International Journal of Training and Development 6:3

ISSN 1360-3736

Job/work environment
factors influencing training
transfer within a human
service agency: some
indicative support for
Baldwin and Ford’s transfer
climate construct
Nicholas Clarke
Despite significant progress in the field of training transfer
research over the past two decades very little empirical
research in the area has been conducted within human service
organisations. As a result, our knowledge of the extent to
which those factors posited within the training literature to
influence the transfer of training are necessarily those found
in these particular work settings very much remains in its
infancy. This article presents findings from qualitative
research that was undertaken as part of a wider training
evaluation strategy to investigate (1) those factors which
influenced the transfer of training within a UK social services
department; and (2) how these factors compared or differed
from those suggested within the literature as influencing
training transfer. The findings suggest a range of specific fac-
tors as they pertain to both the nature of the jobs and the
workplace within such work settings as mediating training
transfer. However, a number of these were closely associated
with the dimensions of social support and opportunity to use
as posited within Baldwin and Ford’s (1988) transfer of train-
ing model, suggesting that the model is potentially generalis-
able to human service agencies.

❒ Nicholas Clarke is a Senior Lecturer in Organisation Studies at the Business School, University of
Greenwich, Old Royal Naval College, Park Row, London SE10.

 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main St., Malden, MA 02148, USA.

146 International Journal of Training and Development

 Introduction
Over the past two decades there has been something of a seismic shift towards
human resource management practices within work organisations with the
recognition that people management practices may offer the means to secure key
business advantages in the face of increasingly global, competitive and turbulent
environments (Ulrich, 1997; Becker and Huselid, 1998; Richard and Johnson, 2001).
Chief among the HR strategies considered to impact on performance and pro-
ductivity, training and development is considered of major importance in equipping
employees to keep pace with the need for new knowledge and skills in response to
changing business demands (Pettigrew and Whipp, 1991; Pfeffer, 1994, 1998; Gard-
iner et al., 2001). It is hardly surprising then that mirroring these developments has
been the increasing attention paid to determining those factors involved in influenc-
ing the transfer of training within the workplace. Not least because of considerable
research having accumulated suggesting that despite often securing changes in
knowledge and attitudes, training may not actually penetrate as far as to use on the
job (Noe and Ford, 1992; Holton et al., 1997; Noe, 1999). In relation to human service
organisations such concerns are of no minor significance, given that their effective-
ness is arguably dependent upon the performance of the staff they employ and the
skills they possess (Williams and Lloyd, 1992; Doueck and Austin, 1986). Furthermore
the limited amount of research undertaken to date within such work organisations
echoes findings from the wider training literature in casting some doubt on whether
much of what takes place under the umbrella of training actually transfers to use on
the job (Clarke, 2001). Indeed, the situation is such that a number of writers have
expressed severe reservations regarding the potential of training to deliver against
agency expectations within this sector (Zober, 1980; Lindsey et al., 1987). In this
respect evidence regarding the efficacy of training within these environments is mini-
mal, and much of that which does exist is not very promising (Clarke, 2001). In
particular, a major problem lies in the limited information available to date regarding
those factors associated with the organisational environment which either contribute
to or impede the use of trained behaviours (or skills) once trainees leave the training
environment and return to the workplace. For the most part, although various
authors have suggested reasons to account for the success or failure of training within
these work settings, rarely has empirical evidence been provided in support of these
assertions (Delewski et al., 1986; Lindsey et al., 1987; Cheung et al., 1991). To date, a
specific investigation of the transfer of training within human service organisa-
tions has yet to be published within the literature. Such limitations are assuming
increasing significance as a result of recent governmental efforts, within the UK, to
overhaul the training and education of human service agency workers as a means
to secure improvements in organisational performance within this sector
(Department of Health, 1998; Audit Commission, 2000). Despite considerable pro-
gress in the field of training transfer research (Holton et al., 1997; Haccoun and Saks,
1998; Noe, 1999), there remains a huge gap in the extent to which such findings have
informed training policy, research and practice within UK human service
organisations. As a result, our knowledge and understanding particularly of how
organisational climate may affect training transfer within these work settings very
much remain in their infancy. This is of major significance since potentially there
may well be specific factors associated with the nature of the work environments in
these organisations, which mean that organisational climate factors posited to influ-
ence the transfer of training within the wider training literature may offer only partial
explanations as to the possible failure of training to transfer. Especially since the vast
majority of research on the influence of organisational climate on the transfer of
training has been conducted within commercial sector organisations (and predomi-
nantly in the USA) where arguably very different human resource management
practices, business strategies and values will shape both distinctive organisational

 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002. Job/work environment factors 147

cultures and work environments to those found in British human service agencies.
Furthermore, workers within these organisations often find themselves with a con-
siderable amount of autonomy in relation to making key decisions regarding how
their work is to be organised and prioritised, often receive minimal supervision and
generally receive minimal feedback from their colleagues. In addition, they work in
organisations which are recognised as increasingly stressful, highly politicised and
with comparatively limited resources (Balloch et al., 1998; Fisher et al., 1999). In this
respect questions regarding the extent to which these particular work environment
conditions precipitate a very different set of influences on the transfer of training
have yet to be sufficiently addressed.
It is against this background that this article presents qualitative findings from an
evaluation of an in-service training programme within a public sector social services
department that sought to answer two questions: (1) what the factors were that
influenced the transfer of training to use on the job; and (2) how these factors com-
pared or differed to those posited within the wider training literature as influencing
the transfer of training. In so doing the article aims on a theoretical level to identify
the extent to which particular elements of the organisational environment construct
suspected as mediating transfer, and posited by Baldwin and Ford (1988), may poten-
tially generalise more widely to such public sector organisations. On a practical level
the study aims to contribute towards building a more coherent body of know-
ledge regarding the effectiveness of in-service training specifically within UK human
service agencies. The extent to which the particular characteristics associated with
such organisations are becoming increasingly typical of organisations within other
key work sectors suggests the findings will also be of far wider relevance and interest
to training practitioners from different industries and work sectors.

