HR - IJHRMR - Transfer - Somashekhar K - Paid_new

International Journal of Human Resource Management and Research (IJHRMR) ISSN 2249-6874 Vol.2, Issue 3, Sep 2012 73-94 © TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.,

TRANSFER OF LEARNING 1

SOMASHEKHAR KRISHNAMANI & 2YASMEEN HAIDER

1

Senior Lecturer, Great Lakes Institute of Management, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India 2

Associate Professor, Crescent Business School, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

ABSTRACT Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide human resource practitioners with practical information on the elements that are crucial to transfer of learning among adult learners. The review attempts to increase understanding of factors that support or act as barrier to transfer of learning in Executive development settings.

Design / Methodology / Approach – The paper uses integrative literature reviews of minimum 40 empirical studies on training effectiveness, transfer of training in different contexts published since 1990 till 2010.

Findings – The main factors that enhance transfer of learning are participants goal-setting, participant accountability, participant motivation, participative work environment, high performance work systems, personality, ability, self-efficacy, good training design, match between the training content and the work roles of the participant, organizational support, role of supervisor, peer support, organizational learning culture, training aligned to particular goal, performance feedback, coaching and mentoring, motivation to learn and transfer motivation.

Practical & Research Implications – Training professionals must take cognizance of the elements that are important for good ‘transfer of learning’ and try to identify those factors that are most significant and influencing transfer of learning pertaining to their industry / organization. For future research these factors should be empirically researched altogether. This paper seeks to help practitioners to choose the right training design, pedagogy and pre/during/post training approaches to ensure transfer of learning.

Originality / value – This is the first integrative and comprehensive literature review that attempts to explain the significant factors and barriers to transfer of learning.

KEYWORDS :Training, Training methods, Learning, Transfer of Learning, Human Resource Strategies

74

Somashekhar Krishnamani & Yasmeen Haider

INTRODUCTION Over the last decade, rapid changes in the global economy have presented challenges before training and human resource development professionals. Flat organizations and matrix organization design means higher levels of leadership and managerial skills from more employees. Global nature of work means that managers need to be more technologically savvy and be prepared to work in varied business environments with increasingly diverse colleagues, be able to work in teams, develop the cognitive skills demanded of today’s knowledge worker and yet deliver results.

Organizations have realized that against such a complex and changing work environment, the sustainable competitive advantage that they have with them is to create a highly knowledgeable and skilled workforce. This has resulted in training becoming a critical element of learning and adaptation for managers and leaders. With the importance to training becoming increasingly apparent, substantial research attention is now spent on understanding and improving ‘transfer of learning’ or training effectiveness.

Effective and continuing application back at work of the knowledge and skills gained during the classroom sessions has been described as the Transfer of Learning from Management Development Programs. Companies put importance towards transfer of learning given the large amounts of investments in these programs and the small amount of investment that actually translates into an improved individual and improved organizational performance.

Transfer of learning is defined as a line of inquiry in human resources which uses psychological and sociological theories to explain how training participants transfer what they have learned during training back to their jobs (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Broad, 2001, 2005; Yamnill & McLean, 2001).

According to Brown and Seidner (1998), four conditions must be present for transfer of training to take place: (a) the person must have a desire to change, (b) the person must know what to do and how to do it, (c) the person must work in the right climate for change, and (d) the person must be rewarded for changing. This highlights the contextual factors needed to ensure that an effective training intervention is converted into improved employee performance.

Although other outcomes also play an important role in the training effectiveness criteria such as trainee reaction and level of learning, the transfer of training enables organizations to achieve their ultimate objectives. Therefore literature review shows that researchers have been giving consideration towards the most important aspect of training outcomes, i.e. the transfer of training.

Though ‘transfer of learning’ can be construed as a subset of training evaluation research that deal with models and techniques for measuring training outcomes, ‘transfer of learning’ also concerned with understanding the causal factors underlying training outcomes – did the intended training and transfer of learning happen. Most researchers adopt a process oriented view to transfer of learning. For example, recent reviews of the literature in this area (e.g., Baldwin and Ford, 1988; Bates, 2003; Ford and Weissbein, 1997; Kozlowsi and Salas, 1997) have regarded training as a complex process that moves

Transfer of Learning

75

from pre-training experiences, to learning and the acquisition of cognitive knowledge and skills, to the capability to apply – or transfer – new learning to job-related tasks, and eventually to the transfer of learning to job tasks and activities beyond those that were initially targeted by the training. This process, in turn, is seen as influenced by a system of factors – a learning transfer system (Holton, 2003) – that includes variables affecting individual behavior (e.g., motivation, efficacy beliefs, prior experiences), factors in the training event itself (e.g., job relevant content, appropriate learning activities), and factors in the work environment (e.g., supervisor and co-worker support, group norms about change, rewards). A basic tenant emerging from this research is that training effectiveness can only be understood and fostered by measuring and analyzing a relatively complete system of influences.

As Human Resource Development (HRD) scholars and practitioners seek to design, develop, and present effective Management Development Programs for practicing managers, there is now a more acute awareness of key stakeholders (including trainees, trainers, senior and line management, and training centers) desire to increase transfer of learning through training activities.

From a managerial point of view, the investment in training programs is not worthwhile unless trainees succeed in translating training contents into actual performance (Kozlowski & Salas, 1997; Kuchinke, 1995). The debate on the process of transfer has changed substantially over recent decades.

Whereas classical theories (Judd, 1908; Thorndike &Woodworth, 1901) focus on the training design, current theories consider ways of enhancing the transfer process and avoiding transfer barriers (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Holton, 1996). Olsen (1998) claimed that the main goal for training designers should be to foster the trainees’ motivation to use new skills on the job. Therefore, characteristics of training transfer design have to be monitored closely, as they are supposed to have an impact on the transfer motivation (Yamnill & McLean, 2001). Even if trainees acquire new knowledge during the training session, transfer might still not occur because they did not learn how to apply the knowledge in their working environment (Holton, 1996).

