Overview - ufhrd.co.uk Web viewThere are a number of sources which will have an effect upon a person’s level of self ... important role in the effectiveness of the ... reward and

Submission DetailsTitle:Investigating the Impact of Relationships on

Transfer of Training: A conceptual modelName of Authors:Marie Gahunia and Dr Martin McCracken

Organisation Affiliation/PositionUlster University: Doctoral Student/Senior Lecturer

Address:Ulster University Jordanstown campusShore RoadNewtownabbeyCo. AntrimBT37 0QB

Email Address:[email protected]:Stream 6: Organisational Development and

Organisational LearningSubmission Type:Working Paper

Investigating the Impact of Relationships on Transfer of Training: A conceptual model – M. Gahunia and M. McCracken

Abstract: The key stakeholders in the process of transfer are already established within

the literature as being the trainee, the direct manager or supervisor and HR (see e.g. Broad

and Newstrom, 1992; Velada et al, 2007; Burke and Hutchins, 2007). Although certain

aspects of each role have been investigated in respect of transfer (e.g. supervisory

support, trainer characteristics, trainee motivation), there has been little work which

considers how the relationships between these stakeholders function to enhance transfer

of training. The relationships can work through exchange mechanisms (i.e. LMX and

POS) in order to positively influence the self-efficacy and motivation of trainees to

increase transfer achievement. Both self-efficacy and motivation (see e.g. Chiaburu and

Marinova, 2005; Vermeulen and Admiraal, 2009; Ascher, 2013) have been shown as

attributes which are influential to transfer. A conceptual model was devised which

focuses on how the stakeholder relationship can, through the mechanisms of LMX and

POS, impact transfer of training by working to increase levels of self-efficacy and

motivation in the trainees.

Purpose: This paper presents a conceptual model from which to examine how

stakeholder relationships impact transfer of training.

Keywords: transfer of training, workplace relationships, LMX and POS

Page | 1


Overview

Part of an organisation’s competitive armoury is creating and maintaining a highly skilled

workforce (see e.g. Grossman and Salas, 2011; Lancaster et al, 2012; Govaerts and Dochey,

2014). However, one of the quandaries that organisations have always faced is how they

spend their training budget to ensure that training is transferred to the work environment.

Workplace relationships are an integral part of any organisation and express how an

organisation’s culture is being lived out on a day-to-day basis (Sias, 2009). Training is a HR-

led intervention but it is vitally important to understand each stakeholders responsibilities in

relation to achieving transfer and how they can effectively work together to realise results.

The focus of this paper is to understand how the relationships that exist between various

stakeholders affect training transfer. Although it is trainees who will, or will not, transfer the

learning to their workplace, we propose that many other stakeholders have a vested interest in

transfer taking place and it is vitally important to study their role (Villachica and Stepich,

2010).

This paper presents a conceptual model that provides a framework which explores the

impact of the key stakeholder relationships on the transfer of training. In doing so it proposes

to augment the literature which thus far appears to have neglected to consider how key

organisational relationships affect in the transfer process (i.e. trainee, manager and HR

professional). Although previous studies have considered the relationship between the trainee

and the supervisor (see e.g. Nijman et al, 2006; Scaduto et al, 2008; Govaerts and Dochey,

2014) none have investigated in detail the working of these relationships as a partnership and

how they enhance or frustrate successful transfer. The model brings together theories on both

transfer and workplace relationships to investigate this gap.

In the next section the relevant areas of literature relating to transfer of training is examined.

It is important to understand which factors particularly influence transfer and with this in

Page | 2


mind literature which has sought to investigate the trainee characteristics of self-efficacy and

motivation, and the role of the work environment is discussed. Additionally literature which

identifies the type of workplace relationships which influence the transfer process and how

they affect self-efficacy and motivation of trainees is analysed. In the final section we discuss

the practical implications of a conceptual model which takes into account all these key factors

is discussed

Literature Review

Transfer of Training

“To achieve transfer of training, designers and trainees must actively pursue those training

elements and activities known to foster generalization, maintenance, and adaption of learned

skills and knowledge” (Kessler, 2013, pg. 961).

Transfer process and models

Given the continued reports (see e.g. Dirani, 2011; Lancaster et all, 2013; Saks and Burke-

Smalley, 2014) of low Return on Investment (ROI) from training it is not surprising that

understanding how to get training participants to effectively transfer their learning to transfer

continues to be a fundamental area of interest for scholars and practitioners. Although

research has identified a number of factors that are considered influential in the transfer

process in this paper we focus only on the factors which are relevant to our study which is

designed to understand how self-efficacy and motivation, impact upon transfer relationships.

An essential starting place in any review of transfer of training is the seminal work of

Baldwin and Ford (1988) that created the transfer process model still used today as a basis

from which to consider transfer. This model is shown below in Figure 1:

Page | 3


Figure 1 : A Model of the Transfer Process (Baldwin and Ford, 1988, pg. 65)

Although the model depicts three major types of training inputs to the process, issues

connected to the work environment and how the trainee is supported within their workplace

to learn and transfer (via the operation of workplace relationships) is of fundamental

importance in this study. Additionally certain characteristics of the trainee which are

considered to have an impact on transfer outcomes, motivation and self-efficacy are also

vitally important. Although there have been multiple trainee characteristics linked to research

on training transfer ,e.g. instrumentality, job role, cognitive ability, conscientiousness, age,

education levels (Bae, 2002; Lim and Morris, 2006, Burke and Hutchins, 2007; Tziner et al,

2007), motivation and self-efficacy are particularly important in this context since they are

quite consistent in proving to be positively related to transfer.

