace. “Manager just allows subordinates to attend any course”. There is
reasonable suggestion that learning transfer is not planned and what cannot be
planned for cannot be measured. This may be related to why there is unreliable
report on return on investments on training initiatives. Human resource practitioners
need to plan for learning transfer and also measure success implementation thereof.
106
5.2.7. Management and leadership change
The participants highlighted that the constant change in management and leadership
is creating a challenge for learning transfer. Employees get exposed to a training
intervention with “current” management, following the current plans and by the time
they complete the training programme and are required to implement, there is a new
manager, with new plans and the acquired skills are said to be irrelevant. “all new
managers want to bring in new plans and ways of doing things without even testing
the effectiveness of the current ones”
The other hindrance that was raised in this regard involved displacement of staff
when management changes. It was reported that when new management joins the
department they choose new teams and render other employees redundant or
“supernumerary”, this action meant that the employees cannot implement what they
have learned and their skills are made dormant. It was said that this creates feelings
of self-doubt to employees and affects the morale, this affecting their ability to
implement newly learned skills.
Clarke (2002) found that management support is perceived by employees as critical
for learning transfer. It can be inferred that lack of management support and constant
change in leadership is affecting learning transfer. Consistency in leadership creates
a familiar environment which gives employees confidence and provides assurance
when trying new behaviour.
5.2.8. Resistance to change
Holton, Bates and Ruona (2000) define resistance to change as” the extent to which
prevailing group norms are perceived by individuals to resist or discourage the use of
skills and knowledge acquired in training.
It was indicated that supervisors are rigid. It was also cited that familiarity becomes a
challenge, the supervisor and managers will say “we have been doing this thing for
so many years, there is no need to change, it is working”. It was also indicated that
sometimes resistance is triggered by fear that if the subordinate is given opportunity
to implement and the project is a success it may reduce the importance of the
107
supervisor. Supervisors also fear job loss as they think ability of subordinate to
implement means they can be replaced easily.
The government bureaucracy or protocol was cited as reason for refusal to adapt
into new ways of doing things. The departmental staff always hides behind protocol
and the available structures of authority to resist new ways of doing things. I can be
inferred that resistance to change is one of the factors that hinder learning transfer in
the public service. It is proposed that change management programmes be
implemented to prepare teams in divisions for new changes. The resistance to
change may be attributed to insecurity associated with high levels of job losses and
unemployment both in the country and globally. Protectionism of current jobs may
be the reason for blocking any new initiatives and the department should further
investigate the matter as it may not only affect learning transfer but may affect the
growth of the organisation and its ability to remain relevant in the changing global
environment.
5.2.9. Organisational culture
Participants indicated that some of the barriers to implementation include a culture
of dictatorship. Experts are not provided opportunities to practice according to their
professional standards, principles and policies. Instructions are just given and most
of the time the instructions are contrary to what professional standards require.
Employees are not allowed to think or execute as per their functional area
A new culture that has developed that is hindering learning transfer is the recruitment
of less competent people. Employees who were in the organisation longer and had
required competencies to occupy the advertised position simply stop making any
effort to perform, or implement as per their training.
The culture of favouritism in the organisation is also playing its role in discouraging
employees who were exposed to training to transfer what they have learned .as
reported by Kreitner and Kinicki (2001) organisational culture is a set of shared ,
taken for granted implicit assumptions that a group holds, thinks about and reacts to
and mostly not documented. Organisational culture can be viewed to be inhibiting
108
learning transfer in this Department and this may also be due to the bureaucratic
nature of the South African public service.
5.3 Section 2: Interpretation and synthesis of quantitative results
5.3.1 Opportunity to practice
There is a high correlation between learning transfer and opportunity to practice as
reflected in appendix E – descriptive statistics and factor analysis. In a study
conducted by Scott (2010) it was found that employees are more likely to transfer
learning if the opportunity is provided. In their responses to the role of policy in ability
to transfer it was found that there is a high relationship between learning transfer and
the policy environment. It can be inferred that conducive policy environment should
be created by the organisation in order to encourage transfer of learning, policies
should be audited and reviewed to determine their suitability for learning transfer,
where possible as proposed by McDonnell et al. (2010) and Tregaskis, Glover and
Ferner (2005) learning transfer policies should be developed.
Opportunity to practise could also be influenced by existing processes within the
organisation. More than 60% of the employees indicate that there is a relationship
between learning transfer and organisational processes. It can be inferred that
relevantly aligned processes may improve learning transfer. The design of the
organisation as well as the placement of the employee in the organisation can afford
or hinder the employee to transfer what they have learned. Sambrook and Stewart
(2000) found that organisational structure and job design influence an organisation’s
learning culture. Ashton (2004) found that learning transfer can be shaped by
organisational decisions, provision and access that may be largely influenced by the
position of the employee in the organisation which is referred to as placement. In this
study the majority of employees reported that to a large extent the organisational
structure and the placement of employees affect their ability to practice what they
have learned.
109
It can be inferred that opportunity to practise which in this study can be said to
influence by a combination of policies, organisational structure, and placement of
employee within the organisation affect learning transfer.
5.3.2 Peers and positional power
Peer support according to Kirwan (2009) involves openness to new ideas by
colleagues, provision of practical assistance like filling in for colleagues while they
are committed elsewhere and their views on experimentation and willingness to learn
new things. It was found by Cromwell and Kolb (2004) and Kirwan (2009) that peers
may influence learning transfer depending on the level of interdependency. Enos,
Kehrhahn and Bell (2003) found that there is little correlation between support and
training transfer.
In this study it was found that peer support has moderate influence on learning
transfer. It was also established that the employee’s position in the organisation
affect learning transfer. Employees who hold positions with authority and decision
making powers stand a better chance of transferring learning as they are decision
makers. Employees who are in less decision positions do not enjoy a similar
advantage as their implementation plans have to be ratified and this may affect their
ability to transfer what they have learned.
5.3.3 Resource availability
In their study Holton, Voller, Schofield and Devine (2010) found that learning transfer
is undermined by factors such as work pressures, staff culture that resist change and
lack of support from line managers. A relationship was found to exist between
availability of funds and the ability to practise what was learned. Ronen (2008) found
that workload has an impact on transfer of learning. In this study 60% of the
employees indicated that their current workload provides them the opportunity to
transfer learning.
Time is a valuable resource when one is required to implement new techniques that
were acquired from training initiative. This study found that a relationship exists
110
between learning transfer and time with 26% of employees reporting that time is less
significant in their ability to transfer learning. Waller (2012) found that time may be
one of the biggest barriers to applying learning, it was reported that when employees
return to work post training interventions pressure of heavy workloads made it
difficult to find time to try out new ways of working.
It can be concluded that the necessary time to reflect on what employees have
learned, good mental space and less distractions at work the probability of learning
transfer is increased. It was found in this study that availability of funds affect
learning transfer.
5.3.4 Performance culture
The majority of the employees in the department understand that there is a link
between learning transfer and job performance within the organisation, they further
recognise that their ability to perform will result in valued outcomes for their
customers which are service recipients and communities to be specific.it was
interesting to note that there was a split on the extent to which formal and informal
performance indicators reflect training acquired. Rice (2007) found that a high
performance culture may positively impact employee engagement by providing for
meaning and connection to organisational goals a as well as encourage innovation,
risk taking and trust. Organisations should invest in change management initiatives
in order to instil a high performance culture in the organisation.
5.3.5 Management support
Axtell, Holman, Unsworth, Wall and Harrington (2000) found that employees with
more supportive managers are more likely to implement what they have learned.
There was a fair split on the extent to which broader management affect the ability of
employees to implement what they have learned. This may be a good area for follow
up research to be done to determine the impact of broader management on learning
transfer. It is further interesting to note that the interviewees felt very strongly that the
employees’ ability to transfer learning is largely affected by management who are
111
autocratic and also when there are constant changes of management in the
organisation.
5.3.6 Reward and feedback
The respondents indicated that innovation is rewarded only to a small extent; one
can infer that employees do not get motivated to implement what they have learned
as there are no incentives associated with innovative behaviour.
Myers (2009) found that feedback and performance coaching positively affected
learning transfer. 60% of employees in this study indicated that they received
feedback whereas 32% indicated that they did not receive feedback. This study
established that a relationship does exist between learning transfer and reward and
feedback but a causal study need to be conducted to determine causal factors.
5.3.7 Other significant findings
It is interesting to note that political interference did not seem to play a prominent
role in affecting learning transfer and the study by Holton et al (2010) had the same
findings. The current study corroborated those findings as 70% of the respondents
in the survey indicated that political appointees affect their ability to transfer learning
to a very small extent or to no extent at all.
It was further found in this study that monitoring mechanisms set in the organisation
process by the organisation play a role in the ability of employees to transfer learning
acquired during training interventions. Factors like the conducting of gap analysis
prior to employee attending training intervention were seen to be overlooked in the
organisation. It was further found that the organisation never requires proof of any
form of certification post training. It is my opinion that when post training monitoring
mechanisms are not clearly spelled out to employees they may not feel challenged
to implement. Lack of incentive for learning transfer was one of the areas that
employees felt that department is not focusing on.
A learning organisation provides a conducive environment for learning transfer, one
that encourages innovation and employee creativity. It can be inferred from this
112
information that the Department cannot be described as a learning organisation and
improvements need to be done in this regard.
5.4 Research Question 2
Is there is a link between the organisational context and transfer of learning?
It can be inferred that the organisational context plays a pivotal role in the ability of
employees to implement what they have learned post training. This study has
demonstrated that contextual factors like policies and performance culture of the
organisation can be enabling factors for learning transfer if well managed.
5.5 Research Question 3
To what extent do organisational factors affect learning transfer?
The participants provided varying responses with regard to the extent to which
employees are able to transfer learning to the workplace. Participant 1 indicated that
1-2% is practicing what they have learned in the workplace. The response was
based on gut feel and not on any scientific verification. Participant 2 indicated that
25-30% of employees are practicing what they have learned in the workplace
whereas participant 3 indicated 43% of employees are practicing what they have
learned in the work place.
The participants all agreed to the fact that the organisation does not have impact
assessment processes in place. The organisation from a formal perspective does not
have the knowledge of the extent to which organisational factors are affecting
training
5.6 Data integration
From the qualitative and quantitative finding it can be concluded that there is
corroboration of findings and this strengthens the findings of this study. It further
justifies the validity of mixed methods as a suitable approach for researching the
problem as stated in Chapter 1.
113
5.7 Conclusion
This chapter focused on interpretation of data and synthesis. From the responses it
is evident that organisational factors such as resources, performance culture
supervisor support and management roles affect the ability of employees to transfer
what they have learned. Factors that affect learning transfer in the public service
were identified. Chapter 6 will provide the conclusion and recommendations for
future research.
114
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Introduction
This study focused on the factors that affect public sector employees from
implementing what they had learned through training and development initiatives into
the workplace. The objective of the study was to identify organisational factors that
affect learning transfer. The research question was what are the organisational
factors that affect learning transfer in the South African Public Service environment?
A summary of the findings will be provided in this chapter as well as
recommendations for future training.
6.2 Overview of the chapters
This study comprised of 6 chapters:
Chapter 1 provided the background and rationale of the study. The chapter outlined
the problem statement, the objectives of the study, the research question as well as
the hypotheses of the study.
Chapter 2 provided a theoretical framework of other studies that have been
conducted with regard to organisational factors affecting learning transfer. A brief
review was done of learning theories; the understanding of how learning and
learning transfer unfolds would assist in data interpretation as well as defining the
contribution of this particular study for employers, policy makers, practitioners and
learners.
Chapter 3 dealt with the research design. A mixed method approach was chosen for
this study as it is pragmatic in nature and because it was best suited for the research
problem. Research procedure was outlined so that the study can be replicated.
115
Chapter 4 presented in two separate sections the findings from Section 1 a
qualitative study where data was gathered using semi structured interviews. A
snapshot of data transcribed form recorded interviews was provided. Descriptive
data gathered as part of Section 2 quantitative method was presented using
graphical representation.
Chapter 5 reflected on the interpretation and synthesis of the research. Findings and
Results and findings were interpreted, compared to and integration with existing
theory and literature.
6.3 Summary of major findings
The objective of this study was to identify and describe the organisational factors that
affect learning transfer in the South African Public Service.
6.3.1 Qualitative findings
The study utilising a qualitative approach found that a relationship exist between the
below mentioned factors and learning transfer:
The availability of resources such as funds and time to execute newly learned
techniques form part of the success factors required for the employees to transfer
what they have learned. Supervisor willingness to create an atmosphere conducive
for learning such as controlling employees’ workload, encouraging innovation,
providing coaching and feedback is crucial for learning transfer. Employees need
assurance that they will be accepted and not punished should their attempts at
innovation fail.
Performance management remains an effective system, process and tool through
which learning transfer can be planned, monitored and evaluated thus
institutionalising learning transfer. Lack of stability in the organisation like constant
change in leadership may create a barrier for learning transfer due to lack of
consistency and changing goal posts. Decision are largely based on the leader at the
time and not a written strategy of the organisation, this may result in employees
116
suffering from change fatigue and low morale and thus they stop making any effort to
transfer what they have learned.
Resistance to change continues to be a challenge that affects organisations as it
makes them fail to adjust to global changes that are occurring at a fast pace. The
global community influences societal expectations and thus a need for continuous
training and development and the need to implement newly learned techniques
instead of being stuck in the old way of doing things which is perpetuated through
resistant behaviour. Employees (subordinates) are generally youthful in age and
supervisors and managers are generally of a mature age, the generational gaps in
the two groups may be playing a role in resistance to change thus blocking learning
transfer in the department. Fears of being obsolete and redundancy are real for
most employees and thus the reluctance to support the implementation of new ways
of doing things.