It seems that many organizations persist in believing that learner reactions are valid and reliable indicators to assess the effectiveness of training, and are also able to demonstrate its impact on organizations (Ruona et al., 2002). A positive reaction on the part of the trainee enhances learning. In other words, if the trainee reacts positively, the learning level of the trainee is higher and transfer of training will be maximized. In contrast, a negative reaction leads to low interest in training activities, a low learning level, and a lower transfer rate. However, Wang and Wang (2006) consider reaction a short-term evaluation of the training outcomes; the other three levels of evaluation belong to the longterm evaluation of training outcomes. They argued that a more realistic way of evaluating reaction is to obtain the learner's feedback on the interest in, attention to and motivation towards the learning object (Wang and Wang, 2006). In addition, if the training satisfies the learning needs of the trainee and the reaction is positive, the other evaluation levels like learning, transfer and results should show a more

76

Somashekhar Krishnamani & Yasmeen Haider

productive output. In the long term, transfer can lead to improved organizational and individual performance.

For corporates having a capable manager is very crucial because it could be the competitive advantage on which the business is functioning. The need for managing talent is even more important because of the competitive nature of the business and rapidly changing environment. Every year, billions of dollars are spent in developing management capability through management development programs.

Not surprisingly, when one considers these stark statistics, transfer, or the application and usage of skills learned in training, has become a critical issue for HRD (Baldwin and Ford, 1988; Burke and Hutchins, 2007;Noe, 2002). Transfer of learning has become important and vital because of the employment challenges that a fast growing economy like India is facing. Indian corporate will have to ensure the development of competent managers to meet the growing demand of skilled top management and career progression challenges.

Whilst on the other hand, for those employees who participate in management training, some transfer estimates suggest that only about 30 per cent (Robinson & Robinson, 1995) of the training content actually gets transferred to the workplace.

From a managerial point of view, the investment in training programs is not worthwhile unless trainees succeed in translating training contents into actual performance (Kozlowski & Salas, 1997; Kuchinke, 1995). The debate on the process of transfer has changed substantially over recent decades.

Whereas classical theories (Judd, 1908; Thorndike &Woodworth, 1901) focus on the training design, current theories consider ways of enhancing the transfer process and avoiding transfer barriers (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Holton, 1996).

Given the preceding, the primary purpose of this paper is to do a meta-analysis of the literature that is available on the topic.

METHOD An updated manual search was done in each of the following journals reporting research on training Journal of Applied Psychology, Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Personnel Psychology, Personnel and Training & Development Journal, Group and Organizational Studies, Human Factors, Human Relations, International Journal of Psychology, Journal of Management, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Public Personnel Management Journal, Training & Education Journal.

The status paper aims to illustrate that HRD scholar and practitioners can gain an appreciation that there are a number of overlapping features in the literature which has examined participation in training and that which has analyzed transfer of training. In the sections that follow, the existing bodies of literature concerning these two fields are synthesized and an exploratory conceptual model is developed. In addition an exploratory study designed to offer a bridge of understanding between these two separate, yet complimentary, areas of HRD is described. In the concluding section as well as

Transfer of Learning

77

presenting suggestions for future research, the case is made for how comprehensively understanding these factors may enhance HRD effectiveness.

NATURE OF LEARNING TRANSFER The factors that affect learning transfer fall into 3 main categories viz, Trainee factors, training design factors and work environment factors.

Timothy Baldwin (1990) did a unique study to bring out the effects of trainee choice of training on subsequent pre-training motivation or the lack thereof and transfer of learning. The research was done in the Indiana University campus across nine locations where the participants were students, part-time employees and adult education participants. The research design provided for controlling and isolation of choice effects when offered to the participants. The purpose of the research was to test the validity of the Intrinsic Motivation theory – which says that offering choice among alternative outcomes is a crucial mechanism for increasing mastery and self-determination – leading to better transfer of learning.

General cognitive ability, pre-training motivation, post training motivation and learning measures were measured through open ended and short answer questions. Correlation analysis and Multivariate analysis was done. The results of the research are 1.

Providing choice for training was consistent with previous theoretical and empirical work

2.

Highlighted the ‘perils of participation’ where participants are forced to participate in a training program without given any choice – resulting in lower motivation and a poor transfer of training.

Empirical research reveal that transfer of learning is also linked to motivational approaches through three steps viz. (1) participation from participants, (2) goal- setting, and (3) accountability. Each of these approaches affect training outcome and had been empirically proven but research had also shown that these approaches had very little or almost no effect on transfer of learning. This required further empirical research.

Richard J Magjuka et al, 1994 did a study on 314 participants of a training program in Indiana University to study the impact of motivational strategies on transfer of learning. These participants were diverse in their background – students, full time working professionals and part time adult education participants. A section of the respondents received controlled inputs while ensuring parity of all other parameters.

Data was collected through questionnaire using Likert-type scale to capture pre-training motivation and learning measures. Multiple regression analysis was done for statistically testing the data.

Consistent to previous research the reports revealed that that a trainee's motivation to perform increases when he or she is afforded a choice in the training selection process, but only provided he or she actually receives the choice made. That is, those afforded choice but who did not subsequently receive their choice actually had lower motivation than those not afforded any choice whatsoever.

78

Somashekhar Krishnamani & Yasmeen Haider

What can be concluded from this research is the robustness of the goal setting effect found so often in organizational research (Locke & Latham, 1984) may extend to the training context as well.

The focus slowly shifted from motivation and trainee factors to training climate factors – in fact the relationship between the organizational context and the individual’s attitude and behavior towards the job.

The Holton Model 1996 that discusses the LTSI learning transfer system inventory is another important contribution in the literature of learning transfer. The model talks about 16 factors that are most likely to affect the transfer of learning in the workplace. Holton developed the Learning Transfer System Inventory (LTSI) in which he introduced the transfer design factor (Holton, 1996). Transfer design develops understanding about the training program and shows a practical way in which training can be best used on the job. Transfer design can also be defined as the degree to which training has been designed and delivered to give trainees the ability to transfer learning to the job, and to which the training instruction matches the job requirements.

(Holton et al., 2000 did a study on 73 production operators in the US who were to undergo training and certification on a Computer Based Training modules. This research report highlights the importance (almost 43%) of content validity, supervisor and co-worker support in transfer of learning.

The results underscore the value of valid training content that is suited to the work context of the participant, good training design which is designed and delivered in such a way as to maximize the trainee's ability to transfer the training to the job and the degree to which the training instruction matches the job requirements combined with the supervisor / co-worker support enables transfer of learning.