Amongst the other scholars who have expanded or reviewed this model, Russ-Eft

(2002) developed a typology designed to address transfer. However, she omitted trainee

characteristics based upon the assertion that manipulating these could involve ethical issues

trainee characteristics. In this study we explore how relationships between staekholders are

Page | 4


developed and maintained are how in turn they impact upon trainee motivation and self

efficacy to achieve transfer.

A factor which is common to Russ-Eft’s typology and the model devised by Burke

and Hutchins (2008) is the temporal aspect of the transfer process. This factor is also shown

in the earlier work of Broad and Newstrom (1992) who assert that the three fundamental

stages need to be considered when investigating transfer, i.e. pre-training, during training and

post-training. Of vital importance these authors also noted that certain actions (transfer

strategies) are needed of those in key roles who could contribute to successful transfer. These

primary stakeholders were described as the “Transfer Partnership” (TP) consisting of the

trainees, HR professionals and supervisors.

The importance of the stakeholders in this TP has been validated by a number of

scholars (e.g. Saks and Belcourt, 2006; Burke and Saks, 2009; Nikandrou et al, 2009).

However, even though such findings clearly point to the crucial roles such stakeholders can

play it would appear that organisations are not making use of these relationships as a way to

improve transfer rates. Indeed we found no work to date which has considered the

interworking between the roles and their impact upon transfer. The constructive value of the

dynamics of the TP and how they contribute towards achieving better transfer rates is at the

heart of this current work.

Transfer and the influence of trainee characteristics

As seen above, trainee characteristics have been found to be part of the transfer process and

in particular motivation and self-efficacy.

Self-efficacy, Motivation and Transfer

Clearly the issue of Self-efficacy which has been defined as “judgment of personal

capability” (Bandura, 1997, pg. 11) is critical for undertaking and sustaining effort in

achieving new goals and applying new skills in the workplace. There are a number of

Page | 5


sources which will have an effect upon a person’s level of self-efficacy such as: experience

in terms of past successes and failures: how they compare to others in similar positions; the

level of verbal encouragement they receive from those around them regarding their abilities,

and how the person feels both emotionally and physiologically (Bandura, 1997). With this in

mind it is important to note that there are possibilities for self-efficacy to be influenced in a

positive manner and clearly those individuals with whom they have close relationships at

work are in a central position to influence self-efficacy.

A large body of work has explored the relationship between self-efficacy and the

transfer of training which has consistently proved it to be an influential factor (see e.g. Gist

and Stevens, 1997; Colquitt et al, 2000; Velada et al, 2007; Chiaburu and Lindsay, 2008;

Sookhai and Budworth, 2010; Blume et al, 2010; Grossman and Salas, 2011). For example,

Stevens and Gist (1997) examined self-efficacy in relation to a person’s task achievement

level and found that they may want to perform adequately (performance orientation) or

embark on a route which will allow them to become very adept in the taught skill (mastery

orientation). The authors found “low-self-efficacy may be associated with a performance

orientation and high self-efficacy may be associated with a mastery orientation” (pg. 957).

They also reasoned that it may be possible to influence goal-orientation via post-training

interventions which increase levels of self-efficacy and that effective goal-setting will

influence self-efficacy in line with self-efficacy theory where successful achievement of

goals increases self-efficacy while failure to achieve the goal will lower it.

Training motivation was the focus of Colquitt et al’s (2000) work where they found

certain characteristics of the trainee predicted levels of motivation and outcomes. They found

that where there were high levels self-efficacy a positive relationship to transfer accrued.

Although the authors’ focus was upon improving our understanding in relation to motivation,

they argued that self-efficacy was a central tenet in models of motivation. In a similar vein

Page | 6


linking both attributes in relation to transfer was confirmed by Chiaburu and Marinova

(2005) who found that self-efficacy drove trainees to being more motivated to learn and to

ultimately enhance transfer.

A negative relationship between self-efficacy and motivation was supported by

Vancouver and Kendall (2006) who examined goal setting in relation to the planning and

performance of tasks. Interestingly their hypothesis was that high levels of self-efficacy will

interfere negatively with the effort an individual will put into a task, i.e. unless the individual

has some self-doubt about their ability to achieve the goal, they are less motivated to apply

their resources. The authors questioned the impact of strategies designed to increase self-

efficacy for learning and suggest lowering self-efficacy to increase motivation. However a

key limitation in the scope of their research, which looked at the impact of students planning

revision for an exam, is the narrow nature of the sample and hence to generalise these

findings is somewhat problematic. However, this research also raises the potential for an

issue outside the task to influence a participant’s motivation. For example if attendance at the

training is mandatory may impact upon the motivation (see e.g. Machin and Treloar, 2004;

Fardaniah et al, 2011; Edwards, 2013) which in turn may adversely affect transfer unless,

according to Tsai and Tai (2003), this is moderated by how participants see the value of the

training to the organisation. This would illustrate a need to monitor how capable a trainee

feels going into training and how well they understand the value of the training and how these

factors influence their motivation levels. Since “trainees with high general self-efficacy

might be more inclined to obtain higher training outcomes than their counterparts with lower

self-efficacy” (Chiaburu and Marinova, 2005, pg. 111) , it is vital that stakeholders work

together to ensure that appropriate monitoring is carried out and that any redress is actioned

to allow maximum transfer to be achieved.

