An Investigation of Training Activities and Transfer of Training in Organizations

AN INVESTIGATION OF TRAINING
ACTIVITIES AND TRANSFER OF

TRAINING IN ORGANIZATIONS
ALAN M. SAKS AND MONICA BELCOURT

The purpose of this study was 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. Training professionals from
150 organizations reported that 62%, 44%, and 34% of employees apply
training material on the job immediately, six months, and one year after
training. In addition, their organizations were significantly more likely to use
training activities to facilitate transfer during training than either before or
after training. Further, training activities before, during, and after training
were significantly related to the transfer of training; however, activities in the
work environment before and after training were more strongly related to
transfer than activities during training. The practical and research implications of these findings are discussed for improving the transfer of training in
organizations. 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
rganizations spend billions of dollars each year on formal training

and development programs (Dolezalek, 2005), with the expectation that
their training investments will lead
to improvements in organizational performance or results criteria (Salas & CannonBowers, 2001). Results criteria have been referred to as the ultimate criteria for
training evaluation (Brogden & Taylor,
1950), fundamental for judging training
success (Alliger, Tannenbaum, Bennett,
Traver, & Shotland, 1997), and the primary
goal of training (Kozlowski, Brown, Weissbein, Cannon-Bowers, & Salas, 2000).

At the same time, transfer of training
continues to concern organizations (Burke,
2001; Ford & Weissbein, 1997; Machin,
2002). Reports indicate that only about 10%
of what is learned in training is applied on
the job (Fitzpatrick, 2001). This finding presents a serious problem for organizations,
given that transfer of training is considered
the primary leverage point by which training influences organizational-level outcomes and results (Kozlowski et al., 2000).
Correspondence to: Alan M. Saks, Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources, Joseph L. Rotman
School of Management, University of Toronto, 121 St. George St., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 2E8, Phone:
(416) 978-5366, Fax: (416) 978-5696, E-mail: saks@utsc.utoronto.ca
Human Resource Management, Winter 2006, Vol. 45, No. 4, Pp. 629648
2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).
DOI: 10.1002/hrm.20135
630
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Winter 2006
Therefore, it is important for organizations

to incorporate into their training programs
strategies to improve the transfer of training.
In their review of the last decade of training research, Salas and Cannon-Bowers
(2001) described some of the exciting advances made in training research but wondered whether organizational training practitioners apply this knowledge within their
firms. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether organizations are implementing some of the practices that have been studied in research on transfer of training. In
particular, we examine the extent
to which organizations incorporate training activities before, durMost of the
ing, and after training into their
training programs, as well as the
research on transfer relationship between these activiof training has been ties and transfer of training.
conducted at the
individual level of
Transfer of Training
A major theme in the training literature is the existence of a transanalysis and for a
fer problem in organizations
(Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Burke,
particular training
2001). This problem is serious, as
program.
it means that individuals are failing to improve their behavior and
performance on the job, such
that training is unlikely to affect organizational performance (Kozlowski et al., 2000).
According to Baldwin and Ford (1988), transfer of training involves the generalization of
learning, trained skills, and behaviors from
the training environment to the work environment, and the maintenance of trained
skills and behaviors or the length of time
that trained material is used on the job following a training program. Thus, transfer of
training involves both the generalization
and maintenance of trained skills on the job.
In response to the transfer problem,
training researchers have identified and studied strategies that facilitate the transfer of
training. However, most of these studies
have focused on individual and situational
factors or on interventions for improving individual-level transfer of training following a
particular training program. For example, a
number of studies have tested the effects of

relapse prevention and goal-setting interventions for improving transfer (Burke, 1997;
Burke & Baldwin, 1999; Gaudine & Saks,
2004; Richman-Hirsch, 2001; Tziner, Haccoun, & Kadish, 1991). Other studies have
demonstrated that a variety of individual
and situational variables predict trainees
transfer of training (Colquitt, LePine, & Noe,
2000; Facteau, Dobbins, Russell, Ladd, &
Kudisch, 1995; Ford, Quinones, Sego, &
Sorra, 1992; Quinones, Ford, Sego, & Smith,
1995; Smith-Jentsch, Salas, & Brannick,
2001; Tesluk, Farr, Mathieu, & Vance, 1995).
Thus, most of the research on transfer of
training has been conducted at the individual level of analysis and for a particular training program. However, transfer of training
also can be examined at the organizational
level. For example, in their review of transfer
research, Baldwin and Ford (1988) noted that
just as the climate literature has reported differences in the level of support and other climate factors across groups and organizations, there might also be differences in the
factors that influence transfer of training
(e.g., support) as well as in levels of transfer.
They called for transfer research at the organizational level of analysis. More recently,
Ford and Weissbein (1997) discussed the
need for transfer research from an organizational perspective and suggested that research is needed that explores transfer not
only from an individual program perspective, but also from a departmental and organizational perspective (p. 38).
There have been several attempts to
study transfer of training at the organizational level. For example, Holton, Bates, and
Ruona (2000) have examined what they
term the transfer system. According to
Holton et al. (2000), the transfer system
refers to all factors in the person, training,
and organization that influence transfer of
learning to job performance such as supervisor support, peer support, perceived content validity, transfer design, and opportunity to use new skills on the job (pp.
335336). Holton and colleagues have conducted a number of studies on the development of an instrument to measure the transHuman Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
An Investigation of Training Activities and Transfer of Training in Organizations
fer system and have compared transfer systems across organizational settings (Holton,
Chen, & Naquin, 2003). However, this research focuses on a particular training program and has not investigated the relationship between transfer system characteristics
and transfer of training.
Rouiller and Goldstein (1993) examined
the relationship between organizational
transfer climate and transfer of training. They
developed a measure of organizational transfer climate that consists of situations and
consequences that can either inhibit or help
to facilitate the transfer of training. In a sample of assistant managers in a large, fast-food
chain, they found that organizational transfer climate was significantly related to transfer behavior across 102 units. As noted by the
authors, This is one of the few empirical
studies that establishes the importance of a
positive organizational transfer climate in
transferring training from the training program into the work organization (p. 388).
However, although the data for transfer climate were aggregated at the unit level, the
measure of transfer was at the individual level
and for a particular training program.
Tracey, Tannenbaum, and Kavanagh
(1995) studied the transfer of 104 supermarket managers of a supermarket chain. In addition to measuring the organizational transfer climate, they also developed a
continuous-learning work environment
measure that they defined as one in which
organizational members share perceptions
and expectations that learning is an important part of everyday work life (p. 241).
They found that both the transfer climate
and a continuous learning culture aggregated at the group level predicted individual
managers transfer behavior.
Thus, although some advances have
been made in transfer research at the group
level of analysis, the focus has remained on
the transfer of individuals following participation in a particular training program
rather than transfer at the organizational
level. In the present study, we examine training activities, as well as transfer of training,
at the organizational level. In other words,
we consider transfer an organizational-level
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
631
variable, such that the transfer of training

will vary across organizations, as will the activities that organizations incorporate into
their training programs to facilitate transfer.
This perspective is consistent both with
Holton et al.s (2003) finding that transfer
systems differ across organizations and with
Rouiller and Goldsteins (1993) finding that
different transfer climates exist in organizations. If such differences exist across organizations, then it follows that transfer of training must also differ across organizations.
Training Activities Before,