(Holton in 2000 did a research in US where he selected 1616 respondents who came from across a variety of organizations and different training programs. The purpose of this research was to develop the Learning Transfer System Inventory (LTSI) and test the Individual performance (dependent variable) against the LTSI (Independent variables). The report unfolded the influence of secondary influences like ability, environment & Motivational variables on transfer of learning.

Colquitt et al, 2000 did a meta-analysis of 106 articles on transfer of learning published between 1975 and 1998 from various journals. According to this report the Independent variable is the individual, situational and work environment factors and the dependent variables are motivation to learn, improved job performance and improved transfer of learning. Personality, situational, job / career and ability were measured for their an integrative approach to transfer of learning.

Gary L May and William M Kahnweiler, 2000 did a study to test the effect of a theory based mastery practice design for interpersonal skills training. The need for this study arose because the plant was scheduled to a self-directed work team production process in the following year. The participants were 38 supervisors and managers in a consumer product manufacturing plant located in Atlanta, Georgia.

Transfer of Learning

79

This study employed two groups in field settings – a pre-test group and a post-test group control group . Prior to training each participant completed a role-play that was video-taped to provide a baseline. In addition a 360 degree anonymous feedback on workplace listening practices was taken for each participant from at least 6 of their associates. Data captured was analyzed using Ancova. Results reveal that lack of transfer of learning could be inadequate learning and retention.

This result supports Baldwin & Ford’s 1988 model that maintains that, for trained skills to transfer, training material must first be learned and retained. It also agrees with Alliger et al 1997 report that documents causal links between transfer of learning and subsequent behavior.

The study on training effectiveness continues to be challenging researchers given that there are a lot of limitations in each of the study that has happened historically. Constantine Kontoghiorghes, 2001 did an exploratory study in an attempt to bridge some of the research gaps by identifying key factors within and outside the training context that affected transfer of learning. The study was to identify the link between new technologies in the organization and their relationship to training effectiveness immediately after training as well as after a gap of 3-9 months. Socio-technical systems theory was the framework on which this study was based.

Custom designed Questionnaire sent through mails was the instrument used for this study. The study was done across a random selection from a Universe size of 4097, training, human resource, quality and OD members of ASTD. The sample size was 264. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to decipher the data collected. Correlation and multiple regression analysis was run to understand how the instructional system components in conjunction with the identified training factors and organizational moderator factors related to transfer of learning 3-9 months after training.

The results revealed that there was a significant amount of association between knowledge of training material immediately after training as well as 3-9 months after with the identified instructional system components. This study statistically validates the importance of training evaluation components as has been advocated by Human resource development theorists like Goldstein, 1986, Kirkpatrik, 1987 and Phillips, 1997. The findings also suggest that trainees will be more motivated to learn if they know that they are accountable for the training they receive.

In short the study findings reveal that there are better chances of transfer of learning when the work environment in the organization is not only participative and encouraging to the employees to learn and apply new skills and knowledge but also provides recognition to the trainees. High performance work systems act as catalysts and prime motivating forces for transfer of learning and its application back at the work place.

Lim and Johnson (2002) research report is the study done to examine the nature of transfer of learning that occurred following a 3 week training program for the HRD managers from the Korean conglomerate, SK group. The purpose of this training was to study the extent to which trainees perceive their learning has transferred to their jobs. The study also attempted to highlight the relationship that

80

Somashekhar Krishnamani & Yasmeen Haider

exists between the degree of perceived learning and the resultant transfer of learning to the job. The most important need was to identify the factors that influence a trainee’s ability to transfer learning to the job.

A case study approach was adopted by the researchers where 10 individual cases (individual participants) ranging from trainee cadre to Senior manager cadre and age from 30-45 were studied.

Multi-phased structured interview and document review were the instruments used to capture the data on the trainees’ perceptions of their degree of learning, training transfer and the effect of different factors on the transfer process. To increase clarity and improve communication during collection of data the questionnaire and interview instruments were translated into Korean language.

Qualitative data from document review and interviews were analyzed by using descriptive statistics and qualitative approaches to draw conclusion from the findings The study matched the findings of other studies (Georgenson, 1982, House, 1986, Huczynski & Lewis, 1980) and highlighted the criticality of the transfer-enhancing work environment factors. The study revealed that overlearning, learning principles as well as varied practice at work were important design features that influence transfer of learning. Ensuring a supportive work climate was the single most important requirement for the successful transfer of learning. The second important finding was the need to have a strong match between the training content and the trainees’ work roles for transfer of learning. The third important work environment factor that affected transfer of learning identified was the Opportunity to use the new knowledge. This study also identified several work environment factors that had not been studied previously like budget restrictions, avoidance of large initial investments for new instructional technologies, lack of technical experts, lack of co-ordination between departments, top managements’ involvement and interest in training etc.

Empirical study reveals that most of the respondents in the research undertaken were in their mid-40. Wei Tao Tai, 2004 did a research to test the hypothesis that participants of training program who receive more positive training framing from their supervisors will have more-self efficacy and therefore more motivation when they attend they program. Self-efficacy will play the role of a mediator in improving transfer of learning. The study group consisted of 106 employees who attended a training program in a technological training Institute in Taiwan. For the first time the average age of respondents was 21 with the oldest being 35 years.

Data on self-efficacy, training motivation and training framing were captured through questionnaire through a survey. Bivariate correlation method was adopted. Inter-correlation between the dependent variables (training reactions, learning and transfer motivation) and independent variables (training framing, self-efficacy, and motivation time no. 1 and motivation time no. 2) were all positive.

We can conclude from this that training framing was positively associated with self-efficacy, training motivation and all the training effectiveness variables. Past study focused on direct individual correlates but this study scrutinizes the relationships and examined both individual and contextual predictors of transfer of learning and confirmed the importance of supervisors’ training framing which predicts the self-efficacy and training motivation of the participants, subsequently affecting their

Transfer of Learning

81

reactions, transfer motivation and transfer of learning. The results also reveal that the more trainees’ are familiar with the training contents, the more self-efficacy was generated, and the greater the willingness to attend the training program.

Susan A Cromwell & Judith Kolb, (2004) did a study with an intent to examine the relationship and identify the similarities and differences that exist between four specific work-environment factors viz. organization support, supervisor support, peer support, and participation in a peer support network.

The study also attempted to understand the differences between work-environment factors and transfer of learning across One-month, six-month, and one-year interval points following supervisory skills training.