Background literature
Within the training literature it is widely acknowledged that there exist a number of
variables involved in the training situation upon which the effectiveness of training
may be contingent, many of which may lie outside the actual experience of the train-
ing programme itself (Campbell, 1988; Wexley and Latham, 1991; Goldstein, 1993;
Quinones et al., 1995; Ford et al., 1997; Haccoun and Saks, 1998). In response, a num-
ber of researchers have attempted to assist in guiding research efforts in the area by
positing a range of theoretical frameworks to capture or map the training transfer
process (Huczynski and Lewis, 1980; Baldwin and Ford, 1988; Milheim, 1994; Geilen,
1996; Holton, 1996; Kozlowski and Salas, 1997; Holton et al., 1998). In 1988, for
example, Baldwin and Ford building on earlier work by Noe and Schmitt (1986)
posited environmental favourability (or transfer climate) comprising (1) social support
and (2) opportunity to use, as two key dimensions of an overall construct suggested
to influence the use of training on the job (Figure 1). However, to date we are still
some way from determining precisely which aspects of the work environment
mediate training transfer and in particular whether such aspects generalise across all
organisational settings (Elangovan and Karakowsky, 1999).
Studies which have predominantly included social support variables in the
environment construct have for the most part demonstrated support for their role in
mediating training transfer. In particular, trainees’ beliefs about the opportunities to
use the knowledge or skills as a result of training, and the likelihood of feedback and
support from peers and supervisors, have been assumed to be of chief importance
(Baumgartel and Jeanpierre, 1972; Baumgartel et al., 1984; Kozlowski and Hults, 1987;
Cohen, 1990; Rouillier and Goldstein, 1993; Brinkerhoff and Montesino, 1995; Tracey
et al., 1995; Holton et al., 1997; Seyler et al., 1998; Bates et al., 2000; Lim and Johnson,
2002). As long ago as 1973, Hand et al. in a study examining the impact of a human
relations training programme on 21 managers, divided managers into two groups
labelled the autocratic and consultative groups, based on the scores each received in
completing an organisational climate questionnaire. They utilised seven dimensions
of organisational climate: leadership, motivation, communication, interaction,

148 International Journal of Training and Development  Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002.
Figure 1: Baldwin and Ford’s (1988) transfer of training model

decision-making, goal setting and control and concluded that the managers’ percep-
tions of the organisational climate mediated training outcome. Positive results for
the effects of social support on the transfer of training were also found by Rouillier
and Goldstein (1993) and Tracey et al. (1995). Tracey et al., utilising a measure of
transfer climate based on the work of Rouillier and Goldstein (1993), demonstrated
that transfer of training climate and continuous learning culture had direct effects
on post-training behaviours, concluding that behaviours that send a message that
learning is important and valued, and cues that suggest the organisation is innovative
and competitive, appear to encourage the application of newly trained behaviours
on the job. Further empirical evidence for the central role of supervisory support has
also been demonstrated by Seyler et al. (1998), who in a recent study examining
factors affecting motivation to transfer computer-based training in a large petro-
chemical company, found peer and supervisory support as well as opportunity to use
and supervisor sanctions were related to variations in trainees’ levels of motivation to
transfer training. Most recently, Lim and Johnson (2002) in a qualitative study exam-
ining factors influencing learning transfer among HRD professionals in Korea, found
supervisory support to be a significant factor influencing training transfer in addition
to several others that had not been identified previously within the literature. In
particular, budget restrictions, top management’s involvement and interest in train-
ing, a lack of leniency for trial and error and the psychological burden imposed when
trainees are expected to apply training were also found to influence the transfer of
training. However, despite such results the picture is unfortunately far from being
clear. Conflicting findings, for example, were obtained by Facteau et al. (1995) who
found that whereas subordinate, peer and supervisor support were predictive of

 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002. Job/work environment factors 149

managers’ perceived training transfer, surprisingly, supervisor support was found
to be negatively related to transfer. More recently, Van der Klink et al. (2001)
investigated the effects of supervisory behaviour on training transfer in two banking
organisations. In neither case were the authors able to demonstrate any effects of
supervisory support on performance (although in one of the cases reported in the
study measures of performance relied on trainee self-report data).
Studies which have examined the impact of task constraints as affecting trainees’
opportunity to use training on the job have also found mixed results. Facteau et
al. (1995) found that trainees’ perceptions of task constraints in the organisational
environment did not affect pre-training motivation, supporting previous research
findings by Peters et al. (1985) in relation to the effects of task constraints on job
performance. Results from that study suggest that task constraints only have a sig-
nificant effect when they are severe, which they suggest is probably unlikely to be
the case in most organisations. Similarly Peters et al. (1988) conducted a study meas-
uring the constraints in a variety of Air Force work settings and examined the
relationship between these constraints and performance and affective reactions. The
authors found that the presence of constraints tended to be associated with decreased
satisfaction and increased frustration; however, no relationship was found between
organisational constraints and performance. Contrasting with these results, however,
were findings obtained from an earlier study by Huczynski and Lewis (1980) who
demonstrated positive support for both social support and task constraints as affect-
ing the transfer of training. These authors found that managers were more likely to
transfer training after attendance on management development programmes if they
had engaged in pre-course discussions with their boss, and their boss subsequently
sponsored their new ideas back in the workplace. The authors concluded that man-
agement style and attitude of the trainee’s boss were the most important factors in
facilitating training transfer whereas overload of work and crisis work were found
to significantly impede the transfer of training. Such findings have been echoed by
Ford et al. (1992) who also showed that trainees who perform similar jobs may experi-
ence significantly different opportunities to apply recently trained skills back on the
job. Far more recently, Seyler et al. (1998) also found meaningful relationships
between a range of organisational variables including opportunity to use and the
transfer of training. Similarly the opportunity to use training was also highlighted
as a key variable influencing transfer by Lim and Johnson, leading them to con-
clude that:
The second key factor in learning transfer is the opportunity for trainees to apply what they have
learned to their jobs. Without a strong match between the training content and the trainees’ work
roles, it is unlikely that transfer will occur (2002: 46).

Many of the discrepancies in these results are likely due to the different ways
in which the construct of environmental climate has been both conceptualised and
subsequently measured in these studies. Conflicting results may therefore be a direct
consequence of different components of the work environment actually being stud-
ied. For example, the construct of social support is yet to be satisfactorily oper-
ationalised in terms of the particular behaviours adopted by managers, supervisors
or peers. Baldwin and Ford (1988) have also drawn attention to what they refer to
as the criterion problem. In most instances transfer measures in those studies pub-
lished to date were either supervisor ratings of performance or behaviour (Hand et
al., 1973; Peters et al., 1985; Tracey et al., 1995) or self-report measures of either transfer
(Facteau et al., 1995) or intention/motivation to transfer (Baumgartel and Jeanpierre,
1972; Huczynski and Lewis, 1980; Seyler et al., 1998). Finally, in relation to method-
ology, in a number of studies, to date the research design has relied on correlations
in order to demonstrate a relationship between organisational climate and training
transfer (e.g. Baumgartel and Jeanpierre, 1972; Tracey et al., 1995) rather than any
purposeful manipulation of the actual transfer environment itself. Nevertheless,
beyond issues of research design it is just as feasible that the mixed results obtained
from these studies may suggest that any role the work environment may play is

150 International Journal of Training and Development  Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002.
perhaps contingent upon or mediated by one or a number of other variables. Further-
more, that different elements of the working environment may differentially impact
on the transfer of training, dependent upon the particular type of training expected
to be transferred, the characteristics of the trainees themselves, and perhaps of con-
siderable significance for human service organisations, the relative importance of
particular environmental characteristics to actually performing the type of work
required in these work settings. As Haccoun and Saks concluded:
The key here is understanding that skill application takes place within a specific (job or work
group) as well as general (organizational) context, and all of these can have significant effects on
training outcomes at the transfer level. (1998: 39)

Focus of the study

To summarise, to date there remains much we do not know regarding the extent to
which particular factors posited to influence the transfer of training in work organisa-
tions generalise across different organisational settings and under differing con-
ditions. In particular, our knowledge of those factors which may mediate the transfer
of training within human service organisations is still very limited. This study there-
fore aims to make a contribution to enhancing our understanding of the transfer of
training construct by presenting findings from a qualitative investigation of the
impact of training specifically within a human service organisation. Specifically, the
study sought to answer two questions: (1) what the factors were that influenced the
transfer of training within a social services organisation, and (2) how these factors
compared or differed to those posited within the wider training literature. Given the
recent interest shown by the UK government in how training might be developed
in order to improve performance standards within such human service organisations,
this research is also considered to be particularly timely.