During, and After Training
The transfer literature has identified many activities that are likely
to facilitate transfer of training
before training begins (pretraining environment), during the actual training program, and after a
training program (post-training
work environment) (Broad &
Newstrom, 1992; Burke, 2001;
Machin, 2002; Tannenbaum &
Yukl, 1992). Although one can
study these activities as they pertain to a particular training program, in the present study we
consider them as part of a larger
training system or organizational
transfer climate (e.g., Holton et
al., 2000, 2003; Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993) that can influence
the transfer of training throughout an organization. In the remainder of this section, we discuss training activities at each
time period and present the study
hypotheses.
we consider
transfer an
organizational-level
variable, such that
the transfer of
training will vary
across
organizations, as
will the activities
that organizations
incorporate into
their training
programs to
facilitate transfer.
Pretraining Activities
Some activities that take place prior to training, what Tannenbaum and Yukl (1992) refer
to as the pretraining environment, are important for transfer of training. One of the
most important work environment variables
is supervisor support (Baldwin & Ford, 1988;
Cromwell & Kolb, 2004; Kraiger, McLinden,
632
& Casper, 2004). Supervisor support is a multidimensional construct and can include
many actions on the part of supervisors
(Baldwin & Ford, 1988). For example, prior to
attending a training program, supervisors can
provide support to trainees by meeting with
them to discuss the training program and
content, setting training goals, providing
trainees with release time to prepare, and encouraging their attendance and participation
(Brinkerhoff & Montesino, 1995). Requiring
trainees to be accountable for their training
experiences by informing them that they will
be required to undergo an assessment or prepare a post-training
report also may improve transfer
there is evidence (Baldwin & Magjuka, 1991).
Trainee input and involveto suggest that
ment in the training process also
pretraining activities is important. For example,
trainees can be involved in the
needs-assessment process and in
in the work
the choice of training content
environment such
and methods. They also can be allowed to choose the training proas supervisor
grams that they prefer to attend
(Baldwin, Magjuka, & Loher,
support, trainee
1991), and be given advance notiinvolvement, and
fication of training programs that
will be available. Finally, training
trainee preparation
activities prior to training can involve some form of pretraining
will improve the
preparation to increase trainee
transfer of training.
self-efficacy and prepare trainees
for a training program that they
are scheduled to attend (Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992).
Thus, there is evidence to suggest that
pretraining activities in the work environment such as supervisor support, trainee involvement, and trainee preparation will improve the transfer of training. Therefore, we
tested the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Pretraining activities will be positively related to the transfer of training.
Training Activities During Training

Until recently, most of what was known
about transfer of training involved the use of
basic learning principles in the design of a

training program (Baldwin & Ford, 1988).
For example, identical elements involves providing trainees with training experiences
and conditions that closely resemble those
in the actual work environment. Stimulus
variability involves the provision of a variety
of training stimuli and experiences such as
multiple examples of a concept or practice
experiences in a variety of situations. General
principles involves teaching trainees the general rules and theoretical principles that underlie the use and application of particular
skills. Also, conditions of practice such as
feedback and knowledge of results have been
considered important factors in the design of
training programs (Machin, 2002).
More recently, it has been suggested that
interventions can be added on to the training content of a training program for the exclusive purpose of facilitating the transfer of
training (Haccoun, 1997). A number of studies have found that post-training interventions such as self-management, relapse prevention, and goal setting can improve
transfer (Burke, 1997; Gaudine & Saks, 2004;
Richman-Hirsch, 2001; Tziner et al., 1991;
Wexley & Baldwin, 1986). Therefore, we
tested the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Training activities during training
will be positively related to the transfer of
training.
Post-training Activities
Training activities that take place after a
training program (what Tannenbaum and
Yukl [1992] refer to as the post-training environment) may influence the transfer of
training. This stage of the training process
has received a considerable amount of attention in the last several years, as it has been
recognized that constraints and obstacles in
the post-training environment can interfere
with and prevent the transfer of training
(Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992). Research has
found that the transfer climate and an organizations learning culture are particularly
important for the transfer of training
(Holton, Bates, Seyler, & Carvalho, 1997;
Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993; Tracey et al.,

1995).
A number of post-training activities following a training program have been identified in the transfer literature. One of the
most important is organization support for
training in terms of policies, practices, and
procedures, as well as social support from supervisors and peers (Cromwell & Kolb,
2004). Post-training follow-up programs
such as booster training, buddy systems, and
sessions to discuss transfer progress can also
be used to facilitate transfer (Baldwin & Ford,
1988; Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992).
Supervisors play a key role in the posttraining environment by providing feedback,
encouragement, reinforcement, goal setting,
and by ensuring that trainees have opportunities to practice and apply newly learned behavior on the job (Baldwin & Ford, 1988;
Ford et al., 1992; Kraiger et al., 2004; Machin,
2002; Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992). Tannenbaum and Yukl (1992) suggest that meetings
with supervisors to discuss the relevance of
training and to review goals and action plans
also might be useful to signal the importance
of transfer to trainees and ensuring that
trainees are accountable for their use of training material on the job. In addition, posttraining assessments and reports are useful to
help facilitate transfer. Therefore, we tested
the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Post-training activities will be positively related to the transfer of training.
Differences in the Use and Effects of

Training Activities
Finally, evidence indicates that organizations differ in the extent to which they use
training activities at each time period, as
well as the relationship between the activities and transfer of training. First, we expect
that organizations most likely will use training activities during training rather than before or after training. The traditional focus
of training research and practice has been
on the design of training programs and factors in the formal training context (Holton
et al., 2003; Noe, 1986; Tracey et al., 1995)
633
rather than in the work environment. In

fact, principles of effective training design
have been known for more than 40 years
(Kraiger, 2003), while only recently has
there been an emphasis on work environment factors (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Tracey
et al., 1995). The instructional systems design (ISD) model has been the cornerstone
for the design of training programs for decades, and a key part
of the model is the incorporation
Supervisors play a
of various instructional events
during training (Dipboye, 1997; key role in the postGordon & Zemke, 2000). Furthertraining
more, trainers have the most
control over those activities and
environment by
practices that take place during
training in the training environ- providing feedback,
ment. Thus, we expect that orencouragement,
ganizations will be most likely to
implement training activities
during training rather than be- reinforcement, goal
fore or after training:
setting, and by
Hypothesis 4: Organizations will be
more likely to implement training activities during training
than activities before and after
training.
ensuring that
trainees have
opportunities to
practice and apply

