TRANSFER OF TRAINING

Research on moderators of the training transfer relationship has focused primarily on workgroup factors supervisory and peer support as well as on organizational level aspects. Holton et al. (2003) used the Learning Transfer System Inventory (Holton et al. 2001) to examine differences in transfer characteristics across eight organizations, three organization types, and three training types.

Figure 01: Learning Transfer System Inventory

(Source: Holton et al., 2001)

According to Holton et al. (2003), the Learning Transfer System Inventory includes four major groups: trainee characteristics (learner readiness and self-efficacy), trainee motivation (motivation to transfer, transfer effort to performance expectations, and performance to outcome expectations), work environment (performance coaching, supervisor support, supervisor sanctions, peer support, resistance to change, positive personal outcomes, and negative personal outcomes), and ability (perceived content validity, personal capacity for transfer, transfer design, and opportunity to use). Analyses showed that scale scores differed across individual organizations, organization types, and training types, indicating that transfer environments are probably unique to each training application (Holton et al. 2003).

Regarding organizational-level factors, Kontoghiorghes (2004) emphasized the importance of both transfer climate and the work environment in facilitating the transfer. A transfer climate consists of a variety of factors, including supervisory and peer support, but also task cues, training accountability, opportunities to practice, opportunities to apply new knowledge and skills, and intrinsic and extrinsic rewards for applying new knowledge. Work environment factors include socio-technical system design variables (e.g., fostering job involvement, employee involvement, information sharing), job design variables (e.g., fostering task autonomy, job match), quality management variables (e.g., employee commitment to quality work, customer focus), and continuous learning variables (e.g., continuous learning as a priority, rewards for learning). With a sample of 300 employees in the information technology division of a large U.S. automaker, Kontoghiorghes (2004) found support for both climate and work environment factors as predictors of transfer motivation and performance.

Figure 02: illustration of Traditional approaches to model training transfer

(Source: Kontoghiorghes, 2004)

Although there continue to claim that the transfer climate is critical to the transfer of training, empirical studies of the transfer climate have yielded mixed results. Richman-Hirsch (2001) found that post-training transfer enhancement interventions were more successful in supportive work environments. Chiaburu and Marinova (2005) discovered no effects for supervisory support but positive results for peer support in a study of 186 trained employees. Van der Klink et al. (2001) also found no effect of supervisory support in two studies involving bank tellers. An important study for understanding these mixed results may be that of Pidd (2004), which examined the role of peer and supervisory support for the transfer of training on workplace drug and alcohol awareness. Pidd (2004) reported that the influence of workplace support on transfer was moderated by the extent to which trainees identified with the groups that provided support (Pidd, 2004).

For example: a number of studies have investigated training strategies for improving transfer, with little or mixed success. Brown (2005) examined goal setting at the end of training by comparing three conditions: setting distal goals, setting proximal plus distal goals, and telling participants to do their best. Contrary to expectations, participants instructed to do their best out-performed trainees told to set distal goals and did as well as participants told to set proximal plus distal goals. In contrast, Richman and Hirsch (2001) reported positive effects of a post-training goal-setting intervention, particularly in supportive work environments. Huint & Saks (2003) examined managers’ reactions to either a relapse prevention intervention or one emphasizing supervisor support. For a sample of 174 managers and students, there was no significant difference in preferences for either intervention, although there was a slight tendency to prefer the supervisor support intervention.

List of References

Brown, T.C. (2005). Effectiveness of distal and proximal goals as transfer-of-training interventions: a field experiment. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 16:369-87.

Chiaburu, D.S. and Marinova, S.V. (2005). What predicts skill transfer? An exploratory study of goal orientation, training self-efficacy and organizational supports. Int. J. Train. Dev. 9:110–23.

Holton, EF III, Bates, R.A. and Ruona, W.E.A. (2001). Development of a generalized learning transfer system inventory. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 11:333–60.

Holton, EF III, Chen, H.C. and Naquin, S.S. (2003). An examination of learning transfers system characteristics across organizational settings. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 14:459–82.

Huint, H. and Saks, A.M. (2003). Translating training science into practice: a study of managers’ reactions to posttraining transfer interventions. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 14:181–98.

Kontoghiorghes, 2004 (2004). Reconceptualizing the learning transfer conceptual framework: empirical validation of a new systemic model. Int. J. Train. Dev. 8:210–21.

Pidd, K. (2004). The impact of workplace support and identity on training transfer: a case study of drug and alcohol safety training in Australia. Int. J. Train. Dev. 8:274–88.

Richman-Hirsch, W.L. (2001). Posttraining interventions to enhance transfer: the moderating effects of work environments. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 12:105–19.

Richman-Hirsch, W.L. (2001). Post training interventions to enhance transfer: the moderating effects of work environments. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 12:105–19.

Van Der Klink, M., Gielen, E. and Nauta, C. (2001). Supervisory support as a major condition to enhance transfer. Int. J. Train. Dev. 5:52–63.