Page | 7


Research has also demonstrated the significance of Motivation within the transfer

process (see e.g., Noe, 1986; Holton et al, 2000; Chiaburu and Marinova, 2005;

Gengenfurtner et al, 2009). For example, Gegenfurtner et al (2009) start their review of

literature on motivation and training transfer from the premise that “Motivation is essential

for training transfer” (pg. 403). Also Noe (1986), in a seminal work on motivation and

transfer, proposed that the level of motivation is affected by 'Environmental Favorability'

which refers to whether or not the trainee believes that the resources (in terms of skills,

support, allocated time and materials) and also the opportunities to allow application of new

skills to the job are available. The absence of these resources, in Noe's view, lessens

motivation in the trainee. Such resources and opportunities fall under the work environment

element of Baldwin and Ford’s (1988) model. Ultimately it is felt that organisational support

for transfer will need to be facilitated by all three stakeholders in the TP.

Working on motivation while preparing a trainee for training was a key focus of

research during the early 2000’s (see e.g. Baldwin et al, 2000; Naquin and Holton, 2001;

Naquin and Holton, 2003). Naquin and Holton (2003) were confident it was a key strategy

for organisations arguing that, "Greater positive transfer will depend on how well managers

and learning professionals succeed in framing learning experiences in ways that prime the

motivation and agility of their learners" (pg. 94). Motivating the employee through the

supervisor and HR professional in order to make the environment more attractive and open to

enabling transfer is a fundamental view of our research. With this in mind we feel it is

fundamentally important for HR professionals and managers to impress upon trainees the

importance and value of the training to the organisation. Thus we echo the sentiments of Tsai

and Tai (2003) who noted that “the motivation of trainees plays an important role in the

effectiveness of the training program” (pg. 152).

Page | 8


Workplace relationships and the Transfer Partnership

The TP consists of relationships between the three key stakeholders in transfer, i.e. trainee,

supervisor and HR professional. The dynamics of these relationships and the effects on

transfer is one which has received little attention and with this in mind the conceptual model

we propose in Figure 2 at the end of this paper seeks to give a framework to address this

balance. The type of workplace relationships influence and are influenced by an

organisation’s culture. It has been established within literature that the culture of an

organisation (its norms, beliefs, values and accepted behaviours) plays a part in the

performance of that organisation (see e.g. Jacobs et al, 2013; Pinho et al, 2014; Prajogo and

McDermott, 2011). Culture influences how employees act (Flamholtz and Randle, 2012) but

individuals work based on their perception of the culture which means the relationships each

employee is involved in within the work environment has the capacity to be influential.

The TP was identified and labelled by Broad and Newstrom (1992) in their work

investigating transfer strategies that could be employed by stakeholders to enhance transfer.

We acknowledge that each of these relationships are not the same and have different

purposes. A typology of workplace relationships was identified within the work of Isabella

and Kram (1985). Three types of relationships were identified; Leader-Follower, Information

Peer and Collegial Peer. The leader-follower type is most obvious and within the TP this type

of relationship is understood as being between the trainee and supervisor. Information peer

refers to relationships which function to communicate information between individuals

whereas collegial peer is the type covering workplace friendships. The other relationships

within the TP are defined as being information peer type. These relationship types are

discussed in more detail below.

Page | 9


Leader-Follower Relationships

Leadership is a topic which has received a lot of attention from researchers and has been

examined from multiple theoretical bases including trait, personality, and transactional

approaches. In this study, given that transfer is a type of performance improvement, we

propose that this relationship is best viewed using the Leader Member Exchange (LMX)

theory of leadership which has a focus on performance improvement. LMX was developed

by Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) and views this individualistic relationship as a dyadic between

leaders and their direct (or indirect) reports. In research carried out by a number of authors

including Kang and Stewart (2006), Yukl et al (2008) and Harris et al (2009), it has been

shown that a high-quality LMX relationship is positively related to performance

improvement.

Scudato et al (2008) have also stated that “Leaders can directly influence their

employees’ training motivation and this has a positive impact on how they transfer new

skills, maintain them over time and use them in other domains of their jobs” (pg. 166). It is

important then that managers work to motivate their reports and help them to understand

expected outcomes from the training they will receive. Generally high-quality LMX

relationships are believed to be linked to the motivation of followers, e.g. in terms of

increased innovation (Gajendran and Joshi, 2012), commitment to the organisation and

increased performance (Kang et al, 2011; Hsiung, 2013). To allow for these positive

outcomes to accrue Leaders will need to understand which specific behaviours and

communications need to be used in the relationship.

Govaerts and Dochy (2014) consolidated a list of “the 24 specific behaviours and

attitudes that a supervisor can adopt to support training transfer” (pg. 77). This list included

feedback, goal-setting and giving opportunities and encouragement to trainees to apply their

training. There are a number of studies which have identified these as positive leadership

Page | 10


behaviours (e.g. Martin, 2010; Lancaster et al, 2012; Story et al, 2013) and these improve

both the trainee’s motivation and self-efficacy to support transfer of their training.

Communication is another way in which a manager can improve trainee attributes through

the use of motivating language communication patterns. Motivating Language Theory,

developed by Sullivan (1988), classifies three communication patterns that leaders use to

influence their follower’s motivation. The first is empathetic language used to show concern

for the employee and their well-being; this. To have positive effect though, the leader needs

to show authenticity and be genuine in their use of such language. Direction-giving language

defines outcome expectations or provides guidance on how to perform tasks. Lastly meaning-

making language can be used whereby the manager conveys the organisational climate to

employees and translates how strategic directives will apply to them. These patterns need to

be used in appropriate situations to be effective and managers communication must be

consistent with their behaviour (Mayfield and Mayfield, 2009, 2012) since the manager is

often seen as a role model by their reports (Laker and Powell, 2011; Lancaster et al, 2012;

Warhurst, 2013).