Sixty-three front-line supervisors from one unit of a large northeastern university and their eighteen direct supervisors participated in this study. These participants had all undergone an in-class training program of 56 hours across 12 weeks plus had spent additional time on projects out-of –class.

Portions of Rothwell’s (1996) transfer of training instrument were adapted for use in this study. To maximize participation, questionnaires were administered at meetings held at times that were convenient for trainees.

ANOVAs and correlations were calculated for the quantitative sections. ANOVA results of aggregate data showed that trainees who reported receiving high levels of organization, supervisor, and peer support, and who also participated in a peer support network, reported higher levels of transfer of knowledge and skills.

When data were segregated and examined according to length of time since trainees had completed training, findings were still significant for organization, supervisor, and peer support but only at the one-year point, not at one month or six months. T-test results indicated that trainees and their supervisors did not differ in their perceptions of level of transfer of skills or amount of organizational or direct supervisor support received by the trainees. This is consistent with prior research on the importance of organizational factors in transfer of learning.

More recently Chiaburu and Lindsay, 2005 did a survey on 186 employees from a single work organization in the United States who had attended at least one training course. The study was done as there was a need to examine both individual and organizational contextual factors related to transfer of learning (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Colquitt et al, 2000, Quinones, 1997). The model that the researchers came up was tested on both line and supervisory positions from different functional areas for all training courses across curriculum. The objective of the study was to prove literature review that ‘pre-training motivation’ was a central position and also to propose that there was a link between individual and contextual antecedents which resulted in transfer of training. Information was gathered through a questionnaire that was based on previously published scales.

Analysis was done through Structural Equation Model to test the relationships between the constructs as SEM has the capability to bring out the relationships at item level.

The major results of the study are

82

Somashekhar Krishnamani & Yasmeen Haider

1.

There are both significant and non-significant relationships between constructs and relationships.

2.

When trainees engage with training with higher levels of motivation at pre-training period, it results in a higher transfer of training and contributed to the existing knowledge base on transfer of training literature.

3.

The importance of pre-training motivation.

4.

Positive relationship between Self-efficacy and goal orientation that contributes to individual motivation leading to higher transfer of learning.

The importance of adoption and embracing innovation as a culture and how this would affect

transfer of learning generated interest in a few academicians. Reid Bates and Samer Khasawney, 2005 submitted a research paper that examines the relationship between organizational learning culture, learning transfer climate, and organizational innovation. This main purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between organizational learning culture, learning transfer climate, and organizational innovation.

Data for this study were collected from 450 subjects using purposive sampling and convenience sampling. These respondents who were predominantly more than 30 years old were employees from 28 different public sector and private organizations in Jordan from government, banking, high-tech, retail, and service backgrounds. The scales that were in English originally were translated to Arabic to suit the Jordanian audience. To rectify any subjective and objective translation errors, a pilot study was also done on 12 respondents.

Exploratory (Common) Factor Analysis was used to identify the latent construct structure of the survey items and to provide some evidence of construct validity and cross-cultural equivalence.

Results showed that organizational learning culture predicted learning transfer climate, and both these factors accounted for significant variance in organizational innovation. Analysis of regression diagnostics did not reveal any serious violations of regression assumptions, multi-collinearity, or the presence of influential observations.

Findings from the analysis indicated that organizational learning culture can predict learning transfer climates, and that both of these factors can account for significant variance in the perceived innovative capacity of an organization. The results of this study are particularly interesting because they suggest, first, that the values and beliefs associated with learning organization culture can indeed influence organizational innovation. Second, the results suggest that learning organizational culture can influence specific manifestations of psychological climate in the form of individual efficacy beliefs, attitudes about change, and effort-outcome and performance-outcome expectancies.

Kirwan and Birchall (2006) attempted a test of the Holton model of learning transfer to suggest amendments and developments where appropriate, to the model. The study starts with a hypothesis that learning transfer depends on trainee, training design and the work environment factors.

Transfer of Learning

83

The report was based on a study on a total of 112 nurse managers from within the health service in Ireland who had taken part in different Management development programs delivered by the same provider. The objective of their study was to bring to explain in detail the independent and dependent variables that affect transfer of learning. The instrument used by them was the Learning Transfer System Inventory (LTSI) version-2 developed by Holton and his colleagues in 2000.

Correlation analysis and regression analysis was done to understand the strength and direction of the relationship of the different constructs. The major results of this study were 1.

Identification of the Central role of the ‘motivation to transfer’ variable. More factors correlated with it than any other factor. This reinforced the earlier literature and models presented.

2.

‘Peer support’, ‘feedback, and ‘coaching’ also correlate with many same factors like ‘performance self-efficacy’, ‘motivation to transfer’ and ‘manager support’ variables.

3.

The research argued that the relationship between transfer designs, perceived opportunity to use the learning and the validity of content of training work together and are responsible for improved learning transfer.

The model goes beyond the Holton model in revealing a greater level of complexity within the

transfer of learning system. Relationships between environment factors which were hitherto not made explicit are not demonstrated through this research. Though this research contributes to the refinement of the original Holton model, one of the limitations of this study was the sample of participants was small as only 72 respondents out of 112 respondents responded which is small for quantitative work. Similarly the model generated cannot predict learning transfer from a program.

Although more number of researches is undertaken to understand transfer of training, few studies have examined transfer of training at the organizational level. Thus, even though the literature continues to report a transfer problem in organizations, little attempt has been made to examine what organizations do to improve transfer and how these attempts relate to their level of transfer of training.

Alan M Saks and Monica Belcourt, (2006) carried out a study in Canada to investigate the extent to which organizations implement training activities for facilitating the transfer of training before, during, and after training and the relationship between these activities and the transfer of training across organizations. The researchers wanted to test their hypothesis pre-training activities, activities during training, post training activities will be positively related to transfer of learning and that training activities before and after the actual training will be more strongly related to transfer of learning than activities during training.

Data was collected through a survey circulated to 150 members of a large training and development society in Canada. The respondents were senior directors, HR professionals and training consultants with more than 10 years of work experience in Training & Development space.