Methodology
Fourteen trainees voluntarily attended a two-day in-service training programme
within a UK social services department, facilitated by the department’s in-service
training team and designed to provide social care workers with knowledge and skills
for undertaking risk assessment. The training course formed part of a foundation
training programme for staff to achieve acceptable standards of practice in a parti-
cular area of social care (care management). The researcher was invited by the depart-
ment to undertake an evaluation of the training, which was subject to a number of
constraints typically found when seeking to undertake evaluation research in the
field, not least those of limited resources and time pressures. The aim of the evalu-
ation was to determine the extent to which particular knowledge and skills in risk
assessment had been learnt and had been subsequently transferred to use on the
job. Kirkpatrick’s (1994) training evaluation typology was therefore adopted with
reactions, learning, and behaviour change examined with the use of a pre- and post-
test research design that took measures before trainees attended the training, immedi-
ately at the end of training, and then again five months later (Clarke, 2002). As part
of the evaluation, semi-structured interviews were also undertaken with participants
six months post-attendance on the training programme, to collect qualitative data on
how effective the training had been. Findings from the qualitative data corroborated
that from the quantitative data indicating minimal impact of the training in terms of
its use on the job (quantitative findings are reported in detail elsewhere, Clarke,
2002). Importantly, in terms of the aims set for this study, the qualitative data also
allowed for an exploration of those factors which seemed to have resulted in the
training failing to transfer. Although ideally a longitudinal research design would
have been preferred where qualitative data could have been collected at a series of
points over a longer time frame to monitor any on-going changes, post-course

 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002. Job/work environment factors 151

resource constraints precluded this. As a result, a six-months follow-up date was
chosen as a reasonable length of time to have elapsed to expect the training to have
been implemented on the job.
Four major content areas were addressed in each interview: (1) trainees’ views
regarding any benefits they perceived they had gained as a result of attending the
training; (2) evidence of actually utilising the training in practice; (3) any barriers to
implementing the training; and (4) factors which assisted with either learning or
training transfer. Interviews lasted approximately one hour, were undertaken at the
workplace, and taped with the permission of the trainees. Shorthand notes were also
taken by the researcher and checked with trainees at the end of each interview for
accuracy and to clarify meaning (Merriam, 1988). After transcription, thematic analy-
sis was undertaken to identify common themes which appeared to have militated
against the transfer of training (Patton, 1980; Hayes, 1997; Swanson et al., 1997). In
order to limit distortion in meaning and bias in interpretation by the researcher
(Bogdan and Biklen, 1992; Creswell, 1994), interviewees were written to after the data
had been analysed in order check back researcher inferences thus seeking to maxi-
mise the trustworthiness of the data. In order to emphasise the meaning and
interpretation given to the data, the findings are presented as a narrative (Miles and
Huberman, 1984; Bogdan and Biklen, 1992).

Findings
The chief finding to emerge from the qualitative data was the extent to which both
job and work environment factors had impeded the use of training on the job, and
thus had failed to result in any meaningful changes in staff work practices. Of utmost
significance as indicated by 11 of the trainees, the short duration of the training was
found barely sufficient to master the skills taught on the training programme and
that any skill acquisition that was gained was subsequently further undermined by
limited on-going practice back on the job:
Well, I certainly understood it at that the time and I was quite fascinated by it and I enjoyed it.
I took it all in really but it isn’t easy to actually apply, and a busy day’s work . . . and it’s not
easy to quickly and easily explain to colleagues.
My feeling is that everybody gets different things out of different courses depending on their
experience. So I have a little bit of experience to hang this stuff on to. Having said all that, I was
looking back on it now, and also colleagues asking me about it . . . When I actually read it through,
it was quite difficult to actually relate it to everyday work, for me anyway, and when I showed
it to colleagues they felt the same. I think because it’s fairly involved . . . it’s time-consuming.
There was a bit too much of it really, too involved, too complicated. Unless you read it all through.
There’s too much of it . . . I’ve never actually used the [skills] . . . Personally I’m still in a learning
situation, so I wrestle with things all the time and to me this is complicated, particularly as I
work with the elderly and there are huge numbers, sometimes you have to make quite quick
decisions. So I haven’t been able to apply the whole approach, but bits of it.

There are two points that are of considerable importance here. First, that there was
insufficient time built into the programme in order for trainees to gain confidence
in using the skills taught, and, second, that the nature of workplace constraints meant
implementing the training was prohibitive. This would seem to reinforce findings
from the relatively few studies identifying training transfer problems in US social
service agencies. Reid et al. (1989) have suggested that in relation to training within
social services, the failure of training to penetrate as far as behaviour change in the
workplace is a result of skills not being actually taught on training programmes to
the extent that they can actually transfer, as well as potential inhibiting conditions
within the workplace preventing transfer. Rooney (1985) specifically identified high
caseloads carried by social service workers and time constraints imposed on workers
by external agencies as accounting for the absence of certain components of the train-
ing to transfer to practice. Gregoire (1994) similarly cited a lack of time and resources,
the daily demands of child welfare practice, and the refusal by supervisors to endorse

152 International Journal of Training and Development  Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002.
proposed practice changes as major work-related impediments to the use of training.
Of importance here and reinforcing these previous findings, the two major workplace
constraints identified as impeding use of training were a lack of time and workload
pressures. The significance of these constraints is underscored by the fact that they
were expressed by all the trainees interviewed:
I would have thought that the [skills] could have been helpful but the time factor works against
it . . . well, basically, I’ve not used it and I don’t know whether it would help.
The speed and quantity of work coupled with the fact that . . . I find I have a very tight turnaround
and it limits me in putting any new ideas into place . . . this is a great source of frustration. I feel
a lot of new ideas that need to be taken on board aren’t. The other frustration is that I work with
different areas and they all have a slightly different way of operating, the consistency across the
county is poor, and this makes for extra work, extra stress.
I’ve forgotten. I suppose actually once you get back to the hurly burly of work . . . everything
goes out the window because one forgets. I really don’t know why actually. It was interesting
to learn about but I’m not doing it myself . . . I remember being interested in it but the fact that
I haven’t been utilising [the skills] when I’ve come back here just shows . . .
Sometimes I feel that because I’m so busy I really don’t touch ground with the team or I come
in and I’m not actually present in the team room so much, so I feel that decisions are made and
I haven’t been involved.
I probably only selected parts of the training to implement. One of the difficulties is that I
am . . . only part-time, which means there are time constraints . . . It’s the consistency issue,
because you’re not in every day as part-time.