Identification of gaps, planning for results and impact assessment are crucial in
learning transfer as lack thereof provides a loophole for non-transference of learning.
Employees may be tempted to make no effort for transfer of they know transfer is not
measured. It was further found that organisational culture affects learning transfer.
Autocratic leadership and bureaucratic systems block meaningful engagements and
debates among staff and this stifles the sharing of ideas and innovation
6.3.2 Quantitative findings
Opportunity to practice is an important enabler for learning transfer, enabling policy
environment, organisational processes and procedures are crucial factors for one to
succeed in transferring what was learned as it was found in this study. This is further
impacted upon by the support that the employee receives from peers. The authority
to make decisions which is associated with the position of the employee within the
organisation plays an important role in the ability of the employee to implement what
they have learned.
It was interesting to note that resource availability as established in the qualitative
approach was also found to be one of the organisational factors affecting learning
117
transfer. It was also found that performance culture affects learning transfer as
identified in the qualitative findings. The role played by management in learning
transfer cannot be understated as they are decision makers. Feedback and rewards
provides guidance and direction required by employees in order to confidently
pursue and practise newly learned techniques and skills. The absence of feedback
whether negative or positive may instil fear and self-doubt in employees that retard
any effort to innovation.
Organisations need to understand that what was not planned for cannot be
measured. Systems, processes and mechanisms need to be instituted so that
change in behaviour and practice can be measured post training interventions. Post
training impact assessment is important for organisations as it provides
measurement for return on investment can work as customer satisfaction indicator
and helps employees to also measure their own growth and progress. Impact
analysis can be easily done and areas of improvement easily identified thus
improving the opportunity for the department to improve its service offering which is
the ultimate goal for all training interventions.
6.3.3 Mixed method approach
The study found that there are great similarities in terms of factors that affect
learning transfer when explored using both qualitative and quantitative methods.
There was corroboration of findings.
In summary the factors that affect learning transfer in the South African public
service are:
Resource availability -this is inclusive of financial resources, time and
workloads
Supervisor role- this includes ability to assume mentoring and coaching
roles as well as ability to provide feedback
Role of performance management/ performance management culture
Management and leadership support, stability and how they respond to
change initiatives
118
Organisational culture including organisational planning and controls
Opportunity to practice which can be influenced by policies, procedures
and organisational processes
Positional power and peer support
6.4 Contributions to the body of knowledge
The findings of this study will be valuable for the employers (decision makers), policy
makers, HRD practitioners and the employees themselves. An analysis of
organisational factors affecting learning transfer had not been done in the
Department before and the findings can be shared with other departments during
learning forums. The study found that there are no structured follow up or impact
assessment processes post training and development intervention to assess
learning transfer. In order to improve on return on investment for training and
development interventions it is proposed that organisations develop guidelines, tools
to monitor learning transfer prior interventions. Commitment should be done in
writing on support measures that will be put in place post training. Planning and
control by organisations is critical and so is emphasis on accountability.
6.5 Limitations of the study
In this study concurrent mixed method approach was adopted and it strengthened
the findings of the study and two groups participated. Sequential studies can be
done with the same group in future studies. However possible limitations to this
study may include:
Self-reporting
In this study employees and managers were requested to report on their own
perception which may not necessarily be factual. No post confirmation was done with
respondents and participants to cross check if the findings of the study verify their
perceptions.
119
Sample size
The study was conducted in only one department whereas the country has 27
national departments and thus one cannot comfortably generalise the findings of the
study to the whole of South African Public Service.
Questionnaire
The questionnaire was designed based on literature review , it was close ended and
did not give respondents an opportunity to raise other factors that may not have
been original included. In future opportunity should be provided to include additional
information or factors
6.6 Recommendations for future research
Future studies should focus on longitudinal case studies that unpack how learning
transfer took place and encourage people to diarise their experiences in this regard.
Valuable lessons can be learned from case studies through diarising as for most
people learning transfer occurs unconsciously. The questionnaire should give
opportunity for respondents to provide additional information if available. Based on
new factors that were identified from semi structured interviews the questionnaire
should be revisited to include new factors. Factor specific studies should be
conducted to establish further understanding of the organisational factors affecting
learning transfer
6.7 Conclusion
At the centre of each and every public sector institution is the provision of world class
services that are responsive to the community that they service and the same
applies to the South African Public Service institutions. The escalation in the service
delivery protests in the country is a fact that public sector leadership cannot continue
to ignore. A responsible leadership and citizenry would find it necessary to explore
the root cause with the aim of proposing possible interventions. The objective of this
study was to identify organisational factors that are creating a conducive
120
environment for perpetual provision of poor services to the community assuming that
the government is spending considerable funds on training and developing public
servants. The study specifically sort to establish the barriers to learning transfer
It was found that organisational culture needs to change in order to allow learning
transfer to take place. The autocratic and bureaucratic nature of the public sector
needs to be revisited as the changes globally are happening at a fast rate and the
demands from communities are also changing fast. A new calibre of leadership,
management and supervisors is required. Performance management systems,
processes and tools should be strengthened. Resources need to be made available
to deliver faster and quality services. Opportunity to practice should be provided,
innovation encouraged, and failure should be tolerated when new techniques are
tested. Feedback and continuous meaningful engagement should be encouraged as
learning platforms
In summary the study found that factors affecting learning transfer in the South
African public service are more or less similar to factors as found in Jordanian the
organisation can play an active role in ensuring learning transfer that will result in
improved service delivery and the roles that the organisation can play include:
setting up support structures like supervisors, managers and mentors, ensuring that
resources like time, funding and sufficient manpower is available. Feedback should
be provided to employees and a clear link between learning transfer and job
performance should be institutionalised.
The public service institutions with the help of human resource practitioners should
review their training and development strategies to incorporate and address factors
identified by this study. Improved service delivery is attainable through
implementation of responsive techniques that address societal needs and
challenges. A conducive environment is one area of focus for changing service
provision by the public sector in South Africa.
121
List of References
Ali, G. E., & Magalhaes, R. (2008). Barriers to implementing e-learning: a Kuwait
case study. International Journal of Training and Development, 12(1), 36-53.
Allen, M. (2007). Wisdom management: The missing link between learning and
performance. In Allen, M (ed.), the next generation of corporate universities:
Innovative approaches for developing people and expanding organizational
capabilities (pp. 389-402) San Francisco: Son Wiley & Sons.
Al- Zawahreh, A., & Al- Madi, F. (2012). The utility of equity theory in enhancing
organisational effectiveness. European Journal of Economics, Finance and
Administrative Sciences, 46, 158-170.
Argote, L., Ingram, P., Levine, J.M., & Moreland, R.L. (2000). Knowledge transfer in
organisations: Learning from experiences of others. Organisational Behaviour
and Human Decision Process, 82, 1-8.
Ashton, D. N. (2004). The impact of organisational structure and practices on
learning in the workplace. International Journal of Training and Development,
8 (2), 43-53.
Axtell, C., Holman, D., Unsworth, K., Wall, T., Waterson, P., & Harrington, E. (2000).
Shopfloor innovation: Facilitating the suggestions and implementation of
ideas. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 265-285.
Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climate for initiative and
psychological safety, process innovation and firm performance. Journal of
Organizational Behaviour, 24, 45-68.
Baldwin-Evans, K. (2004). Employees and e-learning: what do end users think?
Industrial and Commercial Training, 36 (7), 269-274.
122
Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for
future research. Personnel Psychology, 41, 63-105.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Management, 17(1), 99-120.
Bartlett, J. E. II, Kotrlik, J. W., & Higgins, C. C. (2001). Organisational research:
Determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Information
Technology, Learning and Performance Journal, 19 (1), 43-51.
Bates, R. A, Holton, E. F.III, Seyler, D. L., & Carvalho, M. A. (2000). The role of
interpersonal factors in the application of computer- based training in an
industrial setting. Human Resource Development international, 3, 19-42.
Bates, R., & Khasawneh, S. (2005). Organisational learning culture, learning transfer
climate and perceived innovation in Jordanian organisations. International
Journal of Training and Development, 9 (2), 96-109.
Berg, B. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the Social Sciences (6th ed.).
Boston: Pearson Education.
Bernardez, M. (2002). From e- Training to e-Performance using online training to
work available http://www.expert2business.com.
Bersin and Associates. (2005 ).The convergence between learning and performance
management systems. Retrieved October 2012 from
http://www.bersinassociates.com.
Berthoin Antal, A. (2000). Types of knowledge gained by expatriate managers.
Journal of General Management, 26 (2), 32-51.
123
Bhattacharya, M. (2002). Creating a meaningful learning environment using ICT.
Centre for Development of Teaching and Learning, 5 (3). Retrieved from
http://www.cdtl.nus.edusg
Biech, E. C. (2008). ASTD handbook for workplace learning professions. Baltimore,
Maryland: United Book.
Billet, S. (2001). Learning throughout working life: activities and interdependencies.
Studies in Continuing Education, 23 (1), 19-35.
Brinkerhoff, T. O., & Montesino, M. V (1995) Partnerships for training transfer:
lessons from a corporate study. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 6
(3), 263-269.
Brinkerhoff, R. O. (2006). Increasing impact of training investments: An evaluation
strategy for building organizational learning capability. Individual Commercial
Training, 38 (6), 302-307.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77-101.
Broucker, B. (2007). Measuring transfer of public management programmes: the
learning transfer system inventory in the Belgian federal administration. Public
Administration and the Management of Diversity: EGPA conference
2007.retrieved from http.//egpa2007.inap.map.es/egpa2007/workshops/sgix.
Broucker, B. (2010). Programs in public management: transfer inhibiting and transfer
enhancing factors in the Belgian Public Sector. Journal of Public Affairs
Education, 16 (2), 231-253.
Bunch, K. J. (2007). Training failure as a consequence of organisational culture.
Human Resource Development Review, 6 (2), 142-163.
124
Burke, L. A., & Hutchins, H. M. (2007). Training Transfer: An integrative literature
review. Human Resource Development Review, 6 (3), 263-269.
Burns, N., & Grove S.K. (2003). Understanding nursing research. (3rd ed.).
Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through
qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks California: Sage
Chen, Y., & Fang, C.Y. (2008). The moderating effect of impression management on
the organisational politics - performance relationship. Journal of Business
Ethics, 79 (3) 263-277.
Chen, Y., Gupta, A., & Hoshower, L. (2006). Factors that motivate business faculty
to conduct research: An expectancy theory analysis. Journal of Education for
Business, 8 (4), 179-189.
Cheng, E. W. L., & Ho, D. C. K. (2001,a). The influence of jobs and career attitudes
on learning motivation and transfer. Career Development International, 6 (1),
20-26.
Cheng, E. W. L., & Ho, D. C. K. (2001,b). A review of transfer of training studies in
the past decade. Personnel Review, 30 (1), 102-118.
Chiaburu, D. S., & Marinova, S. V. (2005). What predicts skill transfer? An
exploratory study of goal orientation, training self efficacy and organisational
support. International Journal of Training and Development, 9 (2), 110-123.
Chiaburu, D. S., & Tekleab, A. G. (2005). Individual and contextual influences on
multiple dimension of training effectiveness. Journal of European Industrial
Training, 29 (8), 604-626.
125
Chiaburu, D. S., Van Dam, K., & Hutchins, H. M. (2010). Social support in the
workplace and training transfer: A longitudinal analysis. International Journal
of Selection and Assessment, 18 (2), 187-200.
Chiviacowsky, S., & Wulf, G. (2002). Self-controlled feedback: does it enhance
learning because performers get feedback when they need it? Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73 (4), 408- 415.
Clarke, N. (2002). Job-work environment factors influencing transfer within a human
service agency. International Journal of training and Development, 6 (3), 146-
162.
Collings, D. G., & Scullion, H. (2006). Global staffing. In G. K Stahl & I. Bjorkman
(eds.). International Handbook of Research in International Human Resource
Management (141-157), Cheltenham UK: Edward Elgar.
Collins, K. M. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Sutton, I. L. (2006). A model incorporating
the rationale and purpose for conducting mixed methods research in special
education and beyond. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4, 67-
100.
Conner, M. L., & Clawson, J. G. (2004). Creating a learning culture, strategy,
technology and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Corbetta, P. (2003). Social Research Theory, Methods and Techniques. London:
Sage.
Cormier, S. M., & Hagman, J. D. (1987). Transfer of learning: Contemporary
research and applications. San Diego: Academic Press.
Cornford, I. R (2005). Challenging current policies and policy makers’ thinking on
generic skills. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 57 (1), 25-45.
126
Coutu, D. L. (2002). The anxiety of learning. Harvard Business Review, 80 (3), 100-
106.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and mixed
methods approached (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and mixed
methods approached (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed
methods research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed
methods research: A practical how to guide to designing mixed methods
studies. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
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.
Currie, G., & Proctor, S. (2005). The antecedents of middle managers strategic
contribution: the case of a professional bureaucracy. Journal of Management
Studies, 42 (7), 1325- 1356.
Daffron, S. R., & North, M. W. (2006). Learning transfer: Lesson learned from
software company professionals. Journal of lifelong learning, 15, 51-67.
Daniels, H., Lauder, H., & Porter, J. (2009, a). Knowledge, Values and Educational
Policy: A critical perspective. New York: Routledge.
127
Daniels, H., Lauder, H., & Porter, J. (2009, b). Educational theories, cultures and
learning: a critical perspective. USA: Routledge.
David, M., & Sutton, C. D. (2004). Social Research: The Basics. London: Sage.