Second, we expect that trainnewly learned
ing activities will differ in terms
of the relationship with transfer.
behavior on the job.
In this regard, we expect training
activities before and after training
to be more strongly related to
transfer than training activities during training. This logic is consistent with recent evidence on the importance of the work environment for transfer and the significant
findings for various work environment factors predicting transfer of training
(Cromwell & Kolb, 2004; Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993; Tracey et al., 1995). In addition,
many activities during training are based on
learning principles and principles of experimental psychology that have been shown to
impact immediate learning and short-term
retention on simple tasks in laboratory settings rather than transfer in organizational
settings (Baldwin & Ford, 1988). Latham and
634
Seijts (1997) have argued that the slavish

adherence to the principles of experimental
psychology has retarded breakthroughs to
the positive transfer of training to organizational settings (p. 371).
Thus, while learning principles might improve learning and retention, they generally
do not address constraints in the post-training environment that can inhibit the transfer
of training (Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992). As
noted by Baldwin and Ford (1988), learning
and retention are necessary but not sufficient
conditions for the generalization and maintenance of skills. On the other
hand, training activities before
and after training do address mowhile learning
tivational and behavioral issues in
the pre- and post-training work
principles might
environment and should therefore be more strongly related to
improve learning
transfer of training. Therefore, our
final hypothesis is the following:
and retention, they
generally do not
address constraints
in the post-training
Hypothesis 5: Training activities before and after training will be more

strongly related to transfer of training than training activities during
training.
environment that
can inhibit the
Method
Participants
Participants of this study were

150 members of a large training and development society in Canada. Members of the
society include training directors, training
personnel, HR personnel, and training consultants. Fifty-seven percent of the participants were female, the average age was 42,
and 72% of the sample had a university degree. Participants had an average of 4 years
in their current job, 10 years in their organization, and 10.5 years working in training
and development. The participants represented organizations that average between
500 and 1,000 employees and comprise over
a dozen sectors, including manufacturing,
service, and government. Forty-two percent
of the respondents indicated that their organization produces a product, and 88% in-
dicated that their organization delivers a

service.
Procedure
Surveys were sent to all members of a large
training and development society. Participants were told that the purpose of the survey was to better understand training activities and to improve our understanding of
training effectiveness. They were told that
their individual survey responses would be
anonymous and confidential, and would be
seen only by the researchers. They were
asked to answer the survey questions as accurately as possible with respect to training
in their own organization. Participants were
provided with a self-addressed and postagepaid envelope and asked to return the completed survey to the researchers at the address indicated on the return envelope.
We received 150 completed surveys out
of approximately 1,300, a response rate of
11.5%. Although somewhat low, it is similar
to the sample size and response rate for organizational-level studies in both the strategic human resource literature and the training literature. For example, a recent study by
Datta, Guthrie, and Wright (2005) on highperformance work systems obtained a usable
sample of 132 firms and response rate of
15%, a response rate consistent with other
survey-based studies of high-performance
work systems. In their study on training and
business results, Aragn-Snchez, BarbaAragon, and Sanz-Valle (2003) obtained a response rate of 9%.
Measures
As indicated by Baldwin and Ford (1988),
transfer of training involves both the generalization and maintenance of training material on the job. In order to capture both of
these dimensions, participants were asked to
indicate the percentage of employees in their
organization that effectively apply and make
use of what they learn in training programs
on the job at three time periods: immediately
after training, six months after training, and

one year after attending a training program.
They responded using a ten-point response
scale that ranged from 0 (0%) to 10 (100%).
The transfer of training scale consists of the
average of the three responses ( = .87).
Training Activities
In order to first assess the extent to which organizations implement training activities before, during, and after training for the purpose of facilitating the transfer of training,
we developed a single item for each time period, asking respondents to indicate the extent to which training programs in their organization include training activities before,
during, and after training that are designed
specifically to help trainees use and apply
the training material when they return to
the work environment. Participants were
asked to indicate the extent to which each
activity is used as part of training programs
in their organization using a response scale
that ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (always).
Specific Training Activities
In order to measure specific training activities
before, during, and after training, we identified items for each time period based on the
activities and actions that have been discussed
in the transfer of training literature (e.g., Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Broad & Newstrom, 1992;
Burke, 2001; Machin, 2002; Tannenbaum &
Yukl, 1992). We developed a total of 13 items
before training, 7 items during training, and
16 items after training. Participants were
asked to indicate the extent to which each activity is used as part of training programs in
their organization using a response scale that
ranged from (1) never to (5) always.
In order to examine the factor structure
of training activities at each time period, we
performed an exploratory factor analysis on
all the items at each time period given that
we did not have any a priori factors and we
were looking for underlying patterns in the
data (Tabachnik & Fidell, 2001). Further, because there is no reason to assume that the
factors would be related, we performed a
635
principal components factor analysis with a

varimax rotation. In order to identify meaningful factors, we considered a combination
of criteria, such as the size of the factor loadings and cross-factor loadings (factor
weights of at least .60 as the minimum cutoff for each item and cross-loadings below
.40), eigenvalues greater than 1.0, and
whether the factors could be meaningfully
interpreted.
The results of the factor analyses are
shown in Tables I, II, and III for the training activities before, during, and after
training, respectively. As shown
in the tables, we obtained four
meaningful factors before and
after training and one factor for we obtained four
training activities during trainmeaningful factors
ing. The factors and scale items
for each time period are debefore and after
scribed below.
training and one
factor for training
The pretraining activities conactivities during

sisted of four subscales that we
have named trainee input and intraining.
volvement, supervisor involvement, training attendance policy,
and trainee preparation. Trainee
input and involvement consists of four items
that have to do with the extent to which
trainees have input and involvement in the
training process in terms of their needs, notification and discussion of training, and
input about training programs and content
( = .70). Supervisor involvement consists of
four items and measures the extent to which
supervisors provide support and are involved
in the training process prior to training in
terms of discussing the training program
with trainees, setting training goals, participating in sessions about the training program, and providing employees release time
to prepare for training ( = .75). Training attendance policy consists of three items and
measures the extent to which the organization has policies regarding attendance in
training programs in terms of being mandatory, up to trainees to attend, or if trainees attend training in groups ( = .70). Trainee
.04
.16
.05
.19
Attendance at training programs is mandatory. (R)
Employees from the same department or functional group are trained together.
Trainees are given preparatory reading prior to attending a training program.
Training programs include activities or assignments that trainees are required to