Using the right language and being genuine is crucial to engender employees’ self-

efficacy (Mayfield and Mayfield, 2009). Social persuasion is another method that managers

can use to, in the words of Mayfield and Mayfield (2009) “instil self-efficacy in an

employee” (pg. 361). To clarify this Walumba et al (2011) uses the example of a leader

helping employees to engage in better and more confident decision making by reviewing the

rationale behind decisions they have made in the past. Therefore, by understanding more

implicitly both their behaviour and communication, managers may be in a better position to

influence motivation and self-efficacy in their employees to ultimately improve performance.

Page | 11


Information Peer Relationships

The other type of relationship relevant is the Information Peer Relationship which is based on

information exchange between colleagues and is often characterised by low trust and self-

disclosure levels (Kram and Isabella, 1985). In the TP two of the relationships are classified

as information peer relationships, namely the relationships between trainee and HR

professional and between manager and HR professional.

Although in many organisations employees may gravitate towards one particular HR

professional (particularly if the HR Business Partnership model is in place, see McCracken

and Heaton, 2012), it may be unlikely that employees deal with a single person in respect to

all the services, including training, which HR may offer. It is the relationships and attitudes

that the trainee and supervisor have with regards to HR practices relevant to training and how

these are performed that needs to be explored. In this study we propose that the concept of

Social Exchange Theory, through Positive Organisational Support (POS) offered a potentially

fruitful way to explore this issue. Although POS can also be contributed to by peers,

managers and other organisational functions, it is the exchanges between HR via practices

concerned with training and transfer (from initial communication and understanding of the

training through to actual participation and evaluation) that will be relevant to this research

study.

Links between HRM and performance outcomes have received growing attention (see

e.g. Innocenti et al, 2011; Jiang and Liu, 2015; Popaitoon, 2011; Kuvaas, 2008). Innocentti et

al (2011) found support for their hypothesis that an employee’s attitude towards their

organisation, which influences performance, was dependent on practices that worked to

improve their skill abilities, increase their motivation and also provide opportunities to

develop. They argued that their “results indicate that people differ in their reaction to HRM

according to individual conditions, and that these conditions can modify the impact of HRM

Page | 12


practices on employee positive attitudes towards the organisation” (pg. 313). Similarly, Egan

(2008) and Xerri (2012), have suggested that ensuring there is a supportive environment in

relation to transfer is vital in “encouraging and developing, amongst other things, the

innovative behaviour of employees” (pg. 104-105). Innovative behaviour was defined as the

“process of facilitating new problem solving ideas into organisational practice” (pg. 105)

which requires that employees be exposed to new skills and techniques to be able to identify

new approaches to old problems. Such behaviour is an example of performance enhancing

behaviour and will only be demonstrated by employees who feel engaged (Parzefall and

Hakanen, 2010; Gruman and Saks, 2011). Again for the purposes of this study we base this

upon the work of Macy and Schneider, (2008, pg. 22) who note that, “Engaged employees

invest their energy, time, or personal resources, trusting that the investment will be rewarded

(intrinsically or extrinsically) in some meaningful way”.

In sum we propose that HR practices, play a huge part in the employee-organisation

relationship, impacting in two fundamental ways. Firstly, they create efficient operational

HR systems and secondly as (Aggarwal and Bhargava, 2009, pg. 7) sum up, “shape employee

skills, attitudes and behaviours that in turn influence organisation performance”. Training is

one of the HR practices that nurtures the preferred attitudes and in turn influences behaviour

within an organisation (Hansson, 2006; Ubeda-Garcı´a et al, 2013). Providing training

opportunities alone however will not create the desired outcomes as it needs to be part of the

overall suite of HR strategies (e.g. performance management, employee reward and retention

practices) designed to influence and motivate employees to work towards organisational

objectives.

How the employee perceives such strategies and practices and what they believe is

driving them is significant. Different practices will motivate, or indeed demotivate, different

employees because they may identify them with different organisational motives and goals

Page | 13


(Wright and Kehoe, 2008; Boon et al, 2011). For example, Employees may feel that practices

aimed at achieving altruistic organisational strategies such as enhancing employee well-being

or inducing high-quality service for customers are more likely to engage them. Meanwhile,

practices that are perceived to support strategies aimed at cost-cutting or exploitation may

inhibit engagement.

Organisations need to also be aware that “HR practices serve as communications

mechanisms to employees” (Wright and Kehoe, 2008, pg. 16). As noted above several

authors have argued that HR practices such as performance management and training

opportunities can influence self-efficacy. If we take performance management as an example,

the fact that it should be based upon regular feedback which is fundamental for helping to

develop self-efficacy needs to be borne in mind (Herdman, 2008; Wang and Wu, 2008).

Communication about and application of HR practices needs to be made as explicitly as

possible and framed positively to motivate employees. All parties involved need to

understand the expectations and how they can act together towards ensuring efficiencies for

the organisation. This applies to both sets of relationships within the TP that are of this type.

Vitally, managers will also require HR support to apply HR practices in their jobs as well as

receive guidance on how they set expectations and communicate with their reports. ,

The relationships in the TP provide assistance to transfer by working together to

create the most conducive environment for the trainee to feel able and motivated to apply

their newly acquired skills. This can happen through exchange mechanisms that ensure

balanced relationships and employees who understand their value to the organisation.