Dempsey, A., & Dempsey, A. (2000). Using nursing research: process, critical
evaluation and utilisation (5th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams &
Wilkins.
Dennen, V. P., & Wang, M. (2002). The Keyboard- based job coach: Informal
learning via the internet. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4 (4),
440-450.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.)
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Donovan, P., Hannigan, K., & Crowe, D. (2001). The learning transfer system
approach to estimating the benefits of training: empirical evidence. Journal of
European Industrial Training, 25 (2), 221-228.
Edwards, T., Collings, D. G., Quintanilla, J., & Temple, A. (2006). Innovation and
transfer of organisational learning, in P. Almond and A. Ferner (eds),
American Multinationals in Europe: Managing Employment Relations across
National Borders, Oxford: Oxford University.
Egan, T. M., Yang, B., & Bartlett, K. R. (2004). The effectiveness of organizational
learning culture and job satisfaction on motivation to transfer and turnover
intention. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15 (2), 279-301.
Eggen, P., & Kauchak, D. (2007). Educational Psychology: Windows on Classrooms.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Eisenkraft, A. (2003). Expanding 5E model. Science Teacher, 70 (6), 56-59.
128
Ellinger, A. D. (2003). Antecedent and consequences of coaching behaviour.
Performance Improvement Quarterly, 16 (1), 5-28.
Enos, M. D., Kehrhahn, M. T., & Bell, A. (2003). Informal learning and the transfer of
learning: how managers develop proficiency. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 14 (4), 369-387.
Field, A. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS for windows. London: Sage.
Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Figgis, J., Alderson, A., Blackwell, A., Butorac, A., Mitchell, K., & Zubrich, A. (2001).
What convinces Enterprises to value training and learning and what does not?
Retrieved 15 April 2011 from http://www.ncver.edu.ac/publications.
Fincham, J. E. (2008). Responsive Rates and Responsiveness for Surveys,
Standards and the Journal. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education,
72 (2), 43. doi:10.5688/aj720243.
Foxon, M. (1993). A process approach to transfer of training. Australian Journal of
Educational Technology, 9 (2), 130-143.
Foxon, M. (1994). A process approach to the transfer of training, Part 2: Using
action planning to facilitate transfer of training. Australian Journal of
Educational Technology, 10(1), 1-18.
Fried, Y., & Slowik, L. H. (2004). Enriching Goal-Setting Theory with time: An
integrated approach. The Academy of Management Review, 29 (3), 404-422.
Fuller, A., Munro, A., & Rainbird, H. (2004). Workplace learning in context. London:
Routledge.
Gilbert, N. (1993). Analysing tabular data: Log linear and logistic models for social
researchers. London: UCL, Press.
129
Gilley, J. W., & Maycunich, A. (2000). Beyond the learning organization: Creating a
culture of continuous growth and development through state-of-the-art human
resource practices. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
Gilpin-Jackson, Y., & Bushe, G. R (2007). Leadership development training transfer:
A case study of post-training determinants. Journal of Management
Development, 26 (10), 980-1004.
Gitonga, J. W. (2006). Work environment factors influencing the transfer of learning
for online learners. University of Illinois. Dissertation. Proquest database.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research.
The Qualitative Report, 8 (4), 597-606. Retrieved 10 July 2012 from
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/qr/qr8-4/golafshani.
Goldstein, I. L., & Ford, J. K. (2002) Training in organisations. Belmont CA:
Wadsworth.
Gray, D. E. (2004). Doing Research in the Real World. London: Sage.
Gumuseli, A. I., & Ergin, B. (2002). The manager’s role in enhancing the transfer of
training: A Turkish case study. International Journal of Training and
Development, 6 (2), 80-97
Habing, B. (2003). Exploratory factor analysis. Retrieved from
http://www.stat.sc.edu/habing/course/530/course.
Hair, J., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data
analysis (4th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Handy, L. W. (2008). The importance of the work environment variables on the
transfer of training. PHD Thesis, Department of Education, University of North
130
Carolina State University. Carolina, USA, unpublished. Retrieved from
http://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/ir/bitstream/1840.16/3672/etd.pdf.
Harrell, L. S. (2006). A study of student’s perceptions of learning transfer from
human anatomy and physiology course in an allied program. ETD collection
for University of Nebraska- Lincoln. Retrieved May 2012 from
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/edu/dissertations/aa13222744.
Harris, P. R., Moran, R. T., & Moran, S. V. (2004). Managing cultural differences:
Global leadership strategies for the twenty first century (6th ed.). Oxford,
England: Elsevier Butterworth- Heinemann.
Haskell, R. E. (2001). Transfer of Learning: Cognition, Instruction, Reasoning.
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Hawley, J. D., & Barnard, J. K. (2005). Work environment characteristics and
implications for training transfer: A case study of nuclear power industry.
Human Resource Development International, 8 (1), 65-80.
Heaton, J. (2004). Reworking Qualitative Data. London: Sage.
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The Dynamic resource –based view: capability
lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 997-1010.
Henson, R. K., & Roberts, J. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in
Published Research: Common errors and some comment on improved
practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66 (3), 393-416. doi:
10.1177/0013164405282485.
Hinrichs, B. H. (2004). Psychology: The essence of a science. Boston: Pearson.
Hockey, I., Robinson, V., & Meah, A. (2005) Cross generational investigation of the
making of heterosexual relationships, 1912-2003. Colchester, Essex: UK data
archive.
131
Holton, E. F. III, (2000). what’s really wrong: Diagnosis for learning transfer system
change. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 2 (4), 7-22.
Holton, E. F. III, & Baldwin, T. T. (2000). Making transfer happen: An action
perspective on learning transfer systems. Advances in developing Human
Resources, 8, 1-6.
Holton, E. F. III, & Baldwin, T. T. (2003). Improving Learning in organisations.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Holton, E. F., Bates, R. A., & Ruona, W. E. A. (2000). Development of a Generalized
Learning Transfer System Inventory. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 11(4), 333-358.
Holton, E. F., Bates, R. A., Seyler, D., & Carvalho, M. A. (1997). Construct validation
of a transfer climate instrument. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 8
(2), 95-113.
Holton, E. F., Chen, J., & Naquin, S. S. (2003). An examination of learning transfer
system characteristics across organisational settings. Human Resources
Development Quarterly, 14 (4), 459-482.
Holton, V., Voller, S., Schofield, C., & Devine, M. (2010). Improving learning
transfer: a pilot study with three Ashridge client organisations. Retrieved from
Http://www.ashridge.org.uk.
Huczynski, A. A., & Lewis, J. W. (1980). An empirical study into the learning transfer
process in management training. The Journal of Management Studies, 17
(22), 227-240.
Hung, H., & Wong, Y. H. (2007). The relationship between employer endorsement of
continuing education and training and work and study performance: a Hong
132
Kong case study. International Journal of Training and Development, 11 (4),
295-313.
Hyde, S. M. (2010). A study of supervisor factors and their relationship to transfer in
a sales training course. Proquest database. No. 3427052.
Inkpen, A., & Tsang, E. (2005). Social capital networks and knowledge transfer.
Academy of Management Review. 30 (1), 146-165.
Ivancevich, J., Konopaske, R. S., & Matteson, M. T. (2008). Organizational
Behaviour and Management (8th ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ivergard, T., & Hunt, B. (2004). Processes of learning and e-learning. International
Journal of the Computer, the internet and Management, 12 (2), 32-44.
Jellema, F., Vischer, A., & Scheerens, J. (2006). Measuring change in work
behaviour by multi-source feedback. International Journal of Training and
Development, 10 (2), 121-139.
Johnson, A., & Crowe, D. A. (2008). Revisiting Tolman, his theories and cognitive
maps. Cognitive Critique, 1, 48-71. Retrieved May 2012 from
http://www.cogrit.umn.edu/docs.
Johnson, R. (2009). Using expectancy theory to explain officer security check
activity. International journal of police science and management, 11 (3),
274-284. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1350/ijps.2009.11.3.129.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research
approach whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33 (7), 14-26.
Johnstal, S. P. (2010). Transfer of training in leadership development: lived
experiences of HPI practitioners. Proquest database, no. 3426251.
133
Jupp, V. (2006). The sage dictionary of social research methods. Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage.
Kajornboon, A. B. (2004). Using interviews as research instrument. Retrieved July
2012 from http://www.culi.chula,ac.th/e-journal/bod/annabel.pdf.
Kamoche, K., & Harvey, M. (2006). Knowledge diffusion in the African context: an
institutional theory perspective. Thunderbird International Business Review,
48 (2), 157-181.
Katila, R., & Shane, S. (2005). When does lack of resources make new firms
innovative? Academy of Management Journal, 48 (5), 814-829.
Khasawneh, S., Bates, R., & Holton, E. F. III. (2006). Construction validation of an
Arabic version of the Learning Transfer System Inventory for use in Jordan.
International Journal of Training and Development, 10 (3), 180-194. doi:
10.1111/j.1468-2419.2006.00253.x.
Kidger, P. J. (2002). Management structure in multinational enterprises: responding
to globalisation. Employee Relations, 24 (1), 69-85.
King, B., & Wertheimer, M. (2007). Max Wertheimer and Gestalt Theory. New
Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction.
Kirwan, C. (2009). Improving learning transfer- a guide to getting more out of what
you put into your training. England: Gower.
Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F.III, & Swanson, R. A. (2005). The adult learner (6th ed.)
New York: Elsevier.
Kontoghiorghes, C. (2001). A holistic approach towards motivation to learn.
Performance Improvement Quarterly, 14 (4), 233-241.
134
Kontoghiorghes, C. (2004). Reconceptualising the learning transfer conceptual
framework: empirical validation of a new systemic model. International Journal
of Training & Development, 8 (3), 210-221.
Kontoghiorghes, C. (2005). Examining the relationship between learning
organisation characteristics and change adaptation, innovation and
organizational performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16 (2),
185-212.
Kostova, T., & Roth, K. (2003). Social Capital in multinational corporations and a
micro-macro model of its formation. Academy of Management Review, 28 (2),
297-317.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Salas, E. (1997). In Yamnill, S. & McLean, G.N. Theories
supporting transfer of training. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12
(2), 195-208.
Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (2001). Organisational Behaviour (5th ed.). Boston:
McGraw Hill.
Kulkarni, M. (2012). Social networks and career advancement of people with
disabilities. Human Resource Development Review, 11 (2), 138-155.
Kumar, R (2011). Research methodology: A step by step guide. Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage.
Leberman, S., McDonald, L., & Doyle, S. (2006). The Transfer of Learning:
Participants’ perspective of adult education and training. England: Gowers.
Leimbach, M. (2010). Learning transfer models: A research driven approach to
enhancing learning effectiveness. Industrial and Commercial Training,
42 (2), 81-86.
Lewis, K., Lange ,D., & Gillis, L. (2005). Transactive memory systems, learning
135
and learning transfer. A journal of the institute for operations research
and the management sciences, 16 (6), 581-598.
Lim, D.H. (2001). The effect of work experience and job position on international
learning transfer. International Journal of Vocational Education and Training,
9 (2), 59-74.
Lim, D. H., & Johnson, S. D. (2002). Trainee perceptions of factors that influence
learning transfer. International Journal of Training and Development, 6 (1),
36-48.
Lim, D. H., & Morris, M. L. (2006). Influence of trainee characteristics, instructional
satisfaction and organisational climate on perceived learning and training
transfer. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 17 (1), 85-115.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal
setting and task motivation: A 35-year Odyssey. American Psychologist, 57,
705-717.
Lohman, M. C. (2000). Environmental inhibitions to informal learning in the
workplace: A case study of public school teachers. Adult Education Quarterly,
50 (2), 83-101.
Mahmoud, T. E. (2005). Factors affecting training transfer in the Egyptian
pharmaceutical industry. University of Louisville.
Malhotra, N. K. (2004). Marketing research: An applied orientation (4th ed.).
New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Malone, S. A, (2003). Learning about learning, an A-Z of training and development
tools & techniques. London: CIPD.
Mangal, S. K. (2007). Essential of Educational Psychology. New Delhi: Prentice
Hall.
136
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Designing qualitative research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Marsick, V., & Watkins, K. (2003). Demonstrating the value of an organisation’s
learning culture: the dimensions of the learning organisation questionnaire.
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5 (2), 132-151.
McDonnell, A., Gunnigle, P., & Lavelle, J. (2010). Learning transfer in multinational
companies: explaining inter-organisation variation. Human Resource
Management Journal, 20 (1), 23-43.
McLoughlin, C. (2002). Learner support in distance and networked learning
environments: Ten dimensions for successful design. Distance Education, 23
(2), 149-162.
Merriam, S. B., & Leahy, B. (2005) Learning Transfer: A review of the research in
adult education & training. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 14, 1-24.
Mestre, J. P. (2005). Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary
perspective. USA: Information Age.
Meyer, E., Lees, A., Humphris, D., & Connell, N. A. (2007). Opportunities and
barriers to successful learning transfer: Impact of critical care skills training.
Journal of Advance Nursing, 60 (3), 308-316.
Michalak, D.F. (1981). The neglected half of training. Training and Development
Journal, 35 (5), 22-28.
Minbaeva, D., & Michailova, S. (2004). Knowledge transfer and expatriation in
multinational corporations: the role of disseminative capacity. Employee
Relations, 26 (6), 663-679.
Mishra, B. K. (2008). Psychology: A study of Human Behaviour. New Delhi: PHI
Learning.
137
Mitchell, M. L., & Jolley, J. M. (2010). Research design explained. (7th ed.). USA:
Wadsworth.
Morgan, D.L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological
implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of
Mixed Methods Research, 1 (1), 48-76.