do before they arrive for the actual training program.
.49
Supervisors set goals with employees that focus on improving specific skills before
employees attend training programs.
.23
.18
Supervisors participate in advance orientation or training sessions regarding the

training programs to which they will send their employees.
Employees have a choice as to whether or not they will attend any particular
training program.
.46
Supervisors discuss the content and benefits of a training program with employees
prior to a training program.
.24
.18
.21
.20
.04
.61
.62
.64
.08
.01
.06
Employees are given release time to prepare for a training program.
.80
.75
.01
Employees have input in decisions about training program content and/or methods.
.31
.59
Employees have precourse discussions with their supervisors prior to attending a

training program.
.14
.72
.04
.82
.90
.17
.81
.03
.06
.03
.26
.25
.15
.11
.36
.13
.30
Trainee
Preparation
.81
.22
.16
.03
.18
.05
.23
.21
Training
Attendance
Policy
.69
Supervisor
Involvement
Training needs of employees are identified prior to training.
Trainee
Input and
Involvement
.00
Item Loadings on Four Factors of Pretraining Activities
.64
Employees are given advanced notification about training content prior to attending
a training program.
Items
TABLE
636
TABLE
II
637
Item Loadings on Single Factor of Activities During Training

Activities
During Training
Items
Training programs provide trainees with training experiences and conditions (surroundings,
tasks, equipment) that closely resemble those in the actual work environment.
.69
Training programs provide trainees with a variety of training stimuli and experiences,
such as several examples of a concept, or practice experiences in a variety of situations.
.77
Training programs teach trainees the general rules and theoretical principles that underlie
the training content and the use and application of the trained skills.
.66
Trainees are given feedback and information about their performance of the training tasks
and material during the training program.
.80
Trainees are rewarded during training for learning and performing training material and tasks.
.71
Trainees leave training programs with a written performance contract with goals to be achieved.
.56
Training programs prepare trainees to cope with obstacles or difficulties that might prevent them
from successfully applying the training material when they return to the work environment.
.60
preparation consists of two items that have

to do with the extent to which trainees are
given readings, assignments, or activities to
complete prior to attending a training program ( = .82).
Activities During Training
As shown in Table II, the factor analysis for
the training activities during training resulted in one factor. All seven items had
loadings between .56 and .80. The seven
items for this scale refer to various design
and learning principles, such as conditions
that closely resemble those in the actual
work environment (identical elements); a variety of training stimuli and experiences (stimulus variability); general rules and theoretical
principles that underlie the training content
(general principles); feedback and information
about performance on training tasks (feedback and knowledge of results); rewards for
learning and performing training material
and tasks (positive reinforcement); performance contract with goals (goal setting); and
preparing trainees to cope with obstacles or
difficulties that might prevent them from
successfully applying the training materials
when they return to the work environment
(relapse prevention) ( = .82).
As shown in Table III, the factor analysis on
the post-training items resulted in four
meaningful factors. These four factors correspond to supervisor support, organization
support, accountability, and evaluation and
feedback. The supervisor support scale consists of three items that measure the extent
to which supervisors provide employees with
support, opportunities to practice, and praise
and reward for using newly acquired skills
on the job ( = .88). Organization support
consists of three items that have to do with
organization policies designed to support
transfer, such as booster sessions conducted
after training, availability of resources required to apply training on the job, and performance appraisals that include use of new
knowledge and skills on the job ( = .67).
The accountability factor consists of two
items that have to do with the extent to
which trainees are required to submit a posttraining report or participate in an interview
or discussion about the training ( = .74). Finally, the feedback and evaluation factor
consists of three items that measure the extent to which employees are evaluated or assessed on their learning and use of new
knowledge and skills on the job and whether
.84
.88
.29
.31
.06
.20
.15
.22
.19
.14
Supervisors are instructed to praise or reward employees for using newly acquired
skills developed in a training program.
Some form of booster session is conducted as an extension of a training program

in which the trainer meets with trainees.
Efforts are made to ensure that employees have the resources (e.g., tools,
equipment, materials, supplies, etc.) that are necessary in order to apply the
knowledge, skills, and/or abilities developed in training programs.
The performance appraisal system considers trainees use of knowledge, skills,

and/or abilities acquired in training programs.
Trainees are required to submit a post-training report after attending a training program.
Trainees are required to participate in an interview or discussion as part of a

follow-up to a training program they attended.
Employees are paired with each other following completion of a training program
in order to assist each other by providing feedback and reinforcement to ensure
they use the skills developed in a training program.
Employees are evaluated on their use of new skills or knowledge following

completion of a training program.
Employees are required to undergo an assessment following completion

of a training program in order to evaluate their learning.
Supervisor
Support
Supervisors are instructed to ensure that trainees have opportunities to practice

and apply newly acquired knowledge and skills after attending a training program.
Item Loadings on Four Factors of Post-training Activities
.73
III
Supervisors are instructed to provide trainees with support to help them use newly
acquired skills after attending a training program.
Items
TABLE
.13
.28
.12
.30
.06
.81
.61
.60
.11
.21
.30
Organization
Support
.04
.19
.29
.79
.81
.26
.06
.09
.01
.26
.22
.83
.75
.65
.10
.21
.08
.20
.28
.21
.14
.13
Evaluation
Accountability and Feedback
638
they are paired with other employees who

can assist them and provide feedback ( =
.73).
Control Variables
We measured a number of control variables
that might be related to the transfer of training in organizations. For example, older
(year organization was founded) and larger
organizations (1 = fewer than 100 employees, 9 = 100,000 or more) might have more
sophisticated and more effective human resource systems, and hence their transfer of
training might be higher. In addition, organizations that invest more in training (percentage of the organizations budget devoted
to training and development) and have more
employees working in training and development (number of employees that work in
training and development) might also have a
higher rate of transfer.
Results
To measure transfer of training, we asked respondents to indicate the percentage of employees in their organization that effectively
apply what they learn in training on the job
immediately, six months, and one year after
attending a training program. The results indicate that 62%, 44%, and 34% of employees
transfer immediately, six months, and one
year after training, respectively. The average
of these three values is 47%.
while none of the control variables were related to transfer.
Training Activities Predicting Transfer

of Training
In order to examine relationships between
the training activities and transfer of training, we conducted multiple regression analyses in which we regressed transfer of training
on the activities for each time period separately in accordance with Hypotheses 1 to 3.
The results are presented in Table V.
To examine the relationship between the pretraining activities
and the transfer of training, transfer of training was regressed on
the four pretraining variables
(trainee input and involvement,
supervisor involvement, training
attendance policy, and trainee
preparation). As indicated in
Table V, the pretraining activities
explained 21% of the variance in
transfer (p < .001) in support of
Hypothesis 1. Examination of the
regression coefficients indicates
that trainee input and involvement (.27, p < .01), supervisor involvement (.24, p < .01), and
training attendance policy (.14, p
= .06) were significant predictors
of transfer.
The results indicate

that 62%, 44%, and
34% of employees
transfer
immediately, six
months, and one
year after training,
respectively. The
average of these
three values is 47%.
Training Activities During Training
Intercorrelations of Study Variables