The more these factors constrain the use of innovative practice techniques, the more
likely any skills gained would be extinguished through lack of practice (Fendrich et
al., 1988; Pentland, 1989; Stevenson et al., 1992). Overwhelmingly in this instance
then, both heavy workloads and time pressures to get tasks done were cited as key
factors influencing these social care workers’ decisions to utilise any training gained
on the job. Given the highly politicised nature of the work undertaken by social work
agencies, and perhaps particular concerns that such departments may often possess
a blame culture where work mistakes may not be looked on sympathetically (Fisher
et al., 1999), it may seem hardly surprising that a failure to gain confidence in utilising
new skills through practice coupled with time pressures to get work done would
effectively undermine the transfer of training.

Lack of reinforcement of training in the workplace

Exacerbating these workplace constraints was the finding that few opportunities
existed for reinforcement of the training back in the workplace as indicated by seven
of the trainees:
Probably I still need to reinforce the information we were given because it was quite a lot. You
do still learn, when you try to put something into practice it raises a whole lot of questions in
itself. It’s not always necessary or practical to use the approach.
I think reinforcement to implement training comes from within. I think we set our own standards
and obviously they will vary and to a certain extent it’s marked by your colleagues around you.
I think the support is there and we are given encouragement to go on training to improve the
jobs we are doing but the reality is quite different. Practically, it’s not always so easy to implement.

In particular in this regard, 12 trainees indicated that they received minimal support
from their supervisors to implement the training, and more generally for some,
supervision appeared erratic and rarely contained a focus for receiving feedback on
performance. Where trainees did indicate support from supervisors, this tended to
be in the form of general comments regarding how useful trainees found the training
rather than any explicit focus on supporting the transfer of skills. A number of studies
have identified supervisory support as being an important factor in mediating the
transfer of training (Latham and Saari, 1979; Rouillier and Goldstein, 1993; Tracey et
al., 1995; Olivero et al., 1997) as well as being critical to ensuring effective professional

 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002. Job/work environment factors 153

practice within social service agencies (Pecora, 1991; Kemshall, 1995; Burke, 1997).
Yet here there appears to be no recognition of the role supervisory support may play
in either promoting or impeding training transfer, a situation similarly found by
Gebhardt-Taylor (1982) after evaluating an interviewing skills training course for
social service workers. As far as the role of supervisors is concerned, few supervisors
in this study either discussed the training with trainees before they attended the
programme or how they might implement it afterwards. It would seem then that
supervisors play a minimal role within the overall framework for the development
of staff within this agency, beyond that of authorising absence to attend courses:
I think primarily I would want more support from my supervisor prior to going out and making
decisions but because of the demand on managers’ time, for whatever reason, you can’t always
get hold of people to discuss your thought processes through to make sure you’re going down
the right avenue.
I was in-between supervisors . . . so, no, . . . but I’ve been recently given a paper which I hadn’t
seen before. It’s probably been around . . . which actually lists the different risks . . . I presume it’s
come out of the procedure manual but I’m not sure . . . I’ve had supervision twice since June.
When the course information came through, it was my choice to go forward to do that but I
think it was good that the supervisor was supportive for me to attend. We didn’t discuss the
course during supervision. It varies how often I see my supervisor, at the moment it’s about
every six weeks. They haven’t discussed it with me . . . There was no plans discussed about how
the training would be used though . . . At the moment there’s not enough follow-up from manage-
ment to find out how valuable that training was to the individual, to what you’ve actually taken
on board and whether your understanding is accurate of what was discussed on the training.
Because I think quite often so much is packed into these day courses that you come away with
so much information and you don’t feel confident at the time to say I don’t really understand that.
I don’t think I discussed it [the training] much with my supervisor, I mentioned that I had been
on it and he just asked generally if it was useful and interesting.

It is interesting that this lack of support can be contrasted with findings from an
evaluation of the effectiveness of family therapy training by Wright and Fraser (1987)
who identified the increased availability of trainees’ supervisors for case conferences
and changes in agency policies regarding case management as the most significant
factors assisting the transfer of training they had received. The authors suggest that
the specific involvement of managers in the design of the training programme and
in planning for staff to implement the training in their practice, contributed to the
training’s effectiveness. In particular, supervision practices reported in that study
were adapted to facilitate the implementation of the newly acquired skills, reinforcing
the transfer of training through feedback and guidance. Feedback on specific
elements of performance has been empirically demonstrated to influence significantly
the retention and maintenance of designated behaviours in the workplace (Alavosius
and Sulzer-Azaroff, 1986; Komaki, 1986; Catania and Harnad, 1988; Stajkovic and
Luthans, 1997; Langeland et al., 1998). However, within the context of this work
environment, both these factors appear to be underdeveloped components of the
organisation’s systems for managing performance or, importantly in this instance,
maximising the use of training on the job. In particular the suggestion by ten of the
trainees that there is minimal feedback from supervisors on performance would
appear to indicate that very few opportunities exist for these social service workers to
receive information regarding both their role and competence. Without clear signals
regarding both expectations of performance and associated standards, significant
variations in performance in this area are likely to emerge (Poertner and Rapp, 1991).
Under these circumstances trained skills are again unlikely to be reinforced and
maintained:
I don’t receive feedback on my performance . . . not always, no . . . This supervisor may not be
aware of what I have done. The previous supervisor would have known what training I had
done since I would have had to have obtained authorisation to attend from them.
I personally feel supervision is important for everybody. I mean, I’ve been in the job for 9 or 10
years but I think it’s extremely important. Having said that, we don’t really have a formal struc-

154 International Journal of Training and Development  Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002.
 ture. Ideally I think once a month would be a good pattern to get into, but at the moment it’s
very much if anybody wants supervision, book in with me, and it’s very much left open. I had
my first supervision, I suppose, two weeks ago, the first one for about three years because I
actually thought, selfishly . . . I could do with that . . . It is on offer but not formalised . . . I think,
if a manager had had a lot of complaints then maybe your performance would be looked at,
otherwise feedback is minimal.
He [my supervisor] wouldn’t notice whether it [training] was implemented in my work, we don’t
have that kind of supervision. It’s only if I specifically brought a case to his attention and dis-
cussed it . . . [My supervisor] provides feedback on performance in relation to something specific
that has occurred but not as a matter of course . . . it really depends on what I bring up in super-
vision. If I bring something specific that I’ve asked for comment on, otherwise we will just have
a general discussion on structure and organisation.
We just discuss cases generally, that’s what it’s about. In the last two months, one care manager
has been absent from the team, so I’ve been in at the deep end, so we haven’t had the luxury of
fixed supervision times. I think when things are working properly, and all members of the team
here, it might work properly, you know, performance and discussion of cases separately. I think
we all accept that we normally get something from courses.