Data was analyzed using Factor analysis which revealed that transfer of learning decreases over time which clearly indicates the need for organizations to focus more on pre and post training activities in the work environment. Transfer of training is substantially greater than 10% as against what empirical

84

Somashekhar Krishnamani & Yasmeen Haider

research indicates however, it declines by almost 50% (from 62% to 34%) one year after training.

Training activities before, during, and after training are positively related to the transfer of training.

Training activities that take place in the work environment before and after training are more strongly related to transfer than training activities during training.

(Velada et al., 2007 did a research in Portugal on 182 employees from 9 stores of a grocery market company. These respondents had different training programs. The dependent variable was transfer of learning and the independent variables were transfer design, performance self-efficacy and performance feedback. When trainees have previous knowledge and practice of how to apply the newly learned knowledge and skills to the job, and when training instructions are congruent with job requirements, an increased likelihood of transfer should exist). The study also found that transfer design positively relates to transfer of training. They suggested that in order for organizations to ensure that training is effective, it should be designed to match employees' ability to learn the training material and to utilize the knowledge and skills accrued by employees during training outside of the learning environment.

Bates et al. (2007) did a factor analysis of the Learning Transfer Systems Inventory to test the consistency of the English LTSI in German conditions. Data for the study was collected from both private and government companies in Germany. Efforts were put in to obtain data from a mixture of organizations and make it heterogeneous. Participants from 17 organizations participated and 579 respondents responded to the questionnaire. Hierarchical regression analysis was also done to test the ability of the LTSI constructs to predict the outcomes.

The Results Revealed 1.

A clear replication of the Holton et al 2000 factor structure with both the training specific and training general domains.

2.

6 of the LTSI variables – motivation to transfer, person outcomes positive, personal capacity to transfer, content validity, peer support and learner readiness emerged as the predictors for Individual transfer variable.

3.

5 of the LTSI variables – performance outcome expectations, openness to change, transfer effort expectations, performance outcomes negative and performance outcomes positive were significant predictors when Organizational performance was used as the dependent variable

4.

LTSI may be robust across different cultures Lisa A Burke and Holly M Hutchins, (2008) did a study of the best practices in Transfer of

Training because they found that no theoretical perspective for a best practice approach existed within Training or HRD literature. Data were gathered from the best training professionals of an American Society of Training and Development (ASTD) chapter in the southern United States to uncover best practices for supporting training transfer.

They used Quantitative Content analysis techniques to analyze the rich data that they received from the 139 respondents who filled in the questionnaires. Findings suggest that strategies most

Transfer of Learning

85

frequently used in the work place were the most important factor in transfer of learning. The second important factor identified was training design and the role of trainers, supervisors and the management during the delivery phase. This study is important as it unveils a new set of sub categories that are important to transfer of learning like trainer’s knowledge of subject matter, professional experience and knowledge of adult learning principles.

The study also highlighted additional stakeholders like role of peers and organization in supporting learning transfer. The report advances transfer theory by incorporating Broad’s stakeholder and time period research, refining categories and bringing in sub-categories and identifying specific moderating variables to transfer of learning.

Though management literature provides a variety of recommendations as to how workers’ customer orientation might be improved, including through training literature is still to address and provide solution to issues relating to transfer of learning post training programs into actual practice at work place. Study by Susanne Liebermann and Stefan Hoffmann, (2008) proposes to test a model of transfer motivation and training transfer and validate Baldwin and Ford’s framework and Kirkpatrick’s levels of evaluation and prove their hypothesis that better the trainees’ reaction to the training program, the more they learn and more they learn in the training program, the more training contents get transferred back to work place. Higher the perceived practical relevance, higher the motivation, higher the positive reaction to the training content – resulting in higher transfer.

Survey data was collected from 213 participants from German financial institution who were provided a training program aimed at improving service quality. The respondents were asked to fill in the customized questionnaire after 12 weeks of attending the program. Structural Equation Modeling using LISREL was applied to test the model and inference statistics like Chi Square were tabulated for reliability and validity.

Global fit measures of the complete model indicated a good fit. Measures of local fit support the model. Learning was found to have a direct impact on transfer. Transfer Motivation plays a mediator role. Perceived practical relevance to the participants plays a major role (73%) and provides practical hints on how to optimize the training process by making it as close as possible to the practical settings of the participants and to ensure that the learning is applied back at the job. We can infer from the study that training should be customized to the specific training goal and the work environment.

Al-Eisa et al. (2009) state that transfer intention (Machin & Fogarty, 2003) is the most crucial stage in the transfer of learning process for its anticipated capacity to determine the level of transfer that could be achieved yet there is very few empirical research investigating its antecedent factors. The need for the study was to have more empirical studies to examine the transfer-related variables in various contexts so that a database of findings that would facilitate the construction of comparisons and further elaborations.

The study was to test the hypothesis formulated on 1991 Ajzen Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) that self-efficacy, supervisor support and motivation has a positive influence on transfer intention.

86

Somashekhar Krishnamani & Yasmeen Haider

The 4 constructs of this study (self-efficacy, supervisor support, motivation to learn and transfer intention) were measured with a total of 19 items derived from previous studies. All items were rated on a 5 point Likert scale.

The study was conducted at the Institute of Public Administration in Saudi Arabia (a Public Sector Unit) on a sample size of 336 trainees to cross check if the factors affecting transfer of learning are still relevant in a work place that has a very different socio-culture than that of developed countries like USA, UK where hitherto studies were done. The age of majority (65%) of the participants was less than 40 and about 65% of the participants had more than 10 years of work experience and more than 60% of the participants held diplomas or University degrees.

Two separate regression analyses were performed. The first analysis was to examine the effect of self-efficacy on transfer intention and to determine the mediation effect of motivation to learn on that relationship. The second analysis was done to examine the influence of supervisor support on transfer intention and the mediation role of motivation to learn on that relationship.

The study confirmed Mathieu & Martineau’s 1997 claim that motivation to learn can have a direct effect on transfer of learning and at the same time motivation to learn plays a mediating role in the relationships between transfer and individual and contextual factors. The findings of this study are consistent with and supportive of a couple of TPB’s premises that explain and predict behavior. The support of the immediate supervisor was found to be the most influential antecedent of transfer intention.

The intent of the paper written by Brown and McCracken (2009) is to bring to study in unison and light the factors that participants face in relation to participation to training and transfer of training.