Morris, C. G., & Maisto, A. A. (2009). Understanding Psychology (9th ed.). USA:
Prentice Hall.
Mouton, J. (2001). How to succeed in your Masters and Doctoral studies. Pretoria,
South Africa: Van Schaik.
Murphy, S. M., & Tyler, S. (2005). The relationship between learning approaches to
part-time study of management courses and transfer of learning to the
workplace. Educational Psychology, 25 (5), 455-469.
Myers, M. J. M. (2009). Transfer of learning from training program to the workplace
in a university health care organisation setting. Doctoral dissertation paper.
www.digitalcommons.uconn/edu/dissertations/aa13391699.
Nair, P.K. (2007). A path analysis of relationships among job stress, job satisfaction,
motivation to transfer and transfer of learning: Perceptions of occupational
safety and health administration trainees. Retrieved from
www.repository.tamu.edu.
Neuman, W, L. (2000). Social research methods: Qualitative and qualitative
approaches (4th ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Neuman, W, L. (2005). Social research methods: Qualitative and qualitative
approaches (6th ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
138
Nijman, D. J. J. M., Nijhof, W. J., Wognum, A. A. M., & Veldkamp, B. P. (2006).
Exploring differential effects of supervisor support on transfer of training.
Journal of European industrial training, 30, 529-549.
Noe, R.A. (2010). Employee training and Development (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Noe, R.A. (2013). Employee training and Development (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
O’ Leary, Z. (2004). The essential guide to doing research. Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2004). Enhancing the interpretation of
“significant” findings: The role of mixed methods research. The Qualitative
Report, 9 (4), 770-792.
Orb, A., Eisenhauer, L. & Wynaden, D. (2000). Ethics in qualitative research. Journal
of Nursing Scholarship, 33 (1), 93-96
Ormrod, J. E. (2011). Human Learning (6th ed.). New Jersey, USA: Pearson.
Papalia, D. E, Olds, S. W. & Feldman, R. D. (2007). Human development (10th ed.).
Boston: McGraw Hill.
Perez, G. A. (2006). Measuring the perceived transfer of learning for a customer
service training program delivered by line managers to call centre employees
in a fortune 200 financial source company. Retrieved from
www.sageperformance.com.
Phillips, J. J., & Phillips, P. P. (2007). The value of learning: How organizations
capture value and ROI and translate them into support, improvement and
funds. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
Ping, F.S. (2010). The mediating effect of leader-member exchange (LMX) on the
relationship between emotional intelligence, job satisfaction and job
139
performance of employees. Retrieved from
www.libproject.hkbu.edu.hk/trsimage/hp/07009755.pdf.
Punch K. F. (2005). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Rice, C. (2007). Driving long term engagements through a high- performance
culture. Princeton: Blessing white,
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job Engagement: Antecedents
and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53 (3),
617-635. Doi:10.5465/amj.2010.51468988.
Richman- Hirsch, W. L. (2001). Post training interventions to enhance transfer: The
moderating effects of work environment. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 12 (2), 105-120.
Rogers. A (2003). What is the difference? A new critique of adult learning and
teaching. Leicester: NIACE.
Ronen, E. (2008). Transfer of e-learning in the workplace: the effects of trainee
characteristics and contextual factors. Retrieved December 2012 from
www.dl.acm.org.
Rosenberg, M. J. (2001). E- Learning strategies for delivering knowledge in the
Digital Age. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rothwell, W. J., & Sredl, H. J. (2000). The ASTD reference guide to workplace
learning and performance: Present and future roles and competencies
(3rd ed). USA: HRD Press.
Rouiller, J. Z., & Goldstein, I. L. (1993). The relationship between organisational
transfer climate and positive transfer of training. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 4 (4), 377-390.
140
Russ-Eft, D. (2002). A typology of training design and work environment factors
affecting workplace learning and transfer. Human Resource Development
Review, 1 (1), 45-65.
Sambrook, A. (2005). Factors influencing the context and process of work- related
learning: Synthesising findings from two research projects. Human Resource
Development International, 8 (1), 101-119
Sambrook, S., & Stewart, J. (2000). Factors influencing learning in European
learning oriented organizations: Issues of management. Journal of European
Industrial Training, 24 (2), 209-219.
Santos, A., & Stuart, M. (2003). Employee perceptions and their influence on training
effectiveness. Human Resource Management Journal, 13 (1), 27-45.
Santrock, J. W. (2008). Educational Psychology (3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Sapnas, K. G., & Zeller, R. A. (2002). Minimizing sample size when using exploratory
factor analysis for measurement. Journal of Nursing measurement, 10 (2),
135-154.
Schilling, J., & Kluge, A. (2009). Barriers to organisational learning: An integration of
theory and research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11 (3),
337-360.
Scott, L. (2010). A study on the relationship between ability, motivational and work
environment influences and the degree of transfer of learning for new
trainees. Proquest database. No. 518000.
Siemens, G. (2008). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for
Educators and Designers. Paper 105: University of Georgia IT forum,
retrieved 14 May 2012 from
HTTP://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper105/siemens
141
Skule, S. (2004). Learning conditions at work: A framework to understand and
assess informal learning in the workplace. International Journal of Training
and Development, 8 (1), 8-17.
Sloman, M. (2002). The e- learning revolution, how technology is driving a new
training paradigm. New York: Amacom.
Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Shapiro, D. L. (2004). Introduction to special topic
forum, the future of work motivation theory. Academy of Management Review,
29 (3), 379-387.
Storck, J., & Hill, P. A. (2000, January 15). Knowledge diffusion through strategic
communities. Sloan Management Review, 41 (2). Retrieved from
http://sloanreview.mit.edu/issue/winter-2000.
Subedi, B. S. (2004). Emerging trends of research on transfer of learning.
International Education Journal, 5 (4), 591-599.
Subedi, B. S. (2006). Cultural factors and beliefs influencing transfer of training.
International Journal of Training and Development, 10 (2), 88-97.
Doi:10.1111/j.1468-2419.2006.00246.x.
Suh, E. M. ( 2002). Culture, identity consistency and subjective well-being. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 83 (6), 1378-1391.
Summers, J. K., Humphrey, S. E., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). Team member change, flux
in coordination and performance: effects of strategic core roles, information
transfer and cognitive ability. Academy of Management Journal, 55 (2),
314- 338.
Sun, P. T. Y., & Scott, J. ( 2005). An investigation of barriers to knowledge transfer.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 9 (2), 75-90.
142
Swap, W., Leonard. D., Shields, M., & Abrams, L. (2001). Using mentoring and
storytelling to transfer knowledge in the workplace. Journal of Management
Information Systems,18 (1), 95-114.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston:
Pearson.
Taylor, M. C. (2000). Transfer of learning in workplace literacy programs. Adult Basic
Education: An interdisciplinary Journal of adult literacy educators, 10 (1),
3-20.
Taylor, S. (2006). Emerging motivations for global HRM integration, in A. Ferner, J.
Quintanilla and J.I Sanchez (eds). Multinationals and the Construction of
Transnational practices: Convergence and Diversity in the Global Economy.
London: Palgrave.
Tewksbury, R. (2009). Qualitative versus quantitative methods: Understanding why
qualitative methods are superior for criminology and criminal justice. Journal
of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology, 1 (1), 38-58.
Tharenou, P. (2001). The relationship of training motivation to participation in training
and development. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74
(5), 599- 621.
Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor analysis: understanding
concepts and applications. Washington DC: American Psychological
association.
Tikannen, T. (2002). Learning at work in technology intensive environment. Journal
of Workplace Learning, 14 (3), 89-97.
Torrey, L., & Shavlik, J. (2009) Transfer Learning. In E Soria, J. Martin, R.
Magdalena, M. Martinez & A. Serrano, editor, Handbook of research
in machine learning application. IGI global,
143
Tracey, J. B., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Kavanaugh, M. J. (1995). Applying trained skills
on the job: The importance of the work environment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 80 (2), 239-252.
Training.com.au. Creating a learning culture. Retrieved 14 April 2011.
http://www.training.training.com.au.
Tregaskis, O. (2003). Learning networks, power and legitimacy in multinational
subsidiaries. International Journal of Human Resources Management, 14 (3),
431-447.
Tregaskis, O., Glover, L., & Ferner, A. (2005). International HR Networks. London:
CIPD.
Tregaskis, O., Edwards, T., Edwards, P., & Ferner, A., & Marginson, P. (2010).
Transnational learning structures in multinational firms: Organisational
context and national embeddedness. Human Relations, 63 (4),
471-499.
Underhill, C. M. (2006). The effectiveness of mentoring programs in corporate
settings: A meta-analytical review of literature. Journal of Vocational
Behaviour, 68 (2), 292-307.
Van Buren, M.E., & Erskine, W. (2002, February). The 2002 state of the Industry
report: ASTD’s annual review of trends in employer-provided training in the
United States. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and
Development.
Van der Klink, M., Gielen, E., & Nauta, C. (2001). Supervisory support as a major
condition to enhance transfer. International Journal of Training and
Development, 5 (1), 52-63.
144
Van der Sluis, L. E. C., & Poell, R. F. (2002). Learning opportunities and learning
behaviour: A study among MBAs in their early career stage. Management
Learning, 33 (3), 291-311.
Van Teijlingen, E., & Hundley, V. (2001). The importance of pilot studies. Social
Research Update, 35, 1-4.
Waller, L. (2012). Enhancing the transfer of learning: A focus on the individual 360
The Ashridge Journal, 34-41. Retrieved from
http://www.ashridge.org.uk/website/content.nsf/w360/2012_spring_transfer.
Ward, R. C. (2008). Assessing learning transfer and performance improvement in
an action learning leadership development programme. Proquest database.
Wegner, T. (2000). Quantitative methods of making decisions. Kenwyn: Juta.
Wexley, K. N., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Developing and Training Human Resources
in Organizations. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall
Williams, B., Onsman, A., & Brown, T. (2010, October 28). Exploratory factor
analysis: a five-step guide for novices. Journal of Emergency Primary Health
Care, 8 (3). Retrieved from http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/37708/20111028-
0123/www.jephc.com.
Woolfolk, A. (2007). Educational Psychology (10th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Yaghi, A., Goodman, D., Holton, E. & Bates, R. A. (2008). Validation of the learning
transfer system: A study of supervisors in the public sector in Jordan. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 19 (3), 241-262.
Yamnill, S., & Mclean, G. N. (2001). Theories supporting transfer of training. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 12 (2), 195-208.
145
Yamnill, S., & Mclean, G. N. (2005).Factors affecting transfer of training in Thailand,
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16 (3), 325-344.
1
Appendix A
2
Appendix B
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION AND INFORMED CONSENT FORM FOR RESEARCH LEARNING
TRANSFER
TITLE OF RESEARCH PROJECT:
An exploratory study of organizational factors affecting learning transfer
RESEARCHER: Nditsheni Raliphada, Masters in Human Resource Development student at
University of Johannesburg Department of Industrial Psychology and People Management
CONTACT DETAILS: xxxx
SUPERVISOR: Prof J Coetzee.
CONTACT DETAILS: xxxx
3
N.B. Kindly note that this participant information and consent form has been divided into two parts,
part 1 focusing on information sharing and part 2 consent form
PART 1- PARTICIPANT INFORMATION
Introduction
I would like to invite you to participate in a research study that involves learning transfer. Please take
some time to read the information presented here which will explain the details of this project. You
are welcome to contact any of the people provided above should you have questions regarding this
project. You are encouraged to get assistance from any other sources in order to ensure that you are
fully satisfied, you clearly understand what this research entails and what your role involves. Your
participation is voluntary and you are free to decline to participate or withdraw at any stage should
the need arise.
This research study has been approved by the University of Johannesburg Research and Ethics
Committee.
Purpose of the study
The purpose of this study is to determine factors that encourage or hinder employees from practicing what
they have learned from training in the workplace. We would like to learn why employees having spent
money and time attending training, they still do not practice what they have learned. The information on
what encourages or hinders learning transfer is critical as the unearthing of this information will assist
organisation to create conducive environment from practicing what one has learned. The ability of
employees to practice what they have learned. Your participation in this study will assist us to identify
factors that are affecting learning transfer
Type of Research Intervention
This research will involve a survey questionnaire which may require 30 to 40 minutes of your time.
Participant Selection
You are being invited to participate in this study as one of the names that were chosen when we did
random sampling in this department. Participants are across all occupational categories, levels and
branches in the departments. A list of names was requested from your human resource department after
permission to collect data was granted by the Department and we made a selection of employees, the
4
human resources directorate does not know the participants and thus you are assured of anonymity. You
are reminded that participation is voluntary and you may choose not to participate.
Procedures
The questionnaire you have been provided with requires 30 to 40 minutes to complete. The questionnaire
requires you to indicate factors that in your observation and knowledge are affecting people to practice
what they have learned. The researcher will distribute the questionnaires as you have received them and
you will be granted a week to reflect on whether you want to participate as well as to fill in the
questionnaire at the time most suitable to you. The researcher will collect the questionnaires after a week.
Should you require more clarity on some of the questions you are welcome to contact the researcher
telephonically alternatively you may ask the questions when the researcher collects the questionnaires at
your workplace.
The information collected through the questionnaires shall be kept in the strictest confidence. Only Statkon
employees will have access to questionnaires as they will be responsible for data analysis. The data will
be kept for a period as required by the University of Johannesburg. Your name will not be included in the
form only a number will identify you
Duration
The data collection will take place over a period of a month the researcher will visit you twice, the first visit
is when the questionnaire is distributed and the second visit will be when the researcher collects the
questionnaire. Each visit will take approximately 20 minutes.