The role of in-service training

One of the more surprising findings from this study was the extent to which many
of these social service workers’ (11 of the 14) perceptions of in-service training as
being for personal development seemed to also undermine its transfer for use on the
job. In particular, such training was not considered necessarily relevant to either
career development nor enhancing their employment opportunities within the organ-
isation:
No, not in the organisation. I think there’s very little incentive to do any extra training or qualifi-
cations. I can’t see where it would lead, in terms of career progression. I think there’s very little
career structure in social services.
No, I’ve never come across anything that would make me feel there are rewards for implementing
training. There is an expectation that you do it and take responsibility for your own training
needs but I don’t think there are any things specific . . . unless it’s something like, well, care man-
agement here is going over to an all qualified work force, so there might be rewards for people
who, and especially those of us on short-term contracts . . . that you might be more likely to be
made permanent but I doubt it.
Courses definitely help with personal development, yes I specifically pick out courses for personal
development . . . for a personal interest.
Most people go on training courses for their own development, it’s not really generally recognised
that you’ve done a course. I just really think training on risk assessment is needed and necessary
for people working in the care management role, because it’s the whole essence of the job. It’s
just something that care managers wrestle with all the time. It’s good to take time out and examine
exactly what you’re doing and why from that point of view the course was quite important, but
it just wasn’t real tangible stuff that you could put onto one side and dip into.

This perception of such training as being for personal development may well provide
these social service workers with far greater ambiguity regarding any organisational
expectations that such training is indeed expected to be necessarily used on the job.
Furthermore that workers are free to choose which if any of the training they might
want to use in order to subsequently improve or enhance their work practices. In
this respect one might theorise that these workers consider that they already possess
the appropriate skills and knowledge required for undertaking the tasks associated
with their jobs (or else why would they have been employed?) and that the main
aim associated with in-service training that is offered is merely that of ‘topping-up’
or developing one’s personal self. It then also becomes a matter of personal choice
whether to implement any, if at all, of the training received. This may partially offer
an explanation as to why so few social service workers in this instance were able to
indicate what they expected to gain from this particular training beyond ‘increasing
awareness’ or ‘improving confidence’ as opposed to any specific aims relating to
changing their work practices:

 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002. Job/work environment factors 155

 I mean, I don’t think . . . the trouble is when you go into these courses I actually hadn’t prepared
in terms of what I might actually get out of it apart from the term awareness, so I can’t say the
course didn’t come up to scratch.
You do get a lot of confidence from the course because you think ‘Well, I do that anyway’. Part
of the course reinforced that I was doing part of it right. It was interesting though to go into in
a bit more depth and perhaps think about things like why you came to that decision.
I think to be quite honest, I was thinking that I hadn’t done any training for several years and
I was looking at something that would give me the opportunity to actually look at the skills I’m
using. It could be something to do with the fact that I’m not getting well-equipped supervision
with my professional skills. I thought I was going rusty, and actually it was why, it just so
happens, the risk assessment course was on offer and I thought that assessments are the things
I do all the time and it would be a helpful thing to do . . . I think probably I was searching for
looking at my professional development and it was probably what I got out of the course.

For the most part, then, these social care workers identified in-service training as a
vehicle for their own personal development and as long as they believe they have
gained ‘something’ from the training programme, then their attendance on the train-
ing programme has been justified. Furthermore, they possessed minimal expectations
that the organisation required them to implement the training in any specific way.
The fact that the training was offered on a voluntary basis, with minimal preparation
by supervisors before attendance on training, virtually no follow-up by supervisors
subsequently, and overwhelming workplace constraints would certainly seem to per-
haps reinforce such perceptions. In addition, the use of reaction questionnaires typi-
cally given to staff to complete at the end of all in-service training programmes within
the organisation asking ‘to what extent the training had met their personal objectives’
most likely did nothing to counteract this. Together, it seems unlikely that such cues
could do little to indicate the organisation had any serious or specific expectations
regarding the transfer of training that had been received.
Furthermore, the relative autonomy of many social service workers in terms of
how they manage their caseloads, coupled with the extent to which social work as
a profession has often rarely agreed on what actually constitutes its knowledge and
skill base (O’Neill, 1999; Parton, 2000; Cooper, 2001), might possibly also suggest that
social service workers more so than workers from other professions, feel at greater
liberty to decide if and how they might incorporate any training into their behav-
ioural repertoire at work. Elsewhere Baldwin and Magjuka (1991) have found that
when trainees recognised that they would be held accountable for learning, they
reported greater intentions to transfer learning back on the job. In this particular
organisational system, such expectations were not encountered beyond platitudes
comprising vague requirements that ‘they get something from the course’. Perceiving
such training as a vehicle for personal development coupled with the absence of
organisational cues for implementing any training received would, then, appear to
significantly undermine the likelihood of training transfer within this department of
social service.

Discussion
Findings from this study have highlighted a number of job and work environment
factors associated with a UK social services department that appear to impede the
transfer of training to use on the job, some of which correspond to the findings
obtained from the limited studies so far undertaken within the United States in these
work environments (Seaburg, 1982; Rooney, 1985; Vinokur-Kaplan, 1986). Chiefly
these were identified as (1) heavy workloads; (2) time pressures; (3) lack of reinforce-
ment of training; (4) an absence of feedback on performance; and (5) the perception
of in-service training. Of key interest here, these first four factors suggest some sup-
port for the two variables, (1) opportunity to use training; and (2) social support, as
chief components of the organisational environment construct posited by Baldwin
and Ford (1988) that may potentially generalise across different organisational set-
tings and in particular within public sector human service organisations. It is interest-

156 International Journal of Training and Development  Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002.
ing that both heavy workloads and time pressures posed significant barriers to
implementing any training and would appear to constitute factors associated with
the sub-construct, opportunity to use training. In relation to social service departments,
both workloads and time pressures may exert such powerful influences that these
task constraints represent overwhelming factors undermining the effectiveness of
training. This appears reinforced by findings from a national training survey of child
welfare workers and their supervisors in the United States, which found that the
major barriers to implementing training were a lack of time or resources, a lack
of management support or approval, emergencies, and doing other people’s work
(Vinokur-Kaplan, 1986). Yet more recently in the United Kingdom a survey of social
service workers from five local authorities found that over 80 per cent of both man-
agers and social workers stated they received little departmental support for training,
noting, in particular, no assistance with reduced workloads (Connelly, 1996). It is
interesting that previously Peters et al. (1988) have suggested that task constraints
were unlikely to impede performance since in most organisations they could rarely
be expected to be so severe. However, in this instance it may well be that the working
conditions perhaps typically found in social service departments, typified by staff
shortages, relatively low morale, and high stress levels (Thompson et al., 1996; Balloch
et al., 1998; Fisher et al., 1999) produce precisely the types of working environments
where such task constraints exert far greater influence. Indeed, these are likely exacer-
bated by the concurrent lack of support for training transfer. In addition, the absence
of effective performance feedback mechanisms and reinforcement of training identi-
fied as contributory factors in undermining training transfer, would also appear to
correspond to Baldwin and Ford’s notion of social support as mediating the transfer
of training and therefore potentially similarly generalisable to social service
settings. Furthermore, alongside the problems of training design and content that
trainees also indicated as contributing to the failure of training to transfer, findings
here are highly supportive of a number of the key variables identified within Holton’s
learning transfer system inventory (Holton et al., 1997).
However, of critical importance, findings here also suggest that the way in-service
training is perceived by social service workers may also undermine the transfer of
training. Clearly this would appear to be associated with the characteristics of these
particular trainees themselves, but aspects of both the work environment and the
nature of the work itself seem to reinforce such perceptions. In essence, configuring
training as a means for personal development obfuscates any expectation that train-
ing should indeed be used either comprehensively or in part, on the job. To some
extent this relates to issues concerning individuals’ motives for attending training,
and would appear to suggest that motive may well mediate training transfer. In
particular that motive extends beyond merely issues of whether attendance on train-
ing is either voluntary or mandatory but involves a far more complicated set of
relationships between personal goals and performance expectations (Nease, 2000).
This may well have far wider implications more generally as regards the particular
training transfer issues that arise specifically in relation to the training provided to
professionals within organisations. The characteristics of these workers, specifically
the considerable autonomy they possess in relation to decision-making and far less
direct supervision, may well contribute to very different expectations regarding how
training is actually to be put into practice. If this is indeed the case, facilitating the
transfer of training may require an examination of very different strategies than those
so far identified within the transfer literature. For example, Xiao (1996) found that
supervisory behaviour was the most salient factor influencing training transfer for
entry-level employees. In relation to professionals, it may well be that the strength
of professional associations and relationships within organisations mean that peer
support mechanisms may be of far greater impact in determining the transfer of
training than the emphasis that has been laid on supervisory support in the training
transfer literature.
Findings here suggesting the lack of organisational cues regarding the importance
of training belies the relatively unsophisticated approach to training and develop-