Developing a Conceptual Model to Investigate Transfer Partnerships

As can be appreciated from Figure 2 below after reviewing the extant literature a conceptual

model was developed which acts as a framework to study and understand how the various

Page | 14


interactions between the key stakeholders in the TP affect transfer. The relationships will

reflect or establish the transfer climate which is an important influencing factor for achieving

transfer. The model is shown below:

Figure 2: A Proposed Conceptual Model of the Effects of Transfer Partnership on Transfer of Training

The next section will discuss the components of this model and how they align to the

objectives of this paper.

Transfer Partnership Entity

In literature, it was found that the type of relationship will dictate the types of interactions

between the parties in the relationship. The relationship between manager and trainee is an

Page | 15


exchange based leader-follower type relationship, a dyadic relationship involving direct

exchanges between them. It will transpire through the mechanism of LMX and the quality of

the relationship will have a direct impact on outcomes. For example, if an employee feels

that the relationship is weak or of low-quality, they may not feel driven to apply themselves

beyond the terms of their contract. However, a high-quality leader-follower relationship may

produce higher performance outcomes.

The information peer relationship type was not as clear cut when we explored the

literature. The two relevant relationships classified under this type are those between the HR

professional and the manager and trainee respectively. The key purpose of these relationships

is to exchange information. However, two things could be considered to hamper this as a

straightforward information exchange scenario. Firstly, it may not be possible to consider

these relationships as examples of working dyadic relationships as employees may engage

with HR as a department rather than with any particular individual. Also exchanges involving

those from HR professional roles in respect to training transfer cannot be considered as

standalone exchanges. They need to be supported by other HR practices to ensure

organisational objectives are being fulfilled and employees understand what is behind the

practices. Poor perceptions of HR practices are costly to an organisation and so all

communication from HR needs to be clear to set expectations appropriately and work to

create a positive environment through POS which will support performance outcomes.

Link between TP Entity and Trainee Characteristics

Trainee self-efficacy and motivation are key attributes affecting the transfer process. Trainees

need to feel that they are capable of applying training as well as having a desire to apply what

they have learned. Clearly, the relationships that the trainee has with their direct manager and

HR influence these attributes. With the manager, good role-model behaviour acts as a way for

the employee to develop their self-efficacy. Managers can also aid the enhancement of self-

Page | 16


efficacy in their reports via the communication media and content they use by helping

employees to understand and make sense of what is happening in the organisational

environment. Information exchange acts as a method of engaging the employees and

increases their contribution and the information exchange mechanisms in use here are POS

and LMX.

HR practices and their aims need to be very clearly communicated and the benefits to

the organisation and employee alike need to be understood. If organisational stakeholders can

find a way to effectively implement HR strategies, employees should become more engaged

with the organisation and work to contribute to satisfy not only the organisational objectives

but meet their own goal needs too. In tandem, a vital part of this will involve trying to

transfer any training to their workplace. The model proposes that the relationships work

towards enhancing self-efficacy and motivation in the trainee prior to and during the training

event through appropriate communication and use of behaviours (in this context transfer

strategies).

Link between Trainee Characteristics and Transfer of Training

This component is concerned with maintaining the trainee’s self-efficacy and motivation after

training. Transfer strategies, such as giving the trainees the opportunity to apply what they

have learned to their work environment, are ways to help develop self-efficacy in using the

skills and increase motivation to transfer. Communications, role-model behaviours and HR

practices have to continue to impress upon employees the value of applying their new skills.

Operationalising the Model and Implications for Practice

The model, through the components above, provides a way to consider how the relationships

within the TP influence the transfer of training through increasing motivation and self-

efficacy of trainees. It recognises the different type of relationships and what these mean in

Page | 17


terms of the exchanges involved. The transfer process is a process that spans several stages

(namely pre-training event, during and post-training event) and relationships need to be

working effectively throughout these to have the best chance of the desired outcome i.e.

performance enhancement for the organisation through the application of expanded skills.

The key aim of this of this research is to give a new dimension from which to study

transfer within organisations. We feel that if this model can be operationalized in

organisations and the concept of the TP, which has been around and accepted for some time,

but has not been investigated in relation to how it functions as an entity to impact transfer,

several positive implications for practice can accrue. By considering the dynamics and the

different types of relationships involved, the proposed framework allows for deeper

examination of transfer strategy application. It requires that practitioners and researchers

consider the expectations from the roles in regards to improving employee self-efficacy and

motivation. As a result, organisations can examine how behaviours and communication may

be adjusted to increase their transfer achievement rates.

Summary and Conclusions

From literature on workplace relationships and transfer, in particular how self-efficacy and

motivation contribute to transfer, it was identified that the TP has not been investigated as a

single entity in relation to its influence on transfer.

Transfer is a type of performance outcome sought in all organisations which invest in

training for their employees (Lancaster et al, 2013; Govaerts and Dochy, 2014). There are

many factors that have been found to influence transfer (see e.g. Baldwin and Ford, 1988;

Cheng and Ho, 2001; Tai, 2006; Bates et al, 2012) but the trainee characteristics of self-

efficacy and motivation are most significant to this research. When investigated they

consistently show a positive relationship to transfer (e.g. Tai, 2006; Velada et al, 2007;

Page | 18


Gegenfurtner et al, 2009; Grossman and Salas, 2011). Ultimately whilst the trainee has to

actually transfer the learning from any training they participate in, it should be underlined

that they need assistance from all the other key stakeholders discussed throughout this paper.