Benefits
The study may not bring a direct benefit to you but your participation may help HRD Practitioners and
public service decision makers to develop interventions that will minimise the factors hindering learning
transfer. The participants will not incur any expense by participating in this study. Participants will not
receive any monetary reward for participating in this study.
A copy of the results for this study will be made available to the department
Participant confidentiality
You will be anonymous and your department’s name will be omitted and referred to as department and
provincial department without specifically naming it. The researcher will not share information about you
unless required by the law or unless you give written permission. By signing this form your information will
5
remain confidential. What will remain will be the results which do not specify the name of participants nor
institution.
Declaration by Researcher
I (name) ………………………………………………… declare that:
I explained the information in this document to …………………..……………...
I encouraged him/her to ask questions and took adequate time to answer them.
I am satisfied that he/she adequately understands all aspects of the research as
discussed above.
I did/did not use a interpreter.
Signed at (place) ......................…........…………….. on (date) …………....……….. 2010.
Signature of Researcher Signature of witness
PART 2
Declaration by participant
I …………………………………..…………. agree to take part in a learning transfer study entitled an
exploratory study of organizational factors affecting learning transfer in the public service
I declare that:
I have read or had read to me this information and consent form and it is written in a
language with which I am fluent and comfortable.
I have had a chance to ask questions and all my questions have been adequately
answered.
I understand that taking part in this study is voluntary and I have not been pressurised to
take part.
6
I have received a signed duplicate copy of this consent form for my records.
Signed at (place) .......................................................... on (date)
Signature of participant Signature of witness
7
APPENDIX C
The Chief Director
Department of xxxxxxxxxx
Dear Sir
Re: Request to conduct research within your Department in satisfaction of the
masters in HRD requirements
I am currently in the process of completing my Master’s degree in Human Resource
Development through research dissertation project. University of Johannesburg
requires that permission be obtained from institutions were data will be collected.
This letter is to request your permission to conduct my research within your
Department with employees who have attended training programmes in the last 24
Months.
The objective of my project is to establish organizational factors that inhibit or
encourage employees to transfer what they have learned from a training intervention
into the work environment.. It is my belief that establishing these factors will assist
employers and leadership in organisations to ensure that they derive value in funds
that were spent during training interventions as support will be provided to
employees encouraging learning transfer research has indicated that globally only
10% or 15% of learning gets transferred to the workplace, such research has not
been done in South Africa and this study intend to test that hypothesis in the South
African public service fraternity.
The benefits of this project will be far reaching and will assist your department
identify its shortfalls related to skills development and performance management,
thus assisting you to develop interventions to address the identified gaps. The name
of the Department will not appear on the research report as data may also be
collected from other Departments. The researcher however commits to give the
Department a copy of the dissertation so that it can be used for reference and
planning purposes.
8
I would like to thank you in advance for the opportunity and permission to conduct
my research within your Department. Should you have any questions of clarity you
are welcome to contact me or my supervisor using details provided below.
Sincerely
Raliphada Nditsheni
Tel: xxxxxxxxx
9
APPENDIX D
Questionnaire
a) This questionnaire is a data collection tool for the research that is being done to satisfy the
requirements of master’s degree in Human Resource Development
b) You are encouraged to be as honest as possible
c) Kindly note that you may choose to identify yourself or to withhold your name
d) Kindly choose the most appropriate answer by using an “X” where required, an example is
provided below
1. To what extent do
you enjoy eating
Bananas?
To a very
large extent
To a large
extent x
To a
moderate
extent
To a
small
extent
To no
extent
Section A- Biographical information
This section of the questionnaire refers to biographical information. Although not the main focus of
this study the information will assist the researcher to understand the background of the respondents
and may to a certain extent make some inferences on the basis of this information.
1. Which organisation are
you working for
Department of Rural Development
2. For how long have you
been working for this
organisation?
0-11
months
1-5
years
6- 10 years 11-15 years 16 years and
above
3. How would you categorise
your work experience
altogether?
0-2
years
3-5
years
6- 10 years 11-15 years 16 years and
above
4. To which age group do you
belong?
18 years
and
younger
19- 25
years
26-35 years 36- 45 years 46 years and
above
5. Kindly tick your gender Male Female
6. To which race group do
you belong?
African Coloured Indian White
7. When did you attend your
most recent training and
development programme?
0-6 months 7- 11 months 1-2 Years More than 2
years
8. What was the duration for 1- 5days 6 - 30days 2 – 12 months 1 year and
10
the last training
programme you attended?
longer
9. What qualification did you
receive on completion of
the training programme?
Certificate of
attendance
Certificate of
competence
NQF level 4- 5
qualification
NQF level 6
and above
qualification
10. Did the training you
attended then include a
practical component?
Yes No
Section B- Organisational Factors
This section explores the extent to which learning is affected by organisational factors
To a very
large
extent
To a large
extent
To a
moderate
extent
To a
small
extent
To a very
small
extent
To no
extent
1. To what extent have
you put in practice the
knowledge and skills
you acquired during
your training and
development
programme
To a very
large extent
To a large
extent
To a
moderate
extent
To a
small
extent
To a very
small
extent
To no
extent
2. To what extent do
most of the Policies in
your organisation allow
you to practise what
you have learned from
the training
programmes
To a very
large extent
To a large
extent
To a
moderate
extent
To a
small
extent
To a very
small
extent
To no
extent
3. To what extent do the
Processes in the
organisation afford you
the necessary
opportunities to
practice what you have
learned
To a very
large extent
To a large
extent
To a
moderate
extent
To a
small
extent
To a very
small
extent
To no
extent
4. To what extent does
the structural design of
To a very
large extent
To a large
extent
To a
moderate
To a
small
To a very
small
To no
extent
11
the organisation allow
you to practice what
you have learned
extent extent extent
5. To what extent does
your immediate
supervisor provide you
with the necessary
support to practice
what you have
learned?
To a very
large extent
To a large
extent
To a
moderate
extent
To a
small
extent
To a very
small
extent
To no
extent
6. To what extent does
the broader
management of the
organisation provide
you with support to
implement what you
have learned?
To a very
large extent
To a large
extent
To a
moderate
extent
To a
small
extent
To a very
small
extent
To no
extent
7. To what extent do the
political appointees in
the organisation hinder
/ interfere with learning
transfer?
To a very
large extent
To a large
extent
To a
moderate
extent
To a
small
extent
To a very
small
extent
To no
extent
8. To what extent does
the available human
resources (number of
available staff
members) assist you
to practice what you
have learned?
To a very
large extent
To a large
extent
To a
moderate
extent
To a
small
extent
To a very
small
extent
To no
extent
9. To what extent do you
have financial
resources to
implement what you
have learned?
To a very
large extent
To a large
extent
To a
moderate
extent
To a
small
extent
To a very
small
extent
To no
extent
10. To what extent do your
colleagues provide you
with the necessary
support to practice
what you have
learned?
To a very
large extent
To a large
extent
To a
moderate
extent
To a
small
extent
To a very
small
extent
To no
extent
12
11. To what extent does
your position provide
you with the necessary
authority to practice
what you have
learned?
To a very
large extent
To a large
extent
To a
moderate
extent
To a
small
extent
To a very
small
extent
To no
extent
12. To what extent does
your placement within
the organisation
provide you with the
opportunity to practice
what you learned
To a very
large extent
To a large
extent
To a
moderate
extent
To a
small
extent
To a very
small
extent
To no
extent
13. To what extent do you
think applying training
on the job will lead to
positive outcomes
To a very
large extent
To a large
extent
To a
moderate
extent
To a
small
extent
To a very
small
extent
To no
extent
14. To what extent do you
think not applying skills
and knowledge
learned during training
will lead to negative
outcomes.
To a very
large extent
To a large
extent
To a
moderate
extent
To a
small
extent
To a very
small
extent
To no
extent
15. To what extent does
your work environment
provide you with time
and mental space to
implement what you
have learned
To a very
large extent
To a large
extent
To a
moderate
extent
To a
small
extent
To a very
small
extent
To no
extent
16. To what extent does
your current workload
allow you an
opportunity to
implement what you
have learned during
training
To a very
large extent
To a large
extent
To a
moderate
extent
To a
small
extent
To a very
small
extent
To no
extent
17. To what extent does
your supervisor
respond negatively
when you apply
learned skills
To a very
large extent
To a large
extent
To a
moderate
extent
To a
small
extent
To a very
small
extent
To no
extent
13
18. To what extent are you
given tasks that
provide an opportunity
to practice newly
learned skills
To a very
large extent
To a large
extent
To a
moderate
extent
To a
small
extent
To a very
small
extent
To no
extent
19. To what extent do you
think applying learned
skills will lead to job
performance
To a very
large extent
To a large
extent
To a
moderate
extent
To a
small
extent
To a very
small
extent
To no
extent
20. To what extent do you
think job performance
leads to valued
outcomes
To a very
large extent
To a large
extent
To a
moderate
extent
To a
small
extent
To a very
small
extent
To no
extent
21. To what extent do you
the prevailing
organisational norms
discourage the use of
skills and knowledge
acquired during
training
To a very
large extent
To a large
extent
To a
moderate
extent
To a
small
extent
To a very
small
extent
To no
extent
22. To what extent do
formal and informal
performance indicators
reflect training
acquired
To a very
large extent
To a large
extent
To a
moderate
extent
To a
small
extent
To a very
small
extent
To no
extent
23. To what extent do you
receive feedback on
your ability to transfer
skills and knowledge
to the job
To a very
large extent
To a large
extent
To a
moderate
extent
To a
small
extent
To a very
small
extent
To no
extent
24. To what extent is
innovation rewarded in
your work environment
To a very
large extent
To a large
extent
To a
moderate
extent
To a
small
extent
To a very
small
extent
To no
extent
14
Section C- Organisational Climate Factors This section explores the frequency at which some organisational factors affect learning
transfer in the public service.
1. Would you describe your
organisation as a learning
organisation
All the time Often Sometime Hardly Ever Never
2. Does your organisation
require you to indicate in
advance how you will
implement knowledge and
skills learned prior to you
attending a training
programme
All the time Often Sometime Hardly Ever Never
3. Does your organisation
conduct impact analysis of
learning programmes
All the time Often Sometime Hardly Ever Never
4. Does your organisation ask
to see any form of
certification after training?
All the time Often Sometime Hardly Ever Never
5. Does the organisation
conduct gap analysis prior to
training?
All the time Often Sometime Hardly Ever Never
6 Does the organisation
provide any incentive to
encourage learning transfer (
implementing what you have
learned)?
All the time Often Sometime Hardly Ever Never
7. Does the organisation
discourage learning transfer?
All the time Often Sometime Hardly Ever Never
8. Does the organisation apply
punitive measures for an
attempt to implement
learning transfer that goes
wrong
All the time Often Sometime Hardly Ever Never
Thank you for your cooperation in completing the questionnaire. Kindly put the questionnaire in the envelope provided together with the consent form, the researcher will visit you to collect the questionnaire and consent form.