 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002. Job/work environment factors 157

ment within this organisation, mirroring the relatively poor attention often paid to
human resource management historically within social service departments (Weiner,
1987; Local Government Management Board, 1997). If training is to penetrate into
the actual work practices of social service workers, the focus of training effectiveness
must pass beyond the limited confines of training design to consideration of the
organisational system as a whole. In particular, recognising the important role that
the work environment, and in particular the supervisors’ place within it, has in
mediating the effectiveness of inservice training is an essential prerequisite for social
service agencies if they are to maximise benefits from such in-service training. Social
support from supervisors in providing cues to implement newly trained behaviours
and feedback on performance are therefore critical in this regard. Without time to
reflect on what has been learnt and try out new skills, training would appear to have
minimal effect. If social service organisations wish to see improvements in practice
as a result of training, then put simply, they must invest in their staff in order to
achieve this. This investment is clearly not just about releasing staff to attend training
programmes, but consideration of the additional time required in order to integrate
training into their work practices. Heavy workloads which prevent trainees from
engaging in this activity are likely to undermine efforts to achieve performance
improvements. Similarly, supervisors must be given appropriate training and
resources in order to provide appropriate support to maximise training transfer.

Conclusion
Findings from this relatively small-scale study have identified a number of both task
and work environment factors as major impediments to the use of training on the
job by social service workers. Importantly they suggest that the two dimensions of
transfer climate – support and opportunity to use, as posited within Baldwin and
Ford’s (1988) transfer of training model – may have some validity within human
service organisations. More so, however, this study has also shed considerable light
on the specific ways in which these two dimensions may exert their influence at an
operational level, specifically within a social service work setting. The ultimate aim
of determining the mediating effects of organisational climate on training transfer
should be to enable organisations to manipulate environmental conditions so as to
make their workplaces far more conducive for facilitating behavioural change. The
findings presented here, then, should assist with ongoing efforts to develop a valid-
ated tool for measuring transfer climate for use across different organisational set-
tings (Holton et al., 1997). Clearly case study data from the evaluation of a relatively
small-scale training programme curtail generalisation beyond the study itself and,
despite efforts to maximise trustworthiness of the data, researcher bias in terms of
the selection and interpretation of interview data may have influenced the findings
presented. Such limitations, then, together with the paucity of information regarding
training transfer within human service organisations more widely, demand that far
more research is undertaken to examine far more rigorously the mediating effects of
organisational environment within human service agencies. The increasing emphasis
by the UK government in improving training for social care staff in order to raise
standards is to be welcomed. However, efforts to improve training within social
service agencies must encompass far more than number crunching with respect to
training programmes delivered and numbers of staff who have attended. It is not
just the content and availability of training which must be overhauled, but also the
conceptual framework held by social service departments regarding what makes
training effective. In relation to building a coherent theory of training effectiveness,
far more work and research needs to be undertaken which specifically examine the
extent to which variables associated with training transfer climate generalise across
different organisational settings. Findings presented here would seem to offer some
preliminary, positive support in this regard for those specific elements of the transfer
climate construct as proposed within Baldwin and Ford’s theoretical framework as
having some validity within public sector departments of social service.