An exploratory research was done where the respondents self reported. Data was collected through open ended questions in a questionnaire administered to 137 participants from the public sector of Canada because till then most of the research had been restricted to respondents from UK. These respondents belonged to government, healthcare and education sectors and were those who had completed a one day training program in the last three months. Content analysis was used to assess the data generated. The aim was to generate a grounded theory based on data collected and highlight the importance of work environment in transfer of training. The results of their study were 1.

Substantial overlap exists between participation and transfer barriers.

2.

Bias on extrinsic factors like physical resources, organizational culture, poor management culture towards executive development and lack of time were the most prominent points that arose.

3.

Staff issues like reluctance to accept and use the knowledge gained in training program

4.

Personal habits and effort also affected transfer of training.

The authors have pointed out that very less of the program learning content is actually

transferred to the workplace. Through research has identified many factors responsible for learning transfer, researchers are still unable to develop strong training transfer theory and bring improvement to the organizations reported low rate of training transfer.

Transfer of Learning

87

Kauffeld and Lehmann-Willenbrock (2010) state that job involvement, coaching and job satisfaction is important for transfer of learning. Their study was done with a quasi-experimental research design on a sample of 64 bank employees. The effect of spaced practice on training is investigated in field. The respondents were divided into two groups of 32 each with one group being provided spaced training and the other mass training. The findings reveal that spaced training practice rather than massed training practice result in greater transfer of learning, higher self-reports of sales competence and improved results.

Improved transfer of learning can result also by adopting the strategy of action planning to overcome the negative influences at work. It is based on the premise that participants would think through their learning by taking notes and develop a plan for applying their knowledge when they returned to work. The exercise would include a discussion about what participants learned during the training, ways in which they could use that learning to improve their job performance, potential barriers and resources needed to implement the proposed actions, and, depending on the context, a supervisory review of the plan for further development (ASTD, 2008; Basarab & Root, 1992; Hollenbeck & Ingols, 1990; Phillips, 2003.

Chris A Cowan et al, (2010), carried out a research in Columbia USA. Data was collected from 23 participants of a 3 day residential program meant for training police officers, attorneys, social workers and counselors at Columbia. One of the components of the evaluation plan in the training program was the ‘action plan’.

During the course of the training, each participant was asked to fill in and submit an action plan as to how he / she would proceed once he / she completed the training.

The data collected about the participant action planning process were collected from three different sources: mentors who would be reporting boss at work place / the coach at job or some senior in the organization, Steering committee observers (members from the top management in the organization) including the academy evaluator, and (c) the participants themselves. The final versions of participant action plans were written the last day, collected by the evaluator, photocopied, and returned to the participants before they left the academy. One month later, the evaluator emailed participants the specific action steps mentioned in their individualized plans and a reminder that he would be following up with them in another month’s time. The 2-month follow-up evaluation comprised conversations with participants about progress and success with planned actions detailed in their respective action plans.

The findings from the report suggest that action planning can be a simple, inexpensive yet effective method to improve transfer of learning. The report also highlights how participants gave a feedback that action plans helped them think through the learning received and its specific application to

88

Somashekhar Krishnamani & Yasmeen Haider

their work roles. Published work by Jack Phillips (1994, 1997, 2003), an expert in return-on-investment evaluation for human resource development and performance improvement programs, has further claimed that action plans are the “key to high transfer” (1997, p. 160). This study strengthens the evidence that the participant action planning process is viable for increasing learning transfer and improving evaluation practices for a large range of applications.

DISCUSSIONS Given that we have known about the 'transfer of learning problem' for at least 50 years now , a closer examination of literature review of trainee participation, learning transfer and training design factors reveal that each literature tends to focus on complementary, but different, areas. For example, the participation literature has heavily examined the role of work environment in inhibiting uptake of training; whereas, the transfer literature has only recently investigated work environment elements.

Moreover, in the transfer literature, the emphasis of work environment examination has often been on its impact post-training while the participation field has focused on its pre-training effects. In contrast, the training design element, with a long history in the transfer literature, has received limited attention in the participation literature.

Researchers in the transfer of learning have not used acceptable scale development procedures is a significant problem. Without minimally validated scales, the chance for substantive misspecification of models, misinterpretation of findings, and measurement error is significantly increased. We are not suggesting that the previous research is flawed but we propose that research is at a stage where researchers need to move to more rigorously developed and consistent measures of transfer variables.

Thus it is argued that further research on the framework on trainee participation, transfer theory and training design factors could benefit in better understanding of each other and learning transfer thereby the training field could benefit overall.

Such a view is in concert with other authors such as Kirwan and Burchell (2006) and Veleda et al. (2007), who have recently began investigating the linkages between training design, individual characteristics and work environment on transfer of training. While participation is a prerequisite of transfer, and while each half of the model has been examined in separate literatures, there appears to be a dearth of research designed to examine the full range of issues which may hamper effective training, namely, those that limit participation (pre-training event) to those that facilitate transfer (post-training event). In addition, limited research has specifically examined the relationships in the reverse.

GAPS THAT EXIST IN THE LR Research did not cover those participants who were earmarked for training but did not participate in the training – for whatever set of reasons Most of the research was done on ‘self-report’. More in-depth research through blended methods can be possible. Probing techniques like ‘qualitative interviews’ were not attempted.

Transfer of Learning

89

Work-life balance as a reason for poor transfer of training was not explored Studies have been done using the LTSI in different cultures and each time some of the variables have been removed. A common LTSI capable of administering across different cultures is an area of possible future work.

Studies have not been done in multinational organizations to see the validity of the LTSI in multi cultural and multi ethnic audience.

Research shows that there is scope to compare transfer of learning within organization.

There is also scope to do cross-cultural research on transfer of learning.

REFERENCES 1.

Acton, T. (2003), "Training the knowledge worker", Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 27 No.2-4, pp.137-46.

2.

Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50, pp. 179-211.

3.

Alan Saks & Monika Belcourt, (2006), “An Investigation Of Training Activities And Transfer Of Training In Organizations”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 45, No. 4

4.

Al-Eisa, A.S., Furayyan, M.A., Alhemoud, A.H. (2009), "An empirical examination of the effects of self-efficacy, supervisor support and motivation to learn on transfer intention", Management Decision, Vol. 47 No.8, pp.1221-44.

5.