Workplace relationships of both types have been found to have the capability to

enhance transfer but will function differently. Graen and Ulh-Bien (1995) stated that good

quality leader-follower relationships motivate the follower to perform above and beyond their

contractual role and obligations. Scudato et al (2008) state that “leaders are powerful

motivating forces and can manage the outcome expectancies of their followers” (pg. 165).

Information sharing, which is the basis for the other type of relationship applicable here,

helps individuals make sense of how they are expected to fulfil work commitments from the

perspective of the organisation (Kram and Isabella, 1985). This is particularly relevant to

how HR practices and their objectives are communicated to employees. HR practices should

be aimed to direct employee attitudes and skills towards behaviour that positively contributes

to organisation performance (Aggarwal and Bhargava, 2009) to motivate employees to

achieve constructive outcomes (Nishii et al, 2008). The employee’s perception of the quality

of the relationship they believe that they have with their employer impacts on their

performance (Kuvaas, 2008). Providing training opportunities for employees is an example of

HR practice which motivates and increases self-efficacy in employees as they may interpret

the opportunity as a vote of confidence in them and feel that their employer values them

(Dysvik and Kuvaas, 2008). However, this is only one HR practice which will need to be

supported by other practices which support the message. It is envisaged that in this research

the importance and interlinkages conveyed by the TP will be explored and enhance our

understanding of trainee self-efficacy and motivation levels and how these can affect levels

of transfer of training.

Page | 19


Bibliography

Aggarwal, U. & Bhargava, S. 2009, "Reviewing the relationship between human resource

practices and psychological contract and their impact on employee attitude and

behaviours", Jnl Euro Industrial Training, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 4-31.

Page | 20


Ascher, J. 2013, "TRAINING TRANSFER: A SUGGESTED COURSE OF ACTION FOR

LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO LEVERAGE PERFORMANCE", Performance

Improvement, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 36.

Bae, E. 2002, "The Effects of Trainee Characteristics on Training Effectiveness in Improving

Organizational Performance", Performance Improvement Quarterly, vol. 15, no. 2, pp.

47-60.

Baldwin, T., Ford, J. & Naquin, S. 2000, "Managing transfer before learning begins:

Enhancing the motivation to improve work through learning", Advances in developing

human resources, vol. 8, pp. 23-35.

Baldwin, T.T. & Ford, J.K. 1988, "Transfer of Training: A Review and Directions for Future

Re", Personnel Psychology, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 63.

Bandura, A. 1977, Social Learning Theory, General Learning Press, New York.

Bandura, A. 1997, Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, First edn, W.H. Freeman and

Company, New York.

Bates, R., Holton, E.F. & Hatala, J.P. 2012, "A revised learning transfer system inventory:

factorial replication and validation", Human Resource Development International, vol.

15, no. 5, pp. 549-569.

Blume, B.D., Ford, J.K., Baldwin, T.T. & Huang, J.L. 2010, "Transfer of Training: A Meta-

Analytic Review", Journal of Management, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 1065-1105.

Boon, C., Den Hartog, D.N., Boselie, P. & Paauwe, J. 2011, "The relationship between

perceptions of HR practices and employee outcomes: examining the role of person–

Page | 21


organisation and person–job fit", The International Journal of Human Resource

Management, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 138-162.

Broad, M.L. & Newstrom, J.W. 1992, Transfer of Training, First edn, Addison-Wesley,

Massachusetts.

Burke, L.A. & Hutchins, H.M. 2008, "A study of best practices in training transfer and

proposed model of transfer", Human Resource Development Quarterly, vol. 19, no. 2,

pp. 107.

Burke, L.A. & Hutchins, H.M. 2007, "Training Transfer: An Integrative Literature Review",

Human Resource Development Review, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 263.

Burke, L.A. & Saks, A.M. 2009, "Accountability in Training Transfer: Adapting Schlenker’s

Model of Responsibility to a Persistent but Solvable Problem", Human Resource

Development Review, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 382-402.

Cheng, E.W.L. & Ho, D.C.K. 2001, "A review of transfer of training studies in the past

decade", Personnel Review, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 102.

Chiaburu, D.S. & Lindsay, D.R. 2008, "Can do or will do? The importance of self-efficacy

and instrumentality for training transfer", Human Resource Development International,

vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 199-206.

Chiaburu, D.S. & Marinova, S.V. 2005, "What predicts skill transfer? An exploratory study

of goal orientation, training, self-efficacy and organizational supports", International

Journal of Training & Development, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 110.

Page | 22


Colquitt, J.A., LePine, J.A. & Noe, R.A. 2000, "Toward an integrative theory of training

motivation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research", Journal of Applied

Psychology, vol. 85, no. 5, pp. 678.

Dirani, K.M. 2012, "Professional training as a strategy for staff development", Euro J of

Training and Dev, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 158-178.

Dysvik, A. & Kuvaas, B. 2008, "The relationship between perceived training opportunities,

work motivation and employee outcomes", International Journal of Training and

Development, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 138-157.

Edwards, J.S. 2013, Factors affecting training transfer in supervisors and hourly employees

in a manufacturing organization, Ph.D edn, Southern Cross University.

Egan, T.M. 2008, "The relevance of organizational subculture for motivation to transfer

learning", Human Resource Development Quarterly, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 299-322.

Fardaniah Abdul Aziz, S. & Ahmad, S. 2011, "Stimulating training motivation using the right

training characteristic", Industrial and commercial training, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 53-61.

Flamholtz, E.G. & Randle, Y. 2012, "Corporate culture, business models, competitive

advantage, strategic assets and the bottom line", Journal of HRCA : Human Resource

Costing & Accounting, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 76-94.