Table IV presents the means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of the study variables. First, it is worth noting that the correlations between the training activities both
within and across time periods are in the low
to moderate range, and most of them were
below .50. This result suggests some independence among the training activities. Second, all of the training activities except for
training attendance policy were significantly
and positively related to transfer of training,
639
To examine the relationship between training activities during training and transfer,
transfer was regressed on the activities during training. In order to determine the relative importance of each activity during training,
we
entered
all
seven
items
simultaneously into the regression. As
shown in Table V, the training activities during training explained 20% of the variance
in transfer (p < .001) in support of Hypothesis 2. Examination of the regression coefficients indicated that the only significant ac-
***p < .001.
**p < .01
*p < .05.
N = 102150.
7.95
3.28
11. Organization size
10.5
4.73
10. Transfer of training
14. Training staff
2.15
9. Accountability
13. Training budget
2.86
8. Organization support
55.7
2.22
7. Evaluation and feedback
12. Organization age
3.27
3.03
4. Training attendance policy

2.91
2.42
3. Supervisor involvement
6. Supervisor support
3.32
5. Activities during training
2.64
.16
.03
(.70)
.28** .46*** .48*** .03

.50*** .52*** .10
.55*** .52*** .48*** (.67)
.42*** .46***(.73)
.50***(.88)
(.81)
26.4
19.5
45.0
1.72
.07
.24*
.13
.05
.11
.02
.25** .05
.03
.22*
.13
.09
.02
.01
.04
.00
2.22 .20** .38*** .39*** .09
.02
.15
.09
.02
.01
.12
.06
.05
.03
.08
.04
.09
.39*** .38*** .26**
.07
.01
.10
.05
.07
.19
.04
.01
.45*** .29***
.94 .40*** .42*** .53*** .25** .35*** .41*** .44*** .38***(.74)
.79 .24*
.78 .30*** .28*** .46*** .01
1.01
.62 .31*** .57*** .44*** .04
.72 .08
.76 .42*** .54***(.75)
.69 .38***(.70)
.78 (.82)
s.d.
Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Intercorrelations of Study Variables
2. Trainee input and involvement
IV
1. Trainee preparation
Variable
TABLE
.10
12
.45***
.07
.02
.38***
11
.09 .15
.17
.05
(.87)
10
.07
13
14
640
TABLE
Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Transfer of Training
Pretraining
Training Activities
During
Post-training
Pretraining activities
Trainee preparation
Trainee input and involvement
Supervisor involvement
Training attendance policy
R2
F
.02
.27**
.24**
.14a
.21
9.68***
Activities during training

Identical elements
Stimulus variability
General principles
Feedback
Positive reinforcement
Goal setting
Relapse prevention
.35***
.03
.06
.05
.04
.02
.12
R2
F
.20
4.83***
Post-training activities
Supervisor support
Evaluation and feedback
Organization support
Accountability
R2
F
ap
641
.17a
.01
.32***
.10
.24
10.94***
= .06. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
tivity was training experiences and conditions that closely resemble those in the actual work environment (i.e., identical elements) (.35, p < .001).
To examine the relationship between the
post-training activities and the transfer of
training, transfer was regressed on the four
post-training activities (supervisor support,

organization support, accountability, and
evaluation and feedback). As shown in
Table V, the post-training activities explained 24% of the variance in transfer (p <
.001) in support of Hypothesis 3. Examination of the regression coefficients indicates
that organization support (.32, p < .001)
and supervisor support (.17, p = .06) were
significant.
642
Comparison of Training Activities

In order to examine the extent to which organizations implement training activities at
each time period, we asked respondents to
indicate the extent to which training programs in their organizations include training
activities before, during, and after training
that are designed specifically to help trainees
use and apply the training material when
they return to the work environment. The
means and standard deviations
for each time period were as follows: before a training program
The pre- and post(M = 2.33, s.d. = .85); during a
training activities
training program (M = 3.25, s.d. =
1.00); and after a training proexplained more
gram (M = 2.70, s.d. = .93). Furvariance in transfer thermore, the results of twotailed paired t-tests indicated that
than the activities
the means across the three time
periods were all significantly difduring training and
ferent. The extent to which organizations include training acalso explained
tivities during training was
significantly greater than before
significant
training, t (146) = 9.26, p < .001,
incremental
and after training, t (146) = 6.50,
p < .001, and the extent to which
variance in transfer
organizations include activities
over and above that after training was significantly
greater than before training, t
explained by the
(144) = 4.06, p < .001. Thus, as expected, organizations are most
training activities
likely to implement training activities during training in support
during training.
of Hypothesis 4.
To examine the strength of the
relationship between the training
activities and transfer of training, we performed hierarchical multiple regression analyses in which transfer was regressed on the
training activities during training in the first
step followed by the pre- and post-training activities in the second step. In this case, the activities during training explained 20% of the
variance (p < .001) and the pre- and post-training activities explained an additional 11% of
the variance (p < .01). When we reversed the
order of entry, the pre- and post-training activities explained 25% of the variance (p <
.001) and the activities during training explained an additional 6% (n.s.).