15
Appendix E
Descriptive statistics
Statistics
N
Valid Missing Minimum Maximum
A1 97 0
A2 91 6 1 5
A3 96 1 1 5
A4 95 2 2 5
A5 94 3 1 2
A6 96 1 1 4
A7 93 4 1 4
A8 92 5 1 4
A9 79 18 1 4
A10 93 4 1 2
Frequency tables A1
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid Branches and chief directorates (CD) in the department
CD 1 56 57.7 57.7 57.7
CD 2 1 1.0 1.0 58.8
CD 3 1 1.0 1.0 59.8
CD 4 1 1.0 1.0 60.8
CD 5 1 1.0 1.0 61.9
CD 6 28 28.9 28.9 90.7
CD 7 7 7.2 7.2 97.9
CD 8 1 1.0 1.0 99.0
CD 9 1 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 97 100.0 100.0
A2
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid 0-11months 13 13.4 14.3 14.3
1-5 years 51 52.6 56.0 70.3
6-10 years 17 17.5 18.7 89.0
11-15 years 6 6.2 6.6 95.6
16 years and above 4 4.1 4.4 100.0
total 91 93.8 100.0
Missing System 6 6.2
Total 97 100.0
A3
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid 0-2 years 19 19.6 19.8 19.8
3-5 years 33 34.0 34.4 54.2
6-10 years 23 23.7 24.0 78.1
11-15 years 13 13.4 13.5 91.7
16 years and above 8 8.2 8.3 100.0
total 96 99.0 100.0
Missing System 1 1.0
Total 97 100.0
A4
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid 19-25 years 14 14.4 14.7 14.7
26-35 years 52 53.6 54.7 69.5
36-45 years 25 25.8 26.3 95.8
46 years and above 4 4.1 4.2 100.0
total 95 97.9 100.0
Missing System 2 2.1
Total 97 100.0
A5
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
16
Valid Male 40 41.2 42.6 42.6
Female 54 55.7 57.4 100.0
total 94 96.9 100.0
Missing System 3 3.1
Total 97 100.0
A6
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid African 84 86.6 87.5 87.5
Coloured 4 4.1 4.2 91.7
Indian 3 3.1 3.1 94.8
White 5 5.2 5.2 100.0
total 96 99.0 100.0
Missing System 1 1.0
Total 97 100.0
A7
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid 0-6 months 40 41.2 43.0 43.0
7-11 months 21 21.6 22.6 65.6
1-2 years 14 14.4 15.1 80.6
More than 2 years 18 18.6 19.4 100.0
total 93 95.9 100.0
Missing System 4 4.1
Total 97 100.0
A8
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid 1-5 days 72 74.2 78.3 78.3
6-30 days 7 7.2 7.6 85.9
2-12 months 6 6.2 6.5 92.4
1 year and longer 7 7.2 7.6 100.0
total 92 94.8 100.0
Missing System 5 5
Total 97 97
A9
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid Certificate of attendance 34 35.1 43.0 43.0
Certificate of competence 30 30.9 38.0 81.0
NQF level4 qualification 8 8.2 10.1 91.1
NQF level 6 and above 7 7.2 8.9 100.0
total 79 81.4 100.0
Missing System 18 18.6
Total 97 100.0
A10
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid Yes 72 74.2 77.4 77.4
No 21 21.6 22.6 100.0
total 93 95.9 100.0
Missing System 4 4.1
Total 97 100.0
**DESCRIPTIVES FOR ORGANISATIONAL FACTORS (SECTION B)**
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16 B17 B18 B19 B20 B21
B22 B23 B24
/STATISTICS=STDDEV VARIANCE RANGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM MEAN MEDIAN MODE SKEWNESS SESKEW KURTOSIS SEKURT
/HISTOGRAM
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
Valid
Missing
Mean Median
Mode Std deviation
Variance
Skewness
Std error of Skewness
Kurtosis
Std error of kurtosis
Range
Minimum
Maximum
5 1 6
B1 94 3 2.48 2.00 2 1.374 1.887 .961 .249 .293 .493 5 1 6
B2 93 4 2.77 3.00 3 1.352 1.829 .584 .250 -.025 .495 5 1 6
17
B3 94 3 2.90 3.00 3 1.262 1.593 .512 .249 -.131 .493 5 1 6
B4 87 10 3.10 3.00 2a 1.381 1.908 .596 .258 -.258 .511 5 1 6
B5 93 4 2.86 3.00 2 1.493 2.230 .805 .250 -.120 .495 5 1 6
B6 93 4 3.17 3.00 3 1.427 2.035 .539 .250 -.278 .495 5 1 6
B7 91 6 4.43 5.00 6 1.600 2.559 -.600 .253 -.837 .500 5 1 6
B8 93 4 3.33 3.00 3 1.535 2.355 .562 .250 -.729 .495 5 1 6
B9 89 8 3.58 3.00 3 1.536 2.359 .232 .255 -.943 .506 5 1 6
B10 92 5 2.96 3.00 2 1.511 2.284 .661 .251 -.399 .498 5 1 6
B11 92 5 2.78 3.00 2 1.405 1.974 .786 .251 .048 .498 5 1 6
B12 95 2 2.79 2.00 2 1.472 2.168 .843 .247 -.053 .490 5 1 6
B13 94 3 1.83 2.00 1 1.064 1.132 .2.100
.249 5.765 .493 5 1 6
B14 95 2 2.67 2.00 1 1.679 2.818 .725 .247 -.818 .490 5 1 6
B15 93 4 3.12 3.00 3 1.318 1.736 .768 .250 -.048 .495 5 1 6
B16 94 3 3.18 3.00 3 1.261 1.591 .571 .249 -.168 .493 5 1 6
B17 93 4 4.57 5.00 6 1.394 1.943 -.590 .250 -.597 .495 5 1 6
B18 93 4 3.12 3.00 2 1.358 1.845 .659 .250 -.310 .495 5 1 6
B19 94 3 1.94 2.00 2 1.045 1.093 1.977 .249 5.508 .493 5 1 6
B20 93 4 1.80 2.00 1 .867 .751 .821 250 -.163 .495 5 1 6
B21 92 5 3.74 4.00 3 1.504 2.261 .062 .251 -.835 .498 5 1 6
B22 94 3 3.02 3.00 3 1.155 1.333 .215 .249 -.148 .493 5 1 6
B23 94 3 3.23 3.00 3 1.347 1.816 .639 .249 -.145 .493 5 1 6
B24 90 7 3.69 3.00 3 1.451 2.104 .292 .254 -.979 .503 5 1 6
Multiple modes exist . The smallest is shown FREQUENCY TABLE B1
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid To a very large extent 25 25.8 26.6 26.6
To a large extent 31 32.0 33.0 59.6
To a moderate extent 21 21.6 22.3 81.9
To a small extent 6 6.2 6.4 88.3
To a very small extent 7 7.2 7.4 95.7
To no extent 4 4.1 4.3 100.0
Total 94 96.9 100.0
Missing System 3 3.1
Total 97 100.0
B2
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid To a very large extent 19 19.6 20.4 20.4
To a large extent 20 20.6 21.5 41.9
To a moderate extent 32 33.0 34.4 76.3
To a small extent 12 12.4 12.9 89.2
To a very small extent 5 5.2 5.4 94.6
To no extent 5 5.2 5.4 100.0
Total 93 95.9 100.0
Missing System 4 4.1
Total 97 100.0
B3
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid To a very large extent 12 12.4 12.8 12.8
To a large extent 24 24.7 25.5 38.3
To a moderate extent 35 36.1 37.2 75.5
To a small extent 10 10.3 10.6 86.2
To a very small extent 10 10.3 10.6 96.8
To no extent 3 3.1 3.2 100.0
Total 94 96.9 100.0
Missing System 3 3.1
Total 97 100.0
B4
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid To a very large extent 8 8.2 9.2 9.2
To a large extent 25 25.8 28.7 37.9
To a moderate extent 25 25.8 28.7 66.7
To a small extent 16 16.5 18.4 85.1
To a very small extent 5 5.2 5.7 90.8
To no extent 8 8.2 9.2 100.0
Total 87 89.7 100.0
Missing System 10 10.3
Total 97 100.0
18
B5
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid To a very large extent 16 16.5 17.2 17.2
To a large extent 28 28.9 30.1 47.3
To a moderate extent 26 26.8 28.0 75.3
To a small extent 9 9.3 9.7 84.9
To a very small extent 4 4.1 4.3 89.2
To no extent 10 10.3 10.8 100.0
Total 93 95.9 100.0
Missing System 4 4.1
Total 97 100.0
B6
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid To a very large extent 10 10.3 10.8 10.8
To a large extent 21 21.6 22.6 33.3
To a moderate extent 30 30.9 32.3 65.6
To a small extent 18 18.6 19.4 84.9
To a very small extent 3 3.1 3.2 88.2
To no extent 11 11.3 11.8 100.0
Total 93 95.9 100.0
Missing System 4 4.1
Total 97 100.0
B7
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid To a very large extent 5 5.2 5.5 5.5
To a large extent 8 8.2 8.8 14.3
To a moderate extent 14 14.4 15.4 29.7
To a small extent 16 16.5 17.6 47.3
To a very small extent 12 12.4 13.2 60.4
To no extent 36 37.1 39.6 100.0
Total 91 93.8 100.0
Missing System 6 6.2
Total 97 100.0
B8
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid To a very large extent 7 7.2 7.5 7.5
To a large extent 24 24.7 25.8 33.3
To a moderate extent 30 30.9 32.3 65.6
To a small extent 11 11.3 11.8 77.4
To a very small extent 5 5.2 5.4 82.8
To no extent 16 16.5 17.2 100.0
Total 93 95.9 100.0
Missing System 4 4.1
Total 97 100.0
B9
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid To a very large extent 7 7.2 7.9 7.9
To a large extent 14 14.4 15.7 23.6
To a moderate extent 30 30.9 33.7 57.3
To a small extent 12 12.4 13.5 70.8
To a very small extent 10 10.3 11.2 82.0
To no extent 16 16.5 18 100.0
Total 89 91.8 100.0
Missing System 8 8.2
Total 97 100.0
B10
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid To a very large extent 15 15.5 16.3 16.3
To a large extent 26 26.8 28.3 44.6
To a moderate extent 24 24.7 26.1 70.7
To a small extent 12 12.4 13.0 83.7
To a very small extent 5 5.2 5.4 89.1
To no extent 10 10.3 10.9 100.0
Total 92 94.8 100.0
Missing System 5 5.2
Total 97 100.0
19
B11
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid To a very large extent 16 16.5 17.4 17.4
To a large extent 29 29.9 31.5 48.9
To a moderate extent 24 24.7 26.1 75.0
To a small extent 12 12.4 13.0 88.0
To a very small extent 4 4.1 4.3 92.4
To no extent 7 7.2 7.6 100.0
Total 92 94.8 100.0
Missing System 5 5.2
Total 97 100.0
B12
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid To a very large extent 17 17.5 17.9 17.9
To a large extent 32 33.0 33.7 51.6
To a moderate extent 22 22.7 23.2 74.7
To a small extent 11 11 11.6 86.3
To a very small extent 4 4.1 4.2 90.5
To no extent 9 9.3 9.5 100.0
Total 95 97.9 100.0
Missing System 2 2.1
Total 97 100.0
B13
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid To a very large extent 42 43.3 44.7 44.7
To a large extent 37 38.1 39.4 84.0
To a moderate extent 10 10.3 10.6 94.7
To a small extent 2 2.1 2.1 96.8
To no extent 3 3.1 3.2 100.0
Total 94 96.9 100.0
Missing System 3 3.1
Total 97 100.0
B14
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid To a very large extent 30 30.9 31.6 31.6
To a large extent 27 27.8 28.4 60.0
To a moderate extent 10 10.3 10.5 70.5
To a small extent 8 8.2 8.4 78.9
To a very small extent 12 12.4 12.6 91.6
To no extent 8 8.2 8.4 100.0
Total 95 97.9 100,0
Missing System 2 2.1
Total 100.0
B15
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid To a very large extent 5 5.2 5.4 5.4
To a large extent 29 29.9 31.2 36.6
To a moderate extent 32 33.0 34.4 71.0
To a small extent 12 12.4 12.9 83.9
To a very small extent 17 7.2 7.5 91.4
To no extent 8 8.2 8.6 100.0
Total 93 95.9 100.0
Missing System 4 4.1
Total 97 100.0
B16
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid To a very large extent 5 5.2 5.3 5.3
To a large extent 25 25.8 26.6 31.9
To a moderate extent 33 34.0 35.1 67.0
To a small extent 16 16.5 17.0 84.0
To a very small extent 9 9.3 9.6 93.6
To no extent 6 6.2 6.4 100.0
Total 94 96.9 100.0
Missing System 3 3.1
Total 97 100.0
20
B17
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid To a very large extent 2 2.1 2.2 2.2
To a large extent 6 6.2 6.5 8.6
To a moderate extent 13 13.4 14.0 22.6
To a small extent 23 23.7 24.7 47.3
To a very small extent 14 14.4 15.1 62.4
To no extent 35 36.1 37.6 100.0
Total 93 95.9 100.0
Missing System 4 4.1
Total 97 100.0
B18
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid To a very large extent 6 6.2 6.5 6.5
To a large extent 31 32.0 33.3 39.8
To a moderate extent 25 25.8 26.9 66.7
To a small extent 16 16.5 17.2 83.9
To a very small extent 7 7.2 7.5 91.4
To no extent 8 8.2 8.6 100.0
Total 93 95.9 100.0
Missing System 4 4.1
Total 97 100.0
B19
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid To a very large extent 34 35.1 36.2 36.2
To a large extent 43 44.3 45.7 81.9
To a moderate extent 12 12.4 12.8 94.7
To a small extent 2 2.1 2.1 96.8
To no extent 3 3.1 3.2 100.0
Total 94 96.9 100.0
Missing System 3 3.1
Total 97 100.0
B20
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid To a very large extent 42 43.3 45.2 45.2
To a large extent 32 33.0 34.4 79.6
To a moderate extent 15 15.5 16.1 95.7
To a small extent 4 4.1 4.3 100.0
Total 93 95.9 100.0
Missing System 4 4.1
Total 97 100.0
B21
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid To a very large extent 7 7.2 7.6 7.6
To a large extent 10 10.3 10.9 18.5
To a moderate extent 28 28.9 30.4 48.9
To a small extent 20 20.6 21.7 70.7
To a very small extent 9 9.3 9.8 80.4
To no extent 18 18.6 19.6 100.0
Total 92 94.8 100.0
Missing System 5 5.2
Total 97 100.0
B22
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid To a very large extent 9 9.3 9.6 9.6
To a large extent 21 21.6 22.3 31.9
To a moderate extent 34 35.1 36.2 68.1
To a small extent 21 21.6 22.3 90.4
To a very small extent 7 7.2 7.4 97.9
To no extent 2 2.1 2.1 100.0
Total 94 96.9 100.0
Missing System 3 3.1
Total 97 100.0
B23
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid To a very large extent 6 6.2 6.4 6.4
21
To a large extent 22 22.7 23.4 29.8
To a moderate extent 36 37.1 38.3 68.1
To a small extent 14 14.4 14.9 83.0
To a very small extent 6 6.2 6.4 8.4
To no extent 10 10.3 10.6 100.0
Total 94 96.9 100.0
Missing System 3 3.1
Total 97 100.0
B24
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid To a very large extent 3 3.1 3.3 3.3
To a large extent 16 16.5 17.8 21.1
To a moderate extent 30 30.9 33.3 54.4
To a small extent 14 14.4 15.6 70.0
To a very small extent 11 11.3 12.2 82.2
To no extent 16 16.5 17.8 100.0
Total 90 92.8 100.0
Missing System 7 7.2
Total 97 100.0
Valid
Missing
Mean Median
Mode Std deviation
Variance
Skewness
Std error of Skewness
Kurtosis
Std error of kurtosis
Range
Minimum
Maximum
C1 94 3 2.06 2.00 1 .948 .899 .412 .249 -.520 .493 4 1 5
C2 94 3 3.19 3.00 3 1.306 1.705 -.127 .249 -1.005 .493 4 1 5
C3 94 3 3.24 3.00 3 1.224 1.499 -.268 .249 -.799 .493 4 1 5
C4 92 5 3.28 3.00 5 1.455 2.117 -.311 .251 -1.217 .498 4 1 5
C5 89 8 3.47 4.00 5 1.324 1.752 -.299 .255 -1.139 .506 4 1 5
C6 92 5 3.60 4.00 5 1.276 1.628 -.499 .251 -.814 .498 4 1 5
C7 92 5 4.03 4.00 5 1.094 1.197 -.889 .251 -.136 .498 4 1 5
C8 91 6 3.65 4.00 3 1.149 1.319 -.575 .253 -.206 .500 4 1 5
FREQUENCY TABLE C1
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid All the time 33 34.0 35.1 35.1
Often 27 27.8 28.7 63.8
Sometimes 30 30.9 31.9 95.7
Hardly ever 3 3.1 3.2 98.9
Never 1 1.0 1.1 100.0
Total 94 96.9 100.0
Missing System 3 3.1
Total 97 100.0
C2
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid All the time 12 12.4 12.8 12.8
Often 16 16.5 17.0 29.8
Sometimes 28 28.9 29.8 59.6
Hardly ever 18 18.6 19.1 78.7
Never 20 20.6 21.3 100.0
Total 94 96.9 100.0
Missing System 3 3.1
Total 97 100.0
C3
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid All the time 10 10.3 10.6 10.6
Often 15 15.5 16.0 26.6
Sometimes 27 27.8 28.7 55.3
Hardly ever 26 26.8 27.7 83.0
Never 16 16.5 17.0 100.0
22
Total 94 96.9 100,0
Missing System 3 3.1
Total 97 100.0
C4
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid All the time 17 17.5 18.5 18.5
Often 10 10.3 10.9 29.3
Sometimes 21 21.6 22.8 52.2
Hardly ever 18 18.6 19.6 71.7
Never 26 26.8 28.3 100.0
Total 92 94.8 100.0
Missing System 5 5.2
Total 97 100.0
C5
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid All the time 7 7.2 7.9 7.9
Often 17 17.5 19.1 27.0
Sometimes 20 20.6 22.5 49.4
Hardly ever 17 17.5 19.1 68.5
Never 28 28.9 31.5 100.0
Total 89 91.8 100.0
Missing System 8 8.2
Total 97 100.0
C6
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid All the time 7 7.2 7.6 7.6
Often 12 12.4 13.0 20.7
Sometimes 22 22.7 23.9 44.6
Hardly ever 21 21.6 22.8 67.4
Never 30 30.9 32.6 100.0
Total 92 94.8 100.0
Missing System 5 5.2
Total 97 100.0
C7
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid All the time 2 2.1 2.2 2.2
Often 8 8.2 8.7 10.9
Sometimes 17 17.5 18.5 29.3
Hardly ever 23 23.7 25.0 54.3
Never 42 43.3 45.7 100.0
Total 92 94.8 100.0
Missing System 5 5.2
Total 97 100.0
C8
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid All the time 6 6.2 6.6 6.6
Often 5 5.2 5.5 12.1
Sometimes 30 30.9 33.0 45.1
Hardly ever 24 24.7 26.4 71.4
Never 26 26.8 28.6 100.0
Total 91 93.8 100.0
Missing System 6 6.2
Total 97 100.0
FACTOR ANALYSIS
FACTOR
/VARIABLES B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16 B17 B18 B19 B20 B21 B22 B23 B24
/MISSING LISTWISE
/ANALYSIS B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16 B17 B18 B19 B20 B21 B22 B23 B24
/PRINT INITIAL DET KMO REPR EXTRACTION ROTATION
/FORMAT BLANK(.20)
/PLOT EIGEN
/CRITERIA MINEIGEN(1) ITERATE(25)
23
/EXTRACTION ML
/CRITERIA ITERATE(25)
/ROTATION PROMAX(4).