158 International Journal of Training and Development  Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002.
 References
Alavosius, M. P. and Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1986), ‘The Effects of Performance Feedback on the
Safety of Client Lifting and Transfer’, Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 19, 3, 261–7.
Audit Commission (2000), People Need People: Releasing the Potential of People Working in Social
Services (London: Audit Commission).
Baldwin, T. T. and Ford, J. K. (1988), ‘Transfer of Training: A Review and Directions for Future
Research’, Personnel Psychology, 41, 63–105.
Baldwin, T. T. and Magjuka, R. J. (1991), ‘Organizational Training and Signals of Importance:
Linking Pretraining Perceptions to Intention to Transfer’, Human Resource Development Quar-
terly, 2, 25–36.
Balloch, S., Pahl, J. and McLean, J. (1998), ‘Working in the Social Services: Job Satisfaction, Stress
and Violence’, British Journal of Social Work, 28, 3, 329–50.
Bates, R. A., Holton, E.F. III, Seyler, D. L. and Carvalho, M. A. (2000), ‘The Role of Interpersonal
Factors in the Application of Computer-based Training in an Industrial Setting’, Human
Resource Development International, 3, 1, 19–42.
Baumgartel, H. and Jeanpierre, F. (1972), ‘Applying New Knowledge in the Backhome Setting:
A Study of Indian Managers’ Adoptive Efforts’, Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 8, 6,
674–95.
Baumgartel, H., Reynolds, M. and 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 Labour Studies, 9, 1–16.
Becker, B. and Huselid, M. (1998), ‘High Performance Work Systems and Firm Performance: A
Synthesis of Research and Managerial Implications’, Research in Personnel and Human Resources,
16, 1, 53–101.
Bogdan, R. C. and Biklen, S. K. (1992), Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory
and Methods (Boston: Allyn and Bacon).
Brinkerhoff, R. O. and Montesino, M. U. (1995), ‘Partnerships for Training Transfer: Lessons
from a Corporate Study’, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 6, 3, 263–74.
Burke, P. (1997), ‘Risk and Supervision’, British Journal of Social Work, 27, 115–29.
Campbell, J. P. (1988), ‘Training Design for Productivity Improvement’, in J. P. Campbell, R. J.
Campbell and Associates (eds), Productivity in Organisations (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass),
pp. 177–216.
Catania, A. C. and Harnad, S. (eds) (1988), The Selection of Behaviour: The Operant Behaviourism
of B.F. Skinner: Comments and Consequences (New York: John Wiley).
Cheung, K. M., Stevenson, K. M. and Leung, P. (1991), ‘Competency-based Evaluation of Case
Management Skills in Child Sexual Abuse Intervention’, Child Welfare, 70, 4, 425–35.
Clarke, N. (2001), ‘The Impact of In-service Training within Social Services’, British Journal of
Social Work, 31, 757–74.
Clarke, N. (2002), ‘Training Care Managers in Risk Assessment: Outcomes of an In-service Train-
ing Programme’, Social Work Education, 21, 4, 461–76.
Cohen, D. J. (1990), ‘What Motivates Trainees’, Training and Development Journal, November,
91–3.
Connelly, N. (1996), Training Social Services Staff: Evidence from New Research (London: NISW).
Cooper, B. (2001), ‘Constructivism in Social Work: Towards a Participative Practice Viability’,
British Journal of Social Work, 31, 721–38.
Creswell, J. W. (1994), Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (London: Sage).
Delewski, C. H., Pecora, P. J., Smith, G. and Smith, V. (1986), ‘Evaluating Child Protective Ser-
vices Training: The Participant Action Plan Approach’, Child Welfare, 65, 6, 579–91.
Department of Health (1998), Modernising Social Services (London: Stationery Office).
Doueck, H. J. and Austin, M. J. (1986), ‘Improving Agency Functioning through Staff Develop-
ment’, Administration in Social Work, 10, 2, 27–37.
Elangovan, A. R. and Karakowsky, L. (1999), ‘The Role of Trainee and Environmental Factors
in Transfer of Training: An Explanatory Framework’, Leadership and Organization Development
Journal, 20, 4/5, 268–75.
Facteau, J. D., Dobbins, G. H., Russell, J. E. A., Ladd, R. T. and Kudish, J. D. (1995), ‘The Influence
of General Perceptions of the Training Environment on Pretraining Motivation and Perceived
Training Transfer’, Journal of Management, 21, 1, 1–25.
Fendrich, D. W., Healy, A. F., Meiskey, L., Crutcher, R. J., Little, W. and Borne, L. E. (1988),
Skill Maintenance: Literature Review and Theoretical Analysis (AFHRL – TP – 87-73) (Brooks AFB,
TX: Air Force Human Resource Laboratory).
Fisher, M., Balloch, S. and McLean, J. (eds) (1999), Social Services: Working under Pressure (Bristol:
Policy Press).

 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002. Job/work environment factors 159

Ford, J. E., Kozlowski, W. J., Kraiger, K., Salas, E. and Teachout, M. (eds) (1997), Improving
Training Effectiveness in Work Organisations (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum).
Ford, J. K., Quinones, M. A., Sego, D. J. and Sorra, J. S. (1992), ‘Factors Affecting the Opportunity
to Perform Trained Tasks on the Job’, Personnel Psychology, 45, 511–27.
Gardiner, P., Leat, M. and Sadler-Smith, E. (2001), ‘Learning in Organisations: HR Implications
and Considerations’, Human Resource Development International, 4, 3, 391–405.
Gebhardt-Taylor, M. (1982), ‘Educational Training Programs for Social Service Workers: A Quan-
titative and Qualitative Evaluation’, Journal of Social Service Research, 5, 3/4, 85–93.
Geilen, E. W. (1996), ‘Transfer of Training in Corporate Settings: Testing a Model’, in E.F. Holton
III (ed.) Proceedings of the 1996 Academy of Human Resource Development Annual Conference
(Baton Rouge, LA: Academy of HRD).
Goldstein, I. L. (ed.) (1993), Training in Organizations: Needs Assessment, Development and Evalu-
ation, 3rd edition (Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole).
Gregoire, T. K. (1994), ‘Assessing the Benefits and Increasing the Utility of Addiction Training
for Public Child Welfare Workers: A Pilot Study’, Child Welfare, 73, 1 (Jan./Feb.), 69–81.
Haccoun, R. R. and Saks, A. M. (1998), ‘Training in the 21st Century – Some Lessons from the
Last One’, Canadian Psychology, 39, 1/2, 33–51.
Hand, H. H., Richards, M. D. and Slocum, J. W. (1973), ‘Organizational Climate and the Effective-
ness of a Human Relations Training Programme’, Academy of Management Journal, 16, 2, 185–95.
Hayes, N. (ed.) (1997), Doing Qualitative Analysis in Psychology (East Sussex: Psychology Press).
Holton, E. F. III (1996), ‘The Flawed Four-level Evaluation Model’, Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 7, 1, 5–21.
Holton, E. F. III, Bates, R. A. and Ruona, W. E. A. (1998), ‘Development and Construct Validation
of a Generalised Learning Transfer System Inventory’, in E. F. Holton III (ed.), Proceedings of the
1998 Academy of Human Resource Development Annual Conference (Baton Rouge, LA: Academy of
HRD).
Holton, E. F. III, Bates, R., Seyler, D. and Carvalho, M. (1997), ‘Toward Construct Validation of
a Transfer Climate Instrument’, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 2, 95–114.
Huczynski, A. A. and Lewis, J. W. (1980), ‘An Empirical Study into the Learning Transfer Process
in Management Training’, Journal of Management Studies, 17, 227–40.
Kemshall, H. (1995), ‘Risk in Probation Practice: The Hazards and Dangers of Supervision’,
Probation Journal, 42, 2, 67–72.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1994), Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels (San Francisco, CA:
Berret-Koehler).
Komaki, J. (1986), ‘Toward Effective Supervision: An Operant Analysis and Comparison of Man-
agers at Work’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 270–9.
Kozlowski, S. W. J. and Hults, B. M. (1987), ‘An Exploration of Climates for Technical Updating
and Performance’, Personnel Psychology, 40, 539–63.
Kozlowski, S. W. J. and Salas, E. (1997), ‘A Multilevel Organizational Systems Approach for the
Implementation and Transfer of Training’, in J. K. Ford (ed.), Improving Training Effectiveness
in Work Organizations (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
Langeland, K. L., Johnson, C. M. and Mahwinney, T. C. (1998), ‘Improving Staff Performance
in a Community Mental Health Setting: Job Analysis, Training, Goal Setting, Feedback and
Years of Data’, Journal of Organizational Behaviour Management, 18, 1, 21–43.
Latham, G. P. and Saari, L. M. (1979), ‘The Application of Social Learning Theory to Training
Supervisors through Behavioural Modeling’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 3, 239–46.
Lim, D. H. and Johnson, S. D. (2002), ‘Trainees’ Perceptions of Factors that Influence Learning
Transfer’, International Journal of Training and Development, 6, 1, 36–48.
Lindsey, E. W., Yarborough, D. B. and Morton, T. D. (1987), ‘Evaluating Interpersonal Skills
Training for Public Welfare Staff’, Social Service Review, 61, 4, 623–35.
Local Government Management Board/Central Council for Education and Training in Social
Work (1997), Human Resources for the Personal Social Services, (London: LGMB/CCETSW).
Merriam, S. B. (1988), Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass).
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A. M. (1984), Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods
(Beverly Hills, CA: Sage).
Milheim, W. D. (1994), ‘A Comprehensive Model for the Transfer of Training’, Performance
Improvement Quarterly, 7, 2, 95–104.
Morton, T. D. and Kurtz, P. D. (1984), ‘Design Considerations for Short Term Continuing Edu-
cation Programs’, Journal of Education for Social Work, 20, 1, 42–9.
Nease, A. A. (2000), ‘Do Motives Matter? An Examination of Reasons for Attending Training
and their Influence on Training Effectiveness’, Dissertation Abstracts International, Section B,
Vol. 61(4–B): 2257.