Thus, overall, the pre- and post-training
activities explained more variance in transfer
than the activities during training and also explained significant incremental variance in
transfer over and above that explained by the
training activities during training. These results provide support for Hypothesis 5. Overall, the combined training activities explained
31% of the variance in transfer of training.
Discussion
Although the transfer of training research has
increased over the past decade, 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. The purpose of
this study was to investigate the extent to
which organizations implement training activities to improve transfer before, during, and
after training as well as the relationship between training activities and the transfer of
training. Our results extend the transfer literature in a number of important ways.
For some two decades, researchers have
noted the dismal rate of transfer in organizations in what has become known as the
transfer problem and have continued to
report that only about 10% of learning transfers to the job (Fitzpatrick, 2001). Our results
suggest that the transfer problem has improved somewhat beyond the 10% figure.
We found that 62% of employees apply what
they learn in training immediately after attending a training program. However, after
six months, only 44% apply the training material, and after one year, only a third (or
34%) are still using what they have learned
in training on the job. Thus, while transfer of
training is much better than 10%, there remains an obvious decay or relapse of training as early as six months following training.
Training Activities
Over the last decade, much has been written
about how organizations can improve the
transfer of training. Numerous activities
throughout the training process have been
suggested (Broad & Newstrom, 1992; Burke,
2001; Machin, 2002; Tannenbaum & Yukl,
1992). Although some of these activities have
been tested at the individual level of analysis
and there is evidence that transfer systems
differ across organizations (Holton et al.,
2003), no previous study has investigated the
extent to which organizations incorporate
these activities into their training programs.
In their review of the last decade of training
research, Salas and Cannon-Bowers (2001)
wondered whether training practitioners are
applying what has been learned from training research. Along these lines, we wondered
whether organizations have implemented
training activities developed in the transfer
literature to improve the transfer of training.
The results of this study indicate that organizations rarely, or at best sometimes, incorporate training activities into their training programs to improve the transfer of
training. Furthermore, they are most likely
to do so during training rather than before or
after training, and more likely to do so after
training than before training.
Training Activities and Transfer of

Training
Although many strategies for improving the
transfer of training have been suggested in the
transfer literature, most empirical studies have
tested the relationship between training variables and individual-level transfer of training
for a particular training program. Thus, although some researchers have treated transfer
of training as an organizational-level variable
in terms of a transfer climate (Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993), a transfer system (Holton et al.,
2000, 2003), and a continuous-learning culture (Tracey et al., 1995), no previous study
has tested the relationship between training
activities and transfer of training across organizations. Clearly, if organizations differ
along these lines (i.e., transfer climate, sysHuman Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
643
tem, and culture), then they must also differ

in terms of their use of training activities and
their overall level of transfer of training.
Our results provide support for the contention that organizations differ in their use of
training activities, and these differences predict transfer of training. We found that training activities before, during, and after training
were significantly related to the transfer of
training. In other words, organizations that incorporate training activities to improve transfer before, during, and after training also report higher levels of transfer of training.
Furthermore, our results suggest that while
training activities during training were related
to transfer, activities that occur in
the work environment before and
after training were more strongly organizations that
related to transfer, providing further evidence of the importance of incorporate training
the work environment for transfer
activities to improve
of training (Cromwell & Kolb,
2004; Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993;
transfer before,
Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992; Tracey
during, and after
et al., 1995).
In terms of specific training activities, trainee input and involve- training also report
ment, attendance policy, and
higher levels of
supervisor involvement were significant pretraining activities, transfer of training.
identical elements was significant
during training, and supervisor
and organization support were significant
post-training activities. The finding that supervisor involvement and support were significant factors both before and after training is
consistent with previous studies that have
found supervisor support to be important for
transfer of training (Brinkerhoff & Montesino,
1995; Cromwell & Kolb, 2004; Facteau et al.,
1995). Furthermore, the significant relationships for supervisor and organization support
are consistent with Tracey et al.s (1995) finding that the social support system plays a central role in facilitating the transfer of training.
Research Implications
This study suggests a number of directions for
future research. One area that needs more attention is on the reasons for the low rates of
644
transfer. Although the results of this study suggest that transfer is not as low as once believed,
it still remains a problem and decreases over
time. While many studies have attempted to
improve transfer through various interventions, relatively few have sought to understand why it remains a problem. In this regard,
more research is needed on both transfer generalization and maintenance. In addition to
learning more about why so many trainees do
not transfer immediately after attending a
training program, we still do not know why
those who transfer following training do not
continue to do so months later. Baldwin and
Ford (1988) have identified a number of reasons, however, and have described
five types of maintenance curves.
Longitudinal research designs are
Our results suggest
required in order to examine
that transfer
changes in the shape and slope of
maintenance curves over time.
remains a problem
This kind of research will provide a
much better understanding of
in organizations,
transfer maintenance and decrements over time, as well as the
something that
causes and possible solutions.
organizations must
A second area in need of research is on vertical transfer of
address given that
training that links the transfer of
transfer is a primary training to organizational-level results criteria (Kozlowski et al.,
leverage point by
2000). This research must measure
individual outcomes following a
which training can
training program and then relate
them to group or organizational
influence
outcomes at some subsequent
organizational-level
time. This type of study will require longitudinal research and
outcomes
multiple levels of data collection
that measure both horizontal and
vertical transfer at the individual
and organizational level.
Implications for Practice