Gajendran, R.S. & Joshi, A. 2012, "Innovation in Globally Distributed Teams: The Role of

LMX, Communication Frequency, and Member Influence on Team Decisions", Journal

of Applied Psychology, vol. 97, no. 6, pp. 1252-1262.

Page | 23


Gegenfurtner, A., Festner, D., Gallenberger, W., Lehtinen, E. & Gruber, H. 2009, "Predicting

autonomous and controlled motivation to transfer training", International Journal of

Training & Development, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 124.

Govaerts, N. & Dochy, F. 2014, "Disentangling the role of the supervisor in transfer of

training", Educational Research Review, vol. 12, no. 0, pp. 77-93.

Graen, G.B. & Uhl-Bien, M. 1995, "Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development

of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a

multi-level multi-domain perspective", The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 219-

247.

Grossman, R. & Salas, E. 2011, "The transfer of training: what really matters", International

Journal of Training & Development, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 103-120.

Gruman, J.A. & Saks, A.M. 2011, "Performance management and employee engagement",

Human Resource Management Review, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 123-136.

Hansson, B. 2007, "Company-based determinants of training and the impact of training on

company performance", Personnel Review, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 311.

Harris, K.J., Wheeler, A.R. & Kacmar, K.M. 2009, "Leader–member exchange and

empowerment: Direct and interactive effects on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and

performance", The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 371-382.

Herdman, A.O. 2008, Explaining the Relationship between the HR System and Firm

Performance: a Test of the Strategic HRM Framework, Ph.D edn, Virginia Polytechnic

Institute and State University.

Page | 24


Holton, E.F.,III, Bates, R.A. & Ruona, W.E.A. 2000, "Development of a generalized learning

transfer system inventory", Human Resource Development Quarterly, vol. 11, no. 4, pp.

333.

Holton, E.F.,III, Chen, H. & Naquin, S.S. 2003, "An Examination of Learning Transfer

System Characteristics Across Organizational Settings", Human Resource Development

Quarterly, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 459-482.

Innocenti, L., Pilati, M. & Peluso, A.M. 2011, "Trust as moderator in the relationship

between HRM practices and employee attitudes", Human Resource Management

Journal, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 303-317.

Jacobs, R., Mannion, R., Davies, H.T.O., Harrison, S., Konteh, F. & Walshe, K. 2013, "The

relationship between organizational culture and performance in acute hospitals", Social

science & medicine, vol. 76, no. 0, pp. 115-125.

Jiang, J.Y. & Liu, C. 2015, "High performance work systems and organizational

effectiveness: The mediating role of social capital", Human Resource Management

Review, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 126-137.

José, C.P., Ana, P.R. & Dibb, S. 2014, "The role of corporate culture, market orientation and

organisational commitment in organisational performance", Journal of Mgmt

Development, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 374-398.

Kang, D., Stewart, J. & Kim, H. 2011, "The effects of perceived external prestige, ethical

organizational climate, and leader-member exchange (LMX) quality on employees'

commitments and their subsequent attitudes", Personnel Review, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 761-

784.

Page | 25


Kang, D. & Stewart, J. 2007, "Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership and

HRD: Development of units of theory and laws of interaction", Leadership &

Organization Development Journal, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 531-551.

Kessler, E.H. 2013, Encyclopedia of Management Theory: List of entries. Entries, SAGE

Publications.

Kram, K.E. & Isabella, L.A. 1985, "Mentoring Alternatives: the Role of Peer Relationships in

Career Development", Academy of Management Journal, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 110-132.

Kuvaas, B. 2008, "An Exploration of How the Employee?Organization Relationship Affects

the Linkage Between Perception of Developmental Human Resource Practices and

Employee Outcomes*", Journal of Management Studies, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 1-25.

Laker, D. & Powell, J. 2011, "The differences between hard and soft skills and their relative

impact on training transfer", Human Resource Development Quarterly, vol. 22, no. 1, pp.

111.

Lancaster, S., Milia, L.D. & Cameron, R. 2013, "Supervisor behaviours that facilitate training

transfer", Journal of Workplace Learning, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 6-22.

Lim, D.H. & Morris, M.L. 2006, "Influence of trainee characteristics, instructional

satisfaction, and organizational climate on perceived learning and training transfer",

Human Resource Development Quarterly, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 85-115.

Macey, W.H. & Schneider, B. 2008, "The meaning of employee engagement", Industrial and

organizational psychology, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 3-30.

Page | 26


Machin, M.A. & Treloar, C.A. 2004, Predictors of motivation to learn when training is

mandatory, Australian Psychological Society, Sydney, Australia.

Mayfield, J. & Mayfield, M. 2009, "The role of leader motivating language in employee

absenteeism", Journal of Business Communication, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 455-479.

Mayfield, J. & Mayfield, M. 2012, "The Relationship Between Leader Motivating Language

and Self-Efficacy: A Partial Least Squares Model Analysis", Journal of Business

Communication, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 357-376.

McCracken, M. & Heaton, N. 2012, "From tucked away to joined at the hip: understanding

evolving relationships within the HRBP model in a regional energy company", Human

Resource Management Journal, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 182-198.

Naquin, S.S. & Baldwin, T.T. 2003, "Managing transfer before learning begins", in

Improving Learning Transfer in Organizations, eds. E.F. Holton III & T.T. Baldwin,

First edn, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 80-96.

Naquin, S.S. & Holton, E.F. 2002, "The effects of personality, affectivity, and work

commitment on motivation to improve work through learning", Human Resource

Development Quarterly, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 357-376.