Notes
Missing value handling
Definition of missing Missing=exclude: user-defined missing values are treated as missing
Cases used Listwise: statistics are based on cases with no missing values for any variable used
a. Determinant=9.349E-009
KAISER-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy .851
Bartlet’s Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 1093.870
Df 276
Sig. .000
Communalities
Initial Extraction
B1 .631 .532
B2 .714 .718
B3 .779 .758
B4 .699 .638
B5 .777 .752
B6 .844 .999
B7 .354 .098
B8 .802 .717
B9 .733 .601
B10 .829 .999
B11 .801 .751
B12 .798 .783
B13 .483 .192
B14 .454 .269
B15 .793 .769
B16 .825 .927
B17 .435 .211
B18 .830 .808
B19 .549 .548
B20 .577 .678
B21 .303 .035
B22 .520 .336
B23 .801 .999
B24 .606 .515
Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood. One or more communality estimates greater than1 were encountered during iterations, results to be cautiously interpreted.. Total Variance Explained
Factor Initial Eigen Values Extraction Sums of squared Loadings Rotation Sums of squared loadings
Total % of Variance
Cumulative % Total % of Variance
Cumulative %
Total
1 9.684 40.351 40.351 8.471 35.294 35.294 7.937
2 2.209 9.206 49.557 .878 3.660 38.955 5.990
3 1.591 6.631 56.187 .918 3.823 42.778 6.462
4 1.424 5.933 62.120 1.743 7.264 50.042 1.792
5 1.197 4.986 67.107 1.662 6.924 56.966 1.695
6 1.146 4.774 71.881 .961 4.006 60.971 6.809
7 .947 3.945 75.827
8 .871 3.630 79.457
9 .751 3.129 82.586
10 .561 2.336 84.922
11 .553 2.305 87.227
12 .499 2.079 8989.306
13 .435 1.811 91.117
14 .392 1.632 92.748
15 .358 1.491 94.239
16 .262 1.092 95.331
17 .220 .918 96.249
18 .195 .813 97.062
19 .163 .679 97.741
24
20 .143 .595 98.336
21 .128 .534 98.870
22 .105 .439 99.309
23 .091 .380 99.689
24 .075 .311 100.000
Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood When factors are correlated , sums of squared loadings cannot be added to obtain a total variance
Factor Matrix
1 2 3 4 5 6
B1 .614 .262 -.224
B2 .569 .537 -.247
B3 .633 .351 -.215 .365
B4 .614 .252 .394
B5 .783 -.206
B6 .828 -.349 -.437
B7 .229
B8 .777 .215 .212
B9 .669 -.279
B10 .830 -.207 .518
B11 .696 .377 -.299
B12 .752 .262 -.246 .263
B13 .278 .309
B14 .238 .265 .214 .261
B15 .736 .385 -.256
B16 .661 .673
B17 .229 .297
B18 .762 .219 .393
B19 .591 .387
B20 .764 .222
B21
B22 .322 .419
B23 .826 .557
25
B24 .635
Goodness-of-fit Test
Chi-Square df Sig.
149.431 147 .429
26
Reproduced Correlations
Reproduced Correlation
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16 B17 B18 B19 B20 B21 B22 B23 B24
B1 .532a
.569 .602 .542 .488 .571 .199 .483 .408 .437 .485 .599 .245 .098 .520 .534 .178 .610 .050 -.118
.035 .092 .513 .393
B2 .569 .718a
.653 .586 .377 .437 .188 .527 .394 .435 .542 .674 .310 .185 .561 .683 .305 .702 .093 -.112
.053 .130 .532 .392
B3 .602 .653 .758a
.675 .456 .654 .243 .525 .458 .455 .520 .690 .307 .070 .520 .566 .171 .631 .164 -.056
.058 .180 .456 .394
B4 .542 .586 .675 .638a
.416 .578 .197 .526 .401 .416 .482 .635.
.274 .121 .455 .493 .164 .598 .222 .021 .025 .245 .528 .421
B5 .488 .377 .456 .416 .752a
.751 .202 .497 .485 .571 .487 .521 .145 .057 .581 .428 .051 .570 -.105
-.163
-.008
-.040
.625 .464
B6 .571 .437 .654 .578 .751 .999a
.278 .577 .630 .533 .399 .559 .258 .010 .665 .526 -.032
.595 .126 .009 -.003
.080 .525 .528
B7 .199 .188 .243 .197 .202 .278 .098a
.163 .191 .177 .161 .211 .096 -.011
.206 .195 .024 .195 .009 -.044
.024 .003 .111 .122
B8 .483 .527 .525 .526 .497 .577 .163 .717a
.579 .680 .549 .625 .303 .314 .633 .669 .180 .655 .299 .258 -.033
.248 .671 .553
B9 .408 .394 .458 .401 .485 .630 .191 .579 .601a
.636 .426 .495 .271 .175 .608 .603 .071 .497 .196 .204 -004 .097 .392 .417
B10 .437 .435 .455 .416 .571 .533 .177 .680 .636 .999a
.764 .691 .231 .252 .582 .571 .157 .534 .087 .176 .016 .088 .527 .402
B11 .845 .542 .520 .482 .487 .399 .161 .549 .426 .764 .751a
.715 .197 .189 .455 .481 .244 .571 -.018
-.068
.047 .087 .561 .337
B12 .599 .674 .690 .635 .521 .559 .211 .625 .495 .691 .715 .783a
.286 .187 .562 .613 .253 .693 .098 -.043
.047 .162 .613 .433
B13 .245 .310 .307 .274 .145 .258 .096 .303 .271 .231 .197 .286 .192a
.121 .312 .386 .104 .309 .176 .114 .009 .114 .196 .215
B14 .098 .185 .070 .121 .057 .010 -.011
.314 .175 .252 .189 .187 .121 .269a
.223 .305 .143 .252 .206 .239 -.048
.166 .326 .235
B15 .520 .561 .520 .455 .581 .665 .206 .633 .608 .582 .455 .562 .312 .223 .769a
.789 .181 .700 .101 .037 -.004
.037 .575 .519
B16 .534 .683 .566 .493 .428 .526 .195 .669 .603 .571 .481 .613 .386 .305 .789 .9272
.285 .751 .194 .103 .013 .098 .534 .498
B17 .178 .305 .171 .164 .051 -.032
.024 .180 .071 .157 .244 .253 .104 .143 .181 .285 .211a
.280 -.011
-.077
.023 .035 .233 .113
B18 .610 .702 .631 .598 .570 .595 .195 .655 .497 .534 .571 .693 .309 .251 .700 .751 .280 .080a
.101 -.068
.004 .134 .756 .558
B19 .050 .093 .164 .222 -.105
.126 .009 .299 .196 .087 -.018
.098 .176 .206 .101 .194 .-.011
.101 .548a
.540 -.065
.387 .128 .224
B20 -.118
-.112
-.056
.021 -.163
.009 -.044
.258 .204 .176 -.068
. -.043
.114 .239 .037 .103 -.077
-.068
.540 .678a
-.089
.338 .015 .153
27
B21 .035 .053 .058 .025 -.008
-.003
.024 -.033
-.004
.016 .047 .047 .009 -.048
-.004
.013 .023 .004 -.065
-.089
.035a
-.046
-.072
-.058
B22 .092 .130 .180 .245 -.040
.080 .003 .248 .097 .088 .087 .162 .114 .166 .037 .098 .035 .134 .387 .338 -.046
.336a
.227 .199
B23 .513 .532 .456 .528 .625 .525 .111 .671 .392 .527 .561 .613 .196 .326 .575 .534 .233 .756 .128 .015 -.072
.227 .999a
.647
B24 .393 .392 .394 .421 .464 .528 .122 .553 .417 .402 .337 .433 .215 .235 .519 .498 .133 .558 .224 .153 -.058
.199 .647 .515a
…,
Residual
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13
B14 B15 B16 B17 B18 B19 B20 B21 B22 B23 B24
B1 -.046
-.010
.030 -.005 7.694E-05
.012 .047 .-.064
-4.010E-05
.012 -.002
.138
-.027
-.003
.007 -.006
.003 -.015
.008 -.070
-.032
7.692E-05
-.117
B2 -.046
-.004
.045 -.002 4.021E-05
-.054
.004 -.038
-2.675E-06
-.008
.019 .012
.078 .017 -.0001
-.028
-.011
-.024
.003 -.016
-.33 -4.454E-05
.010
B3 -.010
-.004
.018 -.025 6.836E.05
.053 -.037
.029 4.334E-05
.021 -.033
-.014
-.054
-.023
.010 .025 -.002
-.011
.001 -.073
.020 .000 -.015
B4 .030 .045 .018 .032 .000 .039 .061 -.027
-6.320E-06
-.022
-.022
.120
.088 .018 -.016
-.049
-.014
-.083
.024 .025 .012 .000 .051
B5 -.005
-.002
-.025
.032 7.921E-05
.005 -.047
-.045
6.383E-05
.014 -.008
.016
.028 -.020
.013 -.096
.007 -.008
.002 .014 .043 9.060E-06
-.005
B6 7.694E-05
4.021E-05
6.836E-05
.000 7.921E-05
-4.783E-05
.000 -4.137E-06
7.506E-08
-5.668E-05
7.746E-05
.000
-4.651E-06
-1.805E-05
-2.107E-05
8.948E-05
3.359E-05
.000 8.889E-05
.000 .000 3.334E-08
5.857E-05
B7 .012 -.054
.053 .039 .005 -4.783E-05
.056 .058 .000 -.064
-.068
-.009
.114 -.025
-.010
.232 .021 -.021
-.045
.270 .028 -2.686E-05
-.016
B8 .047 .004 -.037
.061 -.047 .000 .056 .115 9.166E-05
-.059
.015 -.022
-.023
.034 -.016
-.006
.004 -.047
-.028
.059 .056 4.453E-05
.019
B9 -.064
-.038
.029 -.027
-.045 -4.137E-06
.058 .115 4.316E-05
-.061
.037 -.094
-.032
.050 -.010
.097 -.023
-.006
-.072
.073 .060 3.156E-05
-.019
B10 -4.010E-05
-2.675E-06
4.334E-05
-6.320E-06
6.383E-05
7.506E-08
.000 9.166E-05
4.316E-05
3.103E-05
-9.803E-05
.000
2.372E-05
.000 9.469E-06
.000 5.449E-05
.000 .000 -8.061E-05
4.612E-05
1.632E-08
.000
B11 .012 -.008
.021 -.022
.014 -5.668E-05
-.064
-.059
-.061
3.103E-05
.036 -.049
-.004
.025 .005 -.052
-.018
.040 .018 -.005
-.046
-1.369E-
.072
28
05
B12 -.002
.019 -.033
-.022
-.008 7.746E-05
-.068
.015 .037 -9.803E-05
.036 -.024
-.006
.011 -.005
.008 .001 .070 -.038
.026 .006 -3.818E-05
-.015
B13 .138 .012 -.014
.0120
.016 .000 -.009
-.022
-.094
.000 -.049
-.024
.263 -.071
.006 -.006
.010 -.057
.068 -.247
-.219
.000 -.024
B14 -.027
.078 -.054
.088 .028 -4.651E-06
.114 -.023
-.032
2.372E-05
-.004
-.006
.263
-.004
-.002
-.008
-.059
-.006
.031 -.113
-.120
.000 -.012
B15 -.003
.017 -.023
.018 -.020 -1.805E-05
-.025
.034 .050 .000 .025 .011 -.071
-.004
5.797E-05
-.071
-.023
-.001
-.019
.018 -.030
-2.582E-05
.053
B16 .007 -.001
.010 -.016
.013 -2.107E-05
-.010
-.016
-.010
9.468E-06
.005 -.005
.006
-.002
5.797E-05
-.001
.009 0.015
.007 -.006
.004 -1.530E-05
-.003
B17 -.006
-.028
.025 -.049
-.096 8.948E-05
.232 -.006
.097 .000 -.052
.008 -.006
-.008
-.071
-.001
.037 .037 -.035
.032 -.156
.000 -.014
B18 .003 -.011
-.002
-.014
.007 3.359E-05
.021 .004 -.023
5.449E-05
-.018
.001 .010
-.059
-.023
.009 .037 -.031
.009 .066 .710 3.527E-05
-.013
B19 -.015
-.024
-.011
-.083
-.008 .000 -.021
-.047
-.006
.000 .040 .070 -.057
0.006
-.001
.015 .037 -.031
.020 .045 .066 7.910E-05
-.010
B20 .008 .003 .001 .024 -.096.002
8.889E-05
-.045
-.028
-.072
.000 .018 -.038
.068
.031 -.019
.007 -.035
.009 .020 -.064
-.035
-1.262E-05
.001
B21 -.070
-.016
-.073
.025 .014 .000 .270 .059 .073 -8.061E-05
.-
.005 .026 -
.247
-.113
.018 -.006
.032 .066 .045 -.064
.187 .000 .004
B22 -.032
-.033
.020 .012 .043 .000 .028 .056 .060 4.612E-05-
-.046
.006 -.219
-.120
-.030
.004 -.156
.071 .066 -.035
.187 .000 .022
B23 7.692E-05
-4.454E-05
.000 .000 9.060E-06
3.334E-08
-2.686E-05
4.453E-05
3.156E-05
1.63.0722E-08
1.369E-05
-3.818E-05
.000
.000 -2.582E-05
-1.530E-05
.000 3.527E-05
7.910E-05
-1.262E-05
.000 .000 -5.651E-05
B24 -.117
.010 010 .051 -.005 5.857E-05
-.016
.019 -.019
.000 .072 -.015
-.024
-.012
.053 -.003
-.014
-.013
-.010
.001 .004 .022 -5.651E-05
Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood. a. Reproduced communalities
b. B. Residuals are computed between observed and reproduced correlations. There are 52 (18.0%) non-redundant residuals with absolute values greater than 0.05.