The results of this study have a number of
practical implications for improving the
transfer of training, especially in light of the
increasing concern in organizations to justify
training investments in terms of improved organizational performance (Salas & Cannon-
Bowers, 2001). Our results suggest that transfer remains a problem in organizations, something that organizations must address given
that transfer is a primary leverage point by
which training can influence organizationallevel outcomes (Kozlowski et al., 2000). If organizations are concerned about the impact
of their training programs on organizational
performance, they need to first ensure that
their training programs transfer. The results of
this study suggest that, on average, some 40%
of employees do not transfer immediately
after attending a training program, and this
increases to about two-thirds one year after
training. Thus, organizations must first determine the extent to which transfer is a problem in their organization and then begin to
understand why it is a problem and what to
do about it. The transfer literature suggests a
number of approaches.
First, organizations should consider conducting a transfer of training needs analysis
(TTNA) in order to first determine the kinds of
transfer obstacles that exist in the organizational context for a particular training program (Hesketh, 1997). This analysis should be
a starting point in the determination of transfer barriers and for how best to deal with transfer problems. Second, organizations might
consider conducting a transfer of training
audit (TTA) in order to determine the extent to
which training activities like those measured
in the present study are currently in place before, during, and after training programs. In
this way, organizations can determine when
they need to improve and/or what training activities to incorporate into the training
process. Our results suggest that training activities at each time period predict transfer so organizations should determine the extent to
which they have incorporated these activities
into their training programs. Based on the results of this study, organizations are most
likely in need of improving training activities
in the pre- and post-training work environment. Such activities appear to be relatively
rare and yet are highly predictive of transfer.
A third approach would be to diagnose the
transfer system. Holton et al. (2000) have developed an instrument to measure the transfer
system called the Learning Transfer System InHuman Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
ventory (LTSI). It would be useful for conducting a diagnosis of the transfer system in order
to identify transfer barriers and the most appropriate solutions for removing barriers and
improving transfer. In addition, Rouiller and
Goldstein (1993) have developed an instrument to measure the transfer climate, another
important factor that has been shown to predict transfer. Their measure of the organizational transfer climate includes items that
measure situations and consequences that can
inhibit or help to facilitate transfer.
Finally, the results of this study indicate
that organizations are not doing as much as
they can before and after training to facilitate
the transfer of training. Our results suggest
that organizations can improve the transfer
of their training programs by incorporating a
number of activities into the training process
before and after training. Along these lines,
we recommend that organizations ensure the
existence of a strong support network for
trainees before and after attending a training
program. This recommendation follows from
our findings for supervisor and organization
support as well as the results of other studies
that have demonstrated the importance of a
supportive work environment for training
and transfer (Brinkerhoff & Montesino, 1995;
Cromwell & Kolb, 2004; Gaudine & Saks,
2004; Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993; Tracey et
al., 1995). A good place to start might be to
train supervisors on specific support behaviors and to include such behaviors in their
performance appraisals (Kraiger et al., 2004).
Study Limitations
A number of study limitations should be kept
in mind when interpreting the results. First,
because the sample consisted of individuals
who were members of a training and development association, they probably represent organizations that place a high priority on training and development. Therefore, the
organizations represented in this study are
likely to be leaders and innovators in the training and development of their employees. As a
result, the findings may not generalize to
those organizations that do not consider training as important. In particular, our findings reHuman Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
645
garding the estimates for the transfer of training might be inflated compared to other organizations. At the same time, given the recognition of the transfer problem and the
increasing research in recent years, it is also
likely that some improvement in positive
transfer has occurred. However, such improvement is particularly likely to occur in the type
of organizations included in this study.
The use of self-report data from a single
source also is a limitation that can cause
method bias and measurement error. As a result, the relationships between the training activities and transfer of training might be inflated. Additionally, the measure of
transfer of training was not an actual measure of transfer but an esA good place to
timate based on participants perstart might be to
ception of transfer across all
training programs in their organitrain supervisors on
zation. One has to be concerned
with the accuracy of this percepspecific support
tion given that organizations genbehaviors and to
erally do not measure the impact
of training on job performance
include such
and transfer (Blanchard, Thacker,
& Way, 2000; Kraiger et al., 2004).
behaviors in their
On the positive side, we used
different scale anchors for the
performance
measurement of the main variables
appraisals.
of the study (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). The
measurement of transfer involved
a different scale from the measurement of the
training activities and focused on percentages
using a ten-point scale. It is noteworthy that
there were differences in the degree to which
the training activities were related to transfer,
as well as differences in the extent to which organizations reported using the activities at
each time period. And while the use of singlerespondent measures of HR practices have
been found to contain measurement error, this
problem is less likely when knowledgeable respondents are used (Wright et al., 2001). In
this study, participants were training professionals with considerable experience in their
position and organization. Thus, they are
among the most able persons to respond to
questions about training activities and transfer
of training in their organization.
646
Finally, this study involved a cross-sectional design that measured all of the variables at one time. Although we have implied
a causal relationship in which training activities influence transfer, we cannot support
this assertion using cross-sectional data. It is
possible, for example, that more successful
organizations have sophisticated training
programs and higher levels of transfer. However, it is worth noting that neither training
budgets nor the number of employees working in training and development were significantly correlated to transfer. Thus, it is not
simply the case that organizations that are
more successful and spend more on training
also have greater transfer. However, longitudinal data is required to test the causal linkages implied by this study.
Conclusion
This study has attempted to investigate the
extent to which organizations implement
training activities to facilitate the transfer of
training and the relationship between training activities and the transfer of training at
the organizational level of analysis. The
main findings of this study are as follows:
1. Transfer of training is substantially
greater than 10%; however, it declines by
almost 50% (from 62% to 34%) one year

after training.
2. Organizations rarely incorporate training
activities into their training programs to
improve the transfer of training, and
when they do, it is most likely to occur
during training rather than before or
after training.
3. Training activities before, during, and
after training are positively related to the
4. Training activities that take place in the
work environment before and after training are more strongly related to transfer
than training activities during training.
In conclusion, the results of this study suggest that organizations are not making the
most of training research when it comes to the
transfer of training and that they have much
to gain by applying what has been learned
from training research. The results provide
some answers to Salas and Cannon-Bowerss
(2001) query about the extent to which the
science of training affects organizational training practices. Clearly, organizations still have
much to learn from the science of training
when it comes to transfer of training. We hope
the results of this study will help organizations
realize the value of training science for training practice and the transfer of training.
ALAN M. SAKS is a professor of organizational behavior and human resources management

at the University of Toronto, where he holds a joint appointment in the Centre for Industrial
Relations and Human Resources, the Joseph L. Rotman School of Management, and the Department of Management. He conducts research on job search, socialization, and training,
which has been published in journals such as the Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel
Psychology, the Academy of Management Journal, the Journal of Vocational Behavior, and
Human Resource Development Quarterly. He is coauthor of Organizational Behaviour: Understanding and Managing Life at Work and Managing Performance Through Training & Development, and author of Research, Measurement, and Evaluation of Human Resources.
MONICA BELCOURT, BA, MA, M.Ed, PhD, CHRP, is a past president of the Human Resources
Professionals Association of Ontario (HRPAO), past director of the School of Administrative
Studies, and the founding director of the graduate program in human resources management at York University. She created Canadas first degrees in human resources management: B.HRM (honours) and a masters in HRM (www.atkinson.yorku.ca/mhrm/). She is the
series editor for the ITP Nelson Canada Series in HRM, lead author of Strategic Human Resources Planning, and the lead author of the best-selling book Managing Human Resources,
published by ITP Nelson (www.belcourt.nelson.com).
REFERENCES
Alliger, G. M., Tannenbaum, S. I., Bennett, W., Jr.,
Traver, H., & Shotland, A. (1997). A meta-analysis
of the relations among training criteria. Personnel
Psychology, 50, 341358.
Aragn-Snchez, A., Barba-Aragon, I., & Sanz-Valle, R.
(2003). Effects of training on business results. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14, 956980.
Baldwin, T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A
review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41, 63105.
Baldwin, T. T., & Magjuka, R. J. (1991). Organizational
training and signals of importance: Linking pretraining perceptions to intentions to transfer.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 2, 2536.
Baldwin, T. T., Magjuka, R. J., & Loher, B. T. (1991). The
perils of participation: Effects of choice in training
on trainee motivation and learning. Personnel Psychology, 44, 5166.
Blanchard, P. N., Thacker, J. W., & Way, S. A. (2000).
Training evaluation: Perspectives and evidence
from Canada. International Journal of Training and
Development, 4, 295304.
Brinkerhoff, R. O., & Montesino, M. U. (1995). Partnership for training transfer: Lessons from a corporate
study. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 6,
263274.
Broad, M. L., & Newstrom, J. W. (1992). Transfer of
training. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Brogden, H. E., & Taylor, E. K. (1950). The dollar criterion: Applying the cost accounting concept to criterion construction. Personnel Psychology, 3,
133154.
Burke, L. A. (1997). Improving positive transfer: A test
of relapse prevention training on transfer outcomes. Human Resource Development Quarterly,
8, 115128.
Burke, L. A. (2001). Training transfer: Ensuring training
gets used on the job. In L. A. Burke (Ed.), High-impact training solutions: Top issues troubling trainers (pp. 89116). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Burke, L. A., & Baldwin, T. T. (1999). Workforce training
transfer: A study of the effect of relapse prevention
training and transfer climate. Human Resource
Management, 38, 227242.
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of training motivation:
A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 678707.
Cromwell, S. E., & Kolb, J. A. (2004). An examination
of work-environment support factors affecting