Alliger, G.M., Tannenbaum, S.I., Bennett, W. Jr, Traver, H., Shotland, A. (1997), "A metaanalysis of the relations among training criteria", Personnel Psychology, Vol. 50 pp.341-58.

6.

American Society of Training and Development. (2008). Measurement & evaluation: Essentials for measuring training success. Alexandria, VA: Author.

7.

Axtell, C.M., Maitlis, S., Yearta, S.K. (1997), "Predicting immediate and longer-term transfer of training", Personnel Review, Vol. 26 No.3, pp.201-13.

8.

Baldwin, T.T., Ford, J. (1988), "Transfer of training: a review and directions for future research", Personnel Psychology, Vol. 41 No.1, pp.63-105.

9.

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

10. Baldwin, T. T. and Ford, J. K. (1988), “Transfer of training: a review and directions for future research”, 11. Personnel Psychology, 41, 1, 63–105.

12. Bandura, A. (1982), "Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency", The American Psychologist, Vol. 37 pp.122-47.

13. Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 14. Bandura, A. (1997), Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control, Freeman and Co., New York, NY

90

Somashekhar Krishnamani & Yasmeen Haider

15. New York, Springer.

16. Bates, R., Kauffeld, S., Holton, E.F. III (2007), "Examining the factor structure and predictive ability of the German version of the learning transfer system inventory", Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 31 pp.195-211.

17. Baumgartel, H., Reynolds, M., Pathan, R. (1984), "How personality and organizational/climate variables moderate the effectiveness of management development programmes: a review and some recent research findings", Management and Labor Studies, Vol. 9 No.1, pp.1-16.

18. Broad, M. (2001), “Transfer of training: Action-packed strategies to ensure high payoff from training investments”, New York, Da Capo Press.

19. Broad, M. (2005), “Beyond transfer of training: Engaging systems to improve performance”, Pfeiffer essential resources for training and HR professionals, New York, Wiley.

20. Brown, S., & Seidner, C. (1998), “Evaluating corporate training: Models and issues”, Boston, Academic.

21. Brown, T.C., McCracken, M. (2009), "Building a bridge of understanding: how barriers to training participation become barriers to training transfer", Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 33 No.6, pp.492-512.

22. Burke, L.A., Hutchins, H.M. (2007), "Training transfer: an integrative literature review", Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 6 No.3, pp.263-96.

23. 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 and Development, Vol. 9 No.2, pp.110-23.

24. Chris A. Cowan, MDIV Ellen F. Goldman, EdD Melissa Hook, BA, “Flexible And Inexpensive: Improving Learning Transfer And Program Evaluation Through Participant Action Plans”, Performance Improvement, vol. 49, no. 5.

25. Clark, S.C., Dobbins, G.H., Ladd, R.T. (1993), "Exploratory field study of training motivation: influence of involvement, credibility, and transfer climate", Group and Organization Management, Vol. 18 pp.292-307.

26. Colquitt, J., LePine, J., Noe, R. (2000), "Towards an integration theory of training motivation: a meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No.5, pp.678-707.

27. Constantine Kontoghighores, (2001), “Factors affecting training effectiveness in the context of the introduction of new technology—a US case study”, International Journal of Training and Development 28. Devos, C., Dumay, X., Bonami, M., Bates, R., Holton, E. III (2007), "The learning transfer system inventory (LTSI) translated into French: internal structure and predictive validity", International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 11 No.3, pp.181-99.

29. Ellis, H.C. (1965), “The Transfer of Learning”, The Macmillan Press, New York, NY. 30. Ford, J.K., Smith, E.M., Weissbein, D.A., Gully, S.M., Sales, E. (1998), "Relationship of goal orientation, metacognitive activity and practice strategies with learning outcome and transfer",

Transfer of Learning

91

Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83 pp.218-33.

31. Ford, L. (2009), "Improving training transfer", Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 41 No.2, pp.92-6.

32. Garavaglia, P.L. (1993), "How to ensure transfer of training", Training & Development, Vol. 47 No.1, pp.63-8.

33. Gary L May and Will M Kahnweiler, (2000), “The effect of a mastery practice design on learning and transfer in behavior modeling training”, Personal Psychology, Vol. 53 34. Georgenson, D. L. (1982), ‘The Problem of Transfer Calls for Partnership’, Training and Development Journal, 36, 75–8.

35. Goldstein, L. I. (1986), “Training in Oganizations: Needs Assessment, Development, and Evaluation” (Montery, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company).

36. Gregoire, T.K., Propp, J., Poertner, J. (1998), "The supervisor's role in the transfer of training", Administration in Social Work, Vol. 22 No.1, pp.1-18.

37. Hollenbeck, G., & Ingols, C. (1990), “What’s the takeaway?”, Training and Development Journal, 44(7), 83–84.

38. Holton, E.F. III (1996), "The flawed four-level evaluation model", Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 7 No.1.

39. Holton, E.F. III, Bates, R.A., Ruona, W.E. (2000), "Development of a Generalized Learning Transfer System Inventory", Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 11 No.4, pp.33360.

40. House, R. (1986), “Leadership Training: Some Dysfunctional Consequences”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 556–71.

41. Huczynski, A. A. and J. W. Lewis (1980), “An Empirical Study into the Learning Transfer Process in Management Training”, Journal of Management Studies, 17, 227–40.

42. Judd, C. H. (1908), “The relation of special training and general intelligence”, Educational Review, 36, 28–42.

43. Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1976), "Evaluation of training", in Craig, R.L. (Eds),Training and Development Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp.18-27.

44. Kirkpatrick, L. D. (1987), “Evaluation”, in L. R. Craig, Training and Development Handbook: A Guide to Human 45. Resource Development (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company).

46. Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1994), “Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels”, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA. 47. Kauffeld Simone and Lehmann-Willenbrock, Nale, (2010), “ Sales training: effects of spaced practice on training transfer”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 34 Issue 1, p23-37 48. Kirwan, C., Birchall, D. (2006), "Transfer of learning from management development programmes”.

49. Kozlowski, S. W. J. and Salas, E. (1997), “A multilevel organizational system approach for the implementation and transfer of training”, in J. K. Ford (ed.), Improving Training Effectiveness

92

Somashekhar Krishnamani & Yasmeen Haider

in Work Organizations (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum), pp. 247–87.

50. Kuchinke, K. P. (1995), “Managing learning for performance”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 6, 3, 307–16.