Nijman, D.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, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 529-549.

Nikandrou, I., Brinia, V. & Bereri, E. 2009, "Trainee perceptions of training transfer: an

empirical analysis", Journal of European Industrial Training, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 255-

270.

Page | 27


Nishil, L.H., Lepack, D.P. & Schneider, B. 2008, "Employee Attributions of the “Why” of

HR Practices: Their Effects on Employee Attitudes and Behaviors, and Customer

Satisfaction”, Personnel Psychology, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 503-545.

Noe, R.A. 1986, "Trainees' Attributes and Attitudes: Neglected Influences on Training

Effectiveness", Academy of Management.The Academy of Management Review, vol. 11,

no. 4, pp. 736.

O'Donnell, M., Yukl, G. & Taber, T. 2012, "Leader behavior and LMX: a constructive

replication", Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 143-154.

Parzefall, M. & Hakanen, J. 2010, "Psychological contract and its motivational and health-

enhancing properties", Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 4-21.

Popaitoon, P. 2011, HR-performance linkages through the lens of social exchange, Ph.D edn,

University of Bath.

Prajogo, D.I. & McDermott, C.M. 2011, "The relationship between multidimensional

organizational culture and performance", International Journal of Operations &

Production Management, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 712-735.

Russ-Eft, D. 2002, "A Typology of Training Design and Work Environment Factors

Affecting Workplace Learning and Transfer", Human Resource Development Review,

vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 45-65.

Saks, A.M. & Belcourt, M. 2006, "An investigation of training activities and transfer of

training in organizations", Human resource management, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 629-648.

Page | 28


Saks, A.M. & Burke-Smalley, L.A. 2014, "Is transfer of training related to firm

performance?", International Journal of Training and Development, vol. 18, no. 2, pp.

104-115.

Scaduto, A., Lindsay, D. & Chiaburu, D. 2008, "Leader influences on training effectiveness:

motivation and outcome expectation processes", International Journal of Training &

Development, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 158.

Sias, P. 2009, Organizing relationships: traditional and emerging perspectives on workplace

relationships, 1st edn, SAGE Publications Inc, California.

Sookhai, F. & Budworth, M. 2010, "The trainee in context: Examining the relationship

between self-efficacy and transfer climate for transfer of training", Human Resource

Development Quarterly, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 257.

Stevens, C.K. & Gist, M.E. 1997, "Effects of self-efficacy and goal-orientation training on

negotiation skill maintenance: What are the mechanisms?", Personnel Psychology, vol.

50, no. 4, pp. 955.

Story, J.S.P., Youssef, C.M., Luthans, F., Barbuto, J.E. & Bovaird, J. 2013, "Contagion effect

of global leaders' positive psychological capital on followers: does distance and quality

of relationship matter?", The International Journal of Human Resource Management,

vol. 24, no. 13, pp. 2534-2553.

Sullivan, J.J. 1988, "Three roles of language in motivation theory", Academy of Management

Review, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 104-115.

Tai, W. 2006, "Effects of training framing, general self-efficacy and training motivation on

trainees' training effectiveness", Personnel Review, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 51.

Page | 29


Tsai, W. & Tai, W. 2003, "Perceived importance as a mediator of the relationship between

training assignment and training motivation", Personnel Review, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 151-

163.

Tziner, A., Fisher, M., Senior, T. & Weisberg, J. 2007, "Effects of Trainee Characteristics on

Training Effectiveness", International Journal of Selection and Assessment, vol. 15, no.

2, pp. 167.

Úbeda-García, M., Marco-Lajara, B., Sabater-Sempere, V. & Garcia-Lillo, F. 2013, "Training

policy and organisational performance in the Spanish hotel industry", The International

Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 24, no. 15, pp. 2851-2875.

Vancouver, J.B. & Kendall, L.N. 2006, "When self-efficacy negatively relates to motivation

and performance in a learning context", Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 91, no. 5,

pp. 1146-1153.

Velada, R., Caetano, A., Michel, J.W., Lyons, B.D. & Kavanagh, M.J. 2007, "The effects of

training design, individual characteristics and work environment on transfer of training",

International Journal of Training & Development, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 282-294.

Vermeulen, R. & Admiraal, W. 2009, "Transfer as a two‐way process: testing a model", Jnl

Euro Industrial Training, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 52-68.

Villachica, S.W. & Stepich, D.A. 2010, "Surviving troubled times: Five best practices for

training professionals", Performance Improvement Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 93-115.

Walumbwa, F.O., Mayer, D.M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, K. & Christensen, A.L.

2011, "Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: The roles of leader–member

Page | 30


exchange, self-efficacy, and organizational identification", Organizational behavior and

human decision processes, vol. 115, no. 2, pp. 204-213.

Wang, S. & Wu, P. 2008, "The role of feedback and self-efficacy on web-based learning: The

social cognitive perspective", Computers & Education, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 1589-1598.

Warhurst, R. 2013, "Hard times for HRD, lean times for learning?: Workplace participatory

practices as enablers of learning", European Journal of Training and Development, vol.

37, no. 6, pp. 508-526.

Wright, P.M. & Kehoe, R.R. 2008, "Human resource practices and organizational

commitment: A deeper examination", Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, vol. 46,

no. 1, pp. 6-20.

Xerri, M. 2013, "Workplace relationships and the innovative behaviour of nursing

employees: a social exchange perspective", Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources,

vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 103-123.

Page | 31

Documents

Overview - ufhrd.co.uk Web viewThere are a number of sources which will have an effect upon a person’s level of self ... important role in the effectiveness of the ... reward and