transfer of supervisory skills training to the workplace. Human Resource Development Quarterly,
15, 449471.
Datta, D. K., Guthrie, J. P., & Wright, P. M. (2005).
Human resource management and labor productivity: Does industry matter? Academy of Management Journal, 48, 135145.
Dipboye, R. L. (1997). Organizational barriers to implementing a rational model of training. In M. A.
Quinones & A. Ehrenstein (Eds.), Training for a rapidly changing workplace (pp. 3160). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Dolezalek, H. (2005). 2005 industry report. Training,
42(12), 1428.
Facteau, J. D., Dobbins, G. H., Russell, J. E. A., Ladd,
R. T., & Kudisch, J. D. (1995). The influence of general perceptions of the training environment on
pretraining motivation and perceived training
transfer. Journal of Management, 21, 125.
Fitzpatrick, R. (2001). The strange case of the transfer
of training estimate. Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 39(2), 1819.
Ford, J. K., Quinones, M., Sego, D., & Sorra, J. (1992).
Factors affecting the opportunity to perform trained
tasks on the job. Personnel Psychology, 45, 511527.
Ford, J. K., & Weissbein, D. A. (1997). Transfer of training: An updated review and analysis. Performance
Improvement Quarterly, 10(2), 2241.
Gaudine, A. P., & Saks, A. M. (2004). A longitudinal
quasi-experiment on the effects of posttraining
transfer interventions. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15, 5776.
Gordon, J., & Zemke, R. (2000, April). The attack on
ISD. Training, 37(4), 4253.
Haccoun, R. R. (1997). Transfer and retention: Lets do
both and avoid dilemmas. Applied Psychology, 46,
340344.
Hesketh, B. (1997). W(h)ither dilemmas in training for
transfer. Applied Psychology, 46, 380385.
Holton, E. F., III, Bates, R. A., & Ruona, W. E. A. (2000).
Development of a generalized learning transfer
system inventory. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 11, 333360.
Holton, E. F., III, Bates, R. A., Seyler, D. L., & Carvalho,
M. B. (1997). Toward construct validation of a transfer climate instrument. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 8, 95113.
Holton, E. F., III, Chen, H., & Naquin, S. S. (2003). An
examination of learning transfer system characteristics across organizational settings. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14, 459482.
647
648

Kozlowski, S. W. J., Brown, K. G., Weissbein, D. A.,
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (2000). A multilevel approach to training effectiveness. In K. J.
Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory,
research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp.
157210). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kraiger, K. (2003). Perspectives on training and development. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J.
Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 171192).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Kraiger, K., McLinden, D., & Casper, W. J. (2004). Collaborative planning for training impact. Human Resource Management, 43, 337351.
Latham, G. P., & Seijts, G. H. (1997). Overcoming mental models that limit research on transfer of training in organizational settings. Applied Psychology,
46, 371375.
Machin, M. A. (2002). Planning, managing, and optimizing transfer of training. In K. Kraiger (Ed.), Creating, implementing, and managing effective training and development (pp. 263301). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rouiller, J. Z., & Goldstein, I. L. (1993). The relationship between organizational transfer climate and
positive transfer of training. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 4, 377390.
Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2001). The science
of training: A decade of progress. Annual Review
of Psychology, 52, 471499.
Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Salas, E., & Brannick, M. T.
(2001). To transfer or not to transfer? Investigating
the combined effects of trainee characteristics,
team leader support, and team climate. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86, 279292.
Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
Tannenbaum, S. I., & Yukl, G. (1992). Training and development in work organizations. Annual Review
of Psychology, 43, 399441.
Tesluk, P. E., Farr, J. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Vance, R. J.
(1995). Generalization of employee involvement
training to the job setting: Individual and situational effects. Personnel Psychology, 48, 607632.
Noe, R. A. (1986). Trainees attributes and attitudes:

Neglected influences on training effectiveness.
Academy of Management Review, 11, 736749.
Tracey, J. B., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Kavanagh, M. J.

(1995). Applying trained skills on the job: The importance of the work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 239252.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature
and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 879903.
Tziner, A., Haccoun, R. R., & Kadish, A. (1991). Personal and situational characteristics influencing the
effectiveness of transfer of training improvement
strategies. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64,
167177.
Quinones, M. A., Ford, J. K., Sego, D. J., & Smith, E.

M. (1995). The effects of individual and transfer environment characteristics on the opportunity to
perform trained tasks. Training Research Journal, 1,
2948.
Wexley, K., & Baldwin, T. (1986). Posttraining strategies for facilitating positive transfer: An empirical
exploration. Academy of Management Journal, 29,
503520.
Richman-Hirsch, W. L. (2001). Posttraining interventions to enhance transfer: The moderating effects

of work environments. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12, 105120.
Wright, P. M., Gardner, T. M., Moynihan, L. M., Park, H.

J., Gerhart, B., & Delery, J. E. (2001). Measurement
error in research on human resources and firm
performance: Additional data and suggestions for
future research. Personnel Psychology, 54, 875901.

An Investigation of Training Activities and Transfer of Training in Organizations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Investigation of Training Activities and Transfer of Training in Organizations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AN INVESTIGATION OF TRAINING

ACTIVITIES AND TRANSFER OF

ALAN M. SAKS AND MONICA BELCOURT

rganizations spend billions of dollars each year on formal training

goal of training (Kozlowski, Brown, Weissbein, Cannon-Bowers, & Salas, 2000).

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Winter 2006

Therefore, it is important for organizations

number of studies have tested the effects of