29
Pattern Matrix
1 2 3 4 5 6
B1 .593
B2 .596 .228
B3 .984
B4 .834
B5 -.275 -.249 .463
B6 .672 .271 -.502
B7 .297
B8 .252 .253 .245 .276
B9 .284 .519
B10 .990
B11 .259 .716 .212
B12 .588 .395
B13 .255 .302
B14 -.322 .206 .291 .294
B15 .728
B16 .879 .412
B17 .434
B18 .332 .294 .310 .351
B19 .212 .736
B20 -.245 .757
B21 -.225
B22 .267 -.276 .552
B23 .203 1.072
B24 .580
Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood. Rotation method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 14 iterations.
Structure Matrix
Factor
1 2 3 4 5 6
B1 .718 .456 .491 . 205 .540
B2 .748 .449 .510 .514 .501
B3 .853 .474 .504 .214 .486
B4 .772 .445 .429 .236 .531
B5 .636 .592 .581 -.298 .738
B6 .806 .529 .750 -.345 .702
B7 .279 .222
B8 .633 .674 .689 .300 .228 .701
B9 .538 .599 .725 .502
B10 .558 .991 .638 .585
B11 .632 .798 .395 .346 .539
B12 .808 .720 .519 .363 .606
B13 .328 .212 .356 .212
B14 .242 .245 .302 .306 .278
B15 .645 .550 .843 .665
B16 .652 .526 .863 .419 .573
B17 .429
B18 .781 .549 .670 .398 .760
B19 .210 .711
B20 .201 .775
B21
B22 .499
B23 .648 .580 .500 .331 .965
B24 .513 .408 .548 .680
Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization. Factor Correlation Matrix
Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 1.000 .590 .608 -.060 .211 .690
2 .590 1.000 .574 .052 .138 .620
3 .608 .574 1.000 .130 .004 .643
4 -.060 .052 .130 1.000 .161 .009
5 .211 .138 .004 .161 1.000 .118
6 .690 .620 .643 .009 .118 1.000
Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization
30
/VARIABLES C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8
/MISSING LISTWISE
/ANALYSIS C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8
/PRINT INITIAL DET KMO REPR EXTRACTION ROTATION
/FORMAT BLANK(.20)
/PLOT EIGEN
/CRITERIA MINEIGEN(1) ITERATE(25)
/EXTRACTION ML
/CRITERIA ITERATE(25)
/ROTATION PROMAX(4).
Test1 Determinant=101
KAISER-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy .777
Bartlet’s Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 186.858
Df 28
Sig. .000
Communalities
Initial Extraction
C1 .385 .627
C2 .293 .287
C3 .450 .536
C4 .546 .753
C5 541 .615
C6 .352 .375
C7 .183 .163
C8 .106 .045
Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood. One or more communality estimates greater than1 were encountered during iterations, results to be cautiously interpreted.. Total Variance Explained
Factor Initial Eigen Values Extraction Sums of squared Loadings Rotation Sums of squared loadings
Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 3.260 40.744 40.744 2.784 34.797 34.797 2.678
2 .1.262 15.769 56.513 .616 7.701 42.498 1.789
3 ..921 11.517 68.030
4 .784 9.801 77.831
5 .561 7.019 84.850
6 .482 6.019 90.869
7 .453 5.660 96.529
8 .278 3.471 100.000
Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood. When factors are correlated , sums of squared loadings cannot be added to obtain a total variance
31
Factor Matrix
Factor
1 2
C1 .585 .534
C2 .520
C3 .693 .235
C4 .814 -.300
C5 .765
C6 .612
C7 -.372
C8 .210
Goodness-of-fit Test
Chi-Square Df Sig.
14.687 13 .327
Reproduced Correlations
Reproduced Correlation
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8
C1 .627a .372 .531 .316 .355 .351 -.200 .110
C2 .372 .287a .391 .385 .376 .317 -.129 .106
C3 .531 .391 .536a .494 .489 .422 .-.196
.140
C4 .316 .385 .494 .753a .674 .502 .-.015
.178
C5 .355 .376 .489 .674 .615a .471 -.055 .165
C6 .351 .317 .422 .502 .471 .375a -.091 .129
C7 -.290 -.129 -.196 .015 -.055 -.091 .163a -.024
C8 .100 .106 .140 .178 .165 .129 -.024 .045a
.
Residual C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8
C1 .022 -.016 -.002 .013 -.026 -.018 .055
32
C2 .022 .041 .27 -.082 -.004 .127 .024
C3 -.016 .041 .004 -.028 .036 -.020 -.012
C4 -.002 .027 .004 .008 -.039 .002 .002
C5 .013 -.082 -.028 .008 .056 -.045 -.041
C6 -.026 -.004 .036 -.039 .056 .002 .029
C7 -.018 .127 -.020 .002 -.045 .002 .208
C8 .055 .024 -.012 .002 -.041 .029 .208
Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood. a. Reproduced Communalities
b. B. Residuals are computed between observed and reproduced correlations. There are 5 (170%) non-redundant
residuals with absolute values greater than 0.05.
Pattern matrix
Factor
1 2
C1 .735
C2 .363 .242
C3 .431 .400
C4 .967 -.214
C5 .821
C6 .558
C7 -.469
C8 .207
Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization. Rotation converged in 3 iterations. Structure matrix
Factor
1 2
C1 .501 .788
C2 .496 .442
C3 .652 .638
C4 .849 .319
C5 .782 .381
C6 .608 .399
C7 -.382
C8 .211
Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization Factor Correlation Matrix
Factor 1 2
1 1.000 .551
2 .551 1.000
TEST2
Determinant=101
KAISER-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy .777
Bartlet’s Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 186.858
Df 28
Sig. .000
Communalities
Initial Extraction
C1 .385 .291
C2 .293 .265
C3 .450 .474
C4 .546 .600
C5 541 .591
C6 .352 .411
C7 .183 .022
C8 .106 .043
Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood. One or more communality estimates greater than1 were encountered during iterations, results to be cautiously interpreted.. Total Variance Explained
Factor Initial Eigen Values Extraction Sums of squared Loadings
Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 3.260 40.744 40.744 2.696 33.705 33.705
2 .1.262 15.769 56.513
3 ..921 11.517 68.030
33
4 .784 9.801 77.831
5 .561 7.019 84.850
6 .482 6.019 90.869
7 .453 5.660 96.529
8 .278 3.471 100.000
Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood. When factors are correlated , sums of squared loadings cannot be added to obtain a total variance
Factor Matrix
Factor
1
C1 .540
C2 .515
C3 .688
C4 .775
C5 .769
C6 .641
C7
C8 .208
Extraction Method: Maximum likelihood 1 factor extracted. 4 iterations required. Goodness-of-fit Test
Chi-Square df Sig.
36.139 20 .015
Reproduced Correlations
Reproduced Correlation
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8
C1 .291a .278 .372 .418 .415 .346 -.079 .112
C2 .278 .265a .354 .399 .396 .330 -.076 .107
C3 .372 .354 .474a .533 .529 .441 -.101 .143
C4 .418 .399 .533 .600a .595 .496 -.114 .161
C5 .415 .396 .529 .595 .591a .492 -.113 .160
34
C6 .346 .330 .441 .496 .492 .410a -.094 .133
C7 -.079 -.076 -.101 -.114 -.113 -.094 .022a -.031
C8 .112 .107 .143 .161 .160 .133 -.031 .043a
.
Residual C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8
C1 .117 .143 -.105 -.047 -.021 -.228 .053
C2 .117 .077 .013 -.102 -.017 .073 .023
C3 .143 .077 -.035 -.067 .016 -.114 -.015
C4 -.105 .013 -.035 .087 -.033 .100 .018
C5 -.047 -.102 -.067 .087 .034 .013 -.036
C6 -.021 -.017 .016 -.033 .034 .006 .025
C7 -.228 .073 -.114 .100 .013 .006 .214
C8 .053 .023 -.015 .018 -.036 .025 .214
Correlation Matrix Test 3 Determinant=124
KAISER-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy .804
Bartlet’s Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 173.455
Df 15
Sig. .000
Communalities
Initial Extraction
C1 .331 .289
C2 .290 .277
C3 .451 .477
C4 .535 .600
C5 .544 .604
C6 .357 .418
Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood Total Variance Explained
Factor Initial Eigen Values Extraction Sums of squared Loadings
Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 3.208 53.465 53.465 2.666 44.439 44.439
2 .874 14.574 68.039
3 .638 10.625 78.665
4 .552 9.203 87.867
5 .446 7.428 95.295
6 .282 4.705 100.000
Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood.
35
Factor
1
C1 .538
C2 .526
C3 .691
C4 .775
C5 .777
C6 .647
Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood. 1 factor extracted. 4 iterations required Goodness-of-fit Test
Chi-Square Df Sig.
20.585 9 .015
Reproduced Correlations
Reproduced Correlation
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
C1 .289 .283 .371 .416 .418 .348
C2 .283 .277a .364 .408 .049 .340
C3 .371 .364 .477a .535 .537 .447
C4 .416 .408 .535 .600a .602 .501
C5 .418 .409 .537 .602 .604a .503
C6 .348 .340 .447 .501 .503 .418
.
Residual C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
C1 .122 .152 -.100 -.041 -.014
C2 .122 .083 .007 -.101 -.015
C3 .152 .083 -.036 -.065 .020
C4 -.100. .007 -.036 .080 -.035
C5 -.041 -.101 -.065 .080 .031
C6 -.014 -015 .020 -.035 .031
36
Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood a. Reproduced communalities
b. B. Residuals are computed between observed and produced correlations. There are 7 (46.0%) non-redundant
residuals with absolute values greater than 0.05