160 International Journal of Training and Development  Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002.
Noe, R. A. (1999), Employee Training and Development (Boston: McGraw–Hill).
Noe, R. A. and Ford, J. K. (1992), ‘Emerging Issues and New Directions for Training Research’,
Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 10, 345–84.
Noe, R. A. and Schmitt, N. (1986), ‘The Influence of Trainee Attitudes on Training Effectiveness:
Test of a Model’, Personnel Psychology, 39, 497–523.
Olivero, G., Bane, K. D. and Kopelman, R.E. (1997), ‘Executive Coaching as a Transfer of Training
Tool: Effects on Productivity in a Public Agency’, Public Personnel Management, 26, 4, 461–70.
O’Neill, S. (1999), ‘Social Work – A Profession?’, Journal of Social Work Practice, 13, 1, 9–18.
Parton, N. (2000), ‘Some Thoughts on the Relationship between Theory and Practice in and for
Social Work’, British Journal of Social Work, 30, 449–63.
Patton, M. Q. (1980), Qualitative Evaluation Methods (London: Sage).
Pecora, P. J. (1991), ‘Investigating Allegations of Child Maltreatment: The Strengths and Limi-
tations of Current Risk Assessment Systems’, Child and Youth Services, 15, 2, 73–92.
Pentland, B. T. (1989), ‘The Learning Curve and the Forgetting Curve: The Importance of Time
and Timing in the Implementation of Technological Innovations’, paper presented at the 49th
Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Washington, DC.
Peters, L. H., O’Connor, E. J. and Eulberg, J. R. (1985), ‘Situational Constraints: Sources, Conse-
quences and Future Considerations’, in K. M. Rowland and G. R. Ferris (eds), Research in
Personnel and Human Resource Management, Vol. 3 (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press), pp. 79–114.
Peters, L. H., O’Connor, E. J., Eulberg, J. R. and Watson, T. W. (1988), ‘An Examination of
Situational Constraints in Air Force Work Settings’, Human Performance, 1, 2, 133–44.
Pettigrew, A. and Whipp, R. (1991), Managing Change for Competitive Success (Oxford: Blackwell).
Pfeffer, J. (1994), Competitive Advantage through People (Boston: Harvard Business School Press).
Pfeffer, J. (1998), The Human Equation (Boston: Harvard Business School Press).
Poertner, J. and Rapp, C. (1991), Social Administration: A Client Centred Perspective (New York:
Longman).
Quinones, M. A., Ford, J. K., Sego, D. J. and Smith, E. M. (1995), ‘The Effects of Individual and
Situational Characteristics on the Opportunity to Perform Trained Tasks’, Training Research
Journal, 1, 29–48.
Reid, D. H., Parsons, M. B. and Green, C. W. (1989), Staff Management in Human Services: Behav-
ioural Research and Application (Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas).
Richard, O. C. and Johnson, N. B. (2001), ‘Strategic Human Resource Management Effectiveness
and Firm Performance’, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12, 2, 299–310.
Rooney, R. H. (1985), ‘Does Inservice Training Make a Difference? Results of a Pilot Study of
Task Centred Dissemination in a Public Social Service Setting’, Journal of Social Services
Research, 8, 3, 33–50.
Rouillier, J. Z. and Goldstein, I. L. (1993), ‘The Relationship between Organizational Transfer
Climate and Positive Transfer of Training’, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 4, 377–90.
Seaburg, J. (1982), ‘Getting There from Here: Revitalising Child Welfare Training’, Social Work,
September, 441–7.
Seyler, D. L., Holton, E. F. III, Bates, R. A., Burnett, M. F. and Carvalho, M. A. (1998), ‘Factors
Affecting Motivation to Transfer Training’, International Journal of Training and Development, 2,
1, 2–16.
Snow, C. W. (1982), ‘In-service Day Care Training Programs: A Review and Analysis’, Child Care
Quarterly, 11, 2, 108–21.
Stajkovic, A. D. and Luthans, F. (1997), ‘Meta-analysis of the Effects of Organizational Behaviour
Modification on Task Performance – 1975–1995’, Academy of Management Journal, 40, 5, 1122–49.
Stevenson, K. M., Leung, P. and Cheung, K. M. (1992), ‘Competency-based Evaluation of Inter-
viewing Skills in Child Sexual Abuse Cases’, Social Work Research and Abstracts, 28, 3, 11–16.
Swanson, B. L., Watkins, K. E. and Marsick, V. J. (1997), ‘Qualitative Research Methods’, in R. A.
Swanson and E. F. Holton III (eds), Human Resource Development Research Handbook (San Franci-
sco: Berrett-Koehler), pp. 88–113.
Thompson, N., Stradling, S., Murphy, M. and O’Neill, P. (1996), ‘Stress and Organisational Cul-
ture’, British Journal of Social Work, 26, 5, 647–55.
Tracey, J., Tannenbaum, S. and Kavanagh, M. K. (1995), ‘Applying Trained Skills on the Job:
The Importance of the Work Environment’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 2, 239–52.
Ulrich, D. (1997), Human Resource Champions (Boston: Harvard Business School Press).
Van der Klink, M., Gielen, E. and Nauta, C. (2001), ‘Supervisory Support as a Major Condition
to Enhance Transfer’, International Journal of Training and Development, 5, 1, 52–63.
Vinokur-Kaplan, D. (1986), ‘National Evaluation of Inservice Training by Child Welfare Prac-
titioners’, Social Work Research and Abstracts, 22, 4 (Winter), 13–18.
Weiner, M. E. (1987), ‘Managing People for Enhanced Performance’, Administration in Social
Work, 11, 3/4, 147–60.

 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002. Job/work environment factors 161

Williams, W. L. and Lloyd, M. B. (1992), ‘The Necessity of Managerial Arrangements for the
Regular Implementation of Behaviour Analysis Skills by Supervisors and Front-line Staff’,
Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 20, 1, 37–61.
Wright, W. S. and Fraser, M. (1987), ‘Staff Development: A Challenge of Privatization’, Journal
of Sociology and Social Welfare, 14, 4, 137–60.
Xiao, J. (1996), ‘The Relationship between Organizational Factors and the Transfer of Training
in the Electronics Industry in Shenzhen, China’, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7, 1,
55–73.
Zober, M. A. (1980), ‘A Systematic Perspective on the Staff Development and Training Evalu-
ation Process’, Arete, 6, 2, 51–70.

162 International Journal of Training and Development  Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002.