51. Leon C Prieto et al, (2011), “Self-Monitoring and Organizational Identification as Moderators of the Effects of 52. Proactive Personality on the Transfer of Learning in the Workplace: A Theoretical Inquiry”, International Journal of Management, Vol. 28, No. 2.

53. Liebermann, S., Hoffmann, S. (2008), "The impact of practical relevance on training transfer: evidence from a service quality training program for German bank clerks", International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 12 No.2, pp.74-86.

54. Lim, D.H., Johnson, S.D. (2002), "Trainee perceptions of factors that influence learning transfer", International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 6 No.1, pp.37-49.

55. Locke, E.A. & Latham, G.P. 1984, “Goal Setting: A Motivational Tool That Works”, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

56. Machin, M.A. and Fogarty, G.J. (2003), “Perceptions of training-related factors and personal variables as predictors of transfer implementation intention”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 18, pp. 51-71.

57. Mathieu, J.E., Tannenbaum, S.I., Salas, E. (1992), "Influences of individual and situational characteristics on measures of training effectiveness", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35 pp.828-47.

58. Ford, J.K., Kozlowski, S.W.J., Kraiger, K., Salas, E. and Teachout, M. (Eds), Improving Training Effectiveness in Work Organizations, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. 59. McGhee, W., Thayer, P.W. (1961), “Training in Business and Industry”, Wiley, New York, NY, .

60. Nikandrou, I., Brinia, V., Bereri, E. (2009), "Perspective on practice: trainee perceptions of training transfer: an empirical analysis", Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 33 No.3, pp.255-70.

61. Noe, R.A. (1986), "Trainee attributes and attitudes: neglected influences on training effectiveness", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 pp.736-49.

62. Noe, R.A., Hollenbeck, J.R., Gerhart, B., Wright, P.M. (2006), “Human Resource Management: Gaining a Competitive Advantage”, 6th ed., McGraw-Hill Irwin, Boston, MA 63. Olsen, J. H. Jr. (1998), “The evaluation and enhancement of training transfer”, International Journal of Training and Development, 2, 1, 61–75.

64. Phillips, J. (1994), “Measuring return on investment, Vol. 1: Eighteen case studies from the real work of training”, Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.

65. Phillips, J. J. (1997), “Handbook of Training Evaluation and Measurement Methods”, (Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company).

66. Phillips, J. (2003), “Return on investment in training and performance improvement programs”, (2nd ed.). New York: Butterworth-Heinemann.

93

Transfer of Learning

67. Quiñones, M. A. (1995), “Pre-training context effects: Training assignment as feedback”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 226–38.

68. Quiñones, M. A. (1997), “Contextual influences on training effectiveness”, in M. A. Quiñones and A. Ehrenstein (eds), Training for a rapidly changing workforce: Application of psychological

research

(pp.

177–201)

(Washington,

D.C.:

American

Psychological

Association).

69. Magjuka, Richard J and Loher, Brian, (1991), “The Combined Effects Of Three PreTraining Motivational 70. Strategies On Trainee Motivation And Learning: An Empirical Exploration”, Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings,.

71. Reid Bates and Samer Khasawneh, (2005), “Organizational learning culture, learning transfer climate and perceived innovation in Jordanian organizations”, International Journal of Training and Development 72. Francisco, 73. CA: Berrett-Koehler).

74. Robotham, D. (2004), "Developing the competent learner", Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 36 No.4, pp.66-72.

75. Rothwell, W. J. (1996), “ Transfer of training strategies: An assessment instrument”, Unpublished manuscript. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University.

76. Rouiller, J. Z., & Goldstein, I. L. (1993), “ The relationship between organizational transfer climate and positive transfer of training”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 4 (4), 377390 77. Ruona, W.E.A., Leimbach, M., Holton, E.F., Bates, R. III (2002), "The relationship between learner utility reactions and predicted learning transfer among trainees", International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 6 No.4, pp.218-28.

78. Seyler, D.L., Holton, E.F. (1998), "Factors affecting motivation to transfer training", International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 2 No.1, pp.13.

79. 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 pp.955-78.

80. Susan Cromwell, Judith A Kolb, (2004), “An Examination of Work-Environment Support Factors Affecting Transfer of Supervisory Skills Training to the Workplace”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 4 81. Susanne Liebermann and Stefan Hoffman, (2008), “The impact of practical relevance on training transfer: evidence from a service quality training program for German bank clerks”, International Journal of Training and Development 82. Tannenbaum, S.I., Mathieu, J.E., Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (1991), "Meeting trainees' expectations: the influence of training fulfillment on the development of commitment, selfefficacy, and motivation", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76 pp.759-69.

94

Somashekhar Krishnamani & Yasmeen Haider

83. Thorndike, E.L., Woodworth, R.S. (1901), "The influence of improvement in mental fuction upon the efficiency of other functions involving attention, observations and discrimination", The Psychological Review, Vol. 8 No.6, pp.553-64.

84. 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.

85. and the work environment on varying levels of training outcomes", Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 12 No.1, pp.5-23.

86. 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 and Development, Vol. 11 No.4, pp.282-94.

87. Vroom, V. (1964), “Work and Motivation”, Wiley, New York, NY. 88. Wang, G.G., Wang, J. (2006), "HRD evaluation: emerging market barriers, and theory building", Advances in Developing Human Resource, Vol. 7 No.1, pp.22-36.

89. Wexley, K.N., Baldwin, T.T. (1986), "Post-training strategies for facilitating positive transfer: an empirical exploration", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29 pp.503-20.

90. Yamnill, S., & McLean, G. (2001), “Theories supporting transfer of training”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(2), 195–208.

BIOGRAPHY Somashekhar is a Senior Lecturer in Executive Education with Great Lakes Institute of Management, a Chennai based Business School in India that specializes in Executive Education Programs. He has designed and delivered a number of Customised Executive development Programs with clients ranging from Fortune 500 companies, Leading Indian Business Houses to entrepreneurial start-ups. He can be contacted at shekhar@greatlakes.edu.in Dr. Yasmeen is an Associate Professor with Crescent Business School under BS Abdur Rehman University – one of the top ranked private universities in Chennai, India. She is a faculty who teaches HRM related subjects to students of MBA programs as well as does consultancy and training assignments to corporate entities. She can be reached at haider.yasmeen@gmail.com