International Journal of Business

Management & Research (IJBMR)

ISSN(P): 2249-6920; ISSN(E): 2249-8036
Vol. 4, Issue 6, Dec 2014, 5-20
© TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

MANAGING ORGANIZATIONAL COMPETENCE THROUGH TRANSFER OF

TRAINING: A STUDY OF SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES IN INDIA

SHADMA PARVEEN & LOVY SARIKWAL

School of Management, Gautam Buddha University, Uttar Pradesh, India

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this paper is to study the various factors which contribute to the competence of small and medium
enterprises (SMEs) in India. This paper examines the transfer of training as one of the factors which impacts the
competences of SMEs in India. The study was conducted in Delhi/NCR region of India and focused on Indian SMEs.
This paper endeavors to test and establish the relationship between -Independent variable i.e, Transfer of training which is
measured through Relevance of training programmes, Supervisor’s support, Culture promoting transfer of training,
Performance orientation, and Peer support, and dependent variable i.e, Organizational competence which included
Resource based competence i.e. RBC (measured through KSA and innovation), Transformation based competence
i.e. TBC (measured through commitment an work efficiency, and Output based competence i.e. OBC (measured through
job mastery and quality of products/services). The study was conducted on 150 respondents. The respondents were the
employees of SMEs in Delhi/NCR region and the responses were analyzed with the help of SPSS. Transfer of training was
found to have strong relationships with the RBC, TBC, and OBC through relevance of training programmes, performance
orientation and peer support.

KEYWORDS: Organizational Competence, Resource Based Competence, Transformation Based Competence, Output
Based Competence, Transfer of Training

INTRODUCTION

The world of organizations is no longer defined by national boundaries and at the same time this scenario has
increased the level of competition among various organizations, therefore in order to sustain in the market, it has now
become mandatory for the organizations to show enhanced performance and to be distinguished in their products and
services. This demands more advanced and robust competitive strategies. Therefore, most of the businesses are striving
hard to develop competitive advantage in order to provide sustainability to the business.

Due to the rigorous competition between businesses in recent years, firms have caused to build, develop and
search useful strategies and important tools to create a competitive advantage, effectively promote more competitiveness,
obtain better performance, and greatly gain longer viability in both domestic and global competitive markets
(Ussahawanitchakit, 2007). In long run, the sustainability of the competitiveness of the firm will be associated with the
management of the learning process that will strengthen and enhance organizational competencies (Fleury & Fleury, 2003).
Excellence can be achieved by building on the strengths i.e. by focusing on the competencies and developing core
competencies. Therefore in today’s scenario, companies are focusing more on developing their human resources which in
turn become their core competencies.

www.tjprc.org editor@tjprc.org
6 Shadma Parveen & Lovy Sarikwal

SMEs IN INDIA

Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) sector has emerged as a highly vibrant and dynamic sector of the
Indian economy over the last five decades. MSMEs not only play crucial role in providing large employment opportunities
at comparatively lower capital cost than large industries but also help in industrialization of rural & backward areas,
thereby, reducing regional imbalances, assuring more equitable distribution of national income and wealth. This has been
accepted by most of the theorists and policy makers that small firms have an important place in job creation, technological
innovation and in general economic rejuvenation. The environment is changing at a fast pace leading to cut throat
competition among various firms. Therefore, competency building is a prerequisite for the survival of firms in the present
scenario. Hence, competency building has become very prominent in small firms which are developing at a fast pace.
As per 4th census, Ministry of SMEs, for the year 2011-12 the total working SMEs are 447.73 lakh, the total employment
generated b SMEs is 1012.59 lakh, the total market value of the fixed assets possessed by SMEs is 1176939.36 cr, and the
gross output is 1834332.05 cr. The employment generated by SMEs increases its importance for the economy. For such a
new venture, it is very critical to develop its employees and create such an environment and culture where every employee
will grow. Also, performance can be best supported by an environment where employees must be able to learn new skills
and develop better products and services. Due to the rapid changes taking place in the business environment, it is very
essential for the organizations to be flexible enough to adapt to these changes. Therefore these new and small ventures
should focus on various factors which help in creating a desired culture and ultimately enhance the employee performance
and thus the overall performance of the organization. This research is designed for small and medium enterprises so that
with the results and findings of this research these organizations will be able to know various factors which have an impact
on their competencies, leveraging competitiveness.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Competency Based System
Organizational competencies can be created through strategic use of organizational resources and capabilities and
can be distinctive, shared and non-relevant. Competitive advantage is strongest when sustainable. (Sago, Brad, 2003).
The word competency has many meanings in business today. It is often associated with the individual's knowledge, skills,
and attributes in an effort to differentiate high performers from average performers and to develop their potential
(Daley, 1991; Garvin, 2000). Competency-based assessments are constructs that provide a means to define and to measure
job skill ability and performance. Various researchers have given different perspectives in relation to the organizational
competencies. A broader definition of organizational competencies states that it is the combination of required skills,
necessary information, appropriate performance measures and the right corporate culture that the company requires to
achieve the mission. Core competencies in the organization exist at two levels, organizational level core competencies
(Prahalad and Hamel, 1990) and individual level core competencies (Kravetz, 2008; Holmes and Joyce, 1993; Iles, 1993;
Spencer and Spencer, 1993; Steward and Page, 1992). Organization level core competencies include knowledge, skills,
abilities and other characteristics (KSAO) of the organization as a whole (Levine, 1983). The organizational competencies
are more than just the sum of the KSAOs of the individuals. Synergy results from the combination of all the employees’
KSAOs and this along with technology provide the organization with the capacity to access a variety of markets and
contribute to the value of end product (Prahalad and Hamel, 1990). Competencies can be defined as the abilities and
specific skills that the firm possesses in the deployment of its resources, as well as its cognitive characteristics, which are

Impact Factor (JCC): 4.9926 Index Copernicus Value (ICV): 3.0

Managing Organizational Competence Through Transfer of Training: 7
A Study of Small and Medium Enterprises in India

geared toward the accomplishment of activities that permit the attainment of certain objectives. This definition is in line
with that offered by Eriksen and Mikkelsen (1996, p. 58), for whom competencies are just pools of resources capable of
performing a specific function. The concept of competencies also considers both personal and corporate competencies, as
determined by Turner and Crawford (1994). Personal competencies are those possessed by an individual or, at most, by a
few people. They are competencies held by individuals, such as their experience, their technical knowledge, or their skills
and abilities. Acquisition and mobilization of resource based competencies generate sustainable competitive advantage.
Transformation based competencies encompasses innovation and organizational culture. Output based competencies
include reputation of the firm (Lado, Boyd and Wright, 1992). Also, quality of products and services can contribute to the
sustainability of competitive advantage by encouraging the development of competencies that are specific, produce socially
complex relationships, are rooted in the history and culture of the company, and generate tacit knowledge. Escrig-Tena &
Bou-Llusar, (2005) categorized competencies into 4 major categories: managerial competencies
(leadership, enacting organizational environment), input based competencies (employee know-how, external cooperation
skills), transformation based competencies (creation of a collective mind, organizational commitment, enhancement of
organizational learning, speed and flexibility in the design of new products and services), and output based competencies
(reputation). Competencies combine knowledge base and skills required to perform useful actions. In order to be a source
of sustainable competitive advantage, a resource or competency must be valuable, rare, and difficult or costly to imitate
(King, Fowler and Zeithalm, 2001). Capabilities have proved more difficult to delineate and are often described as
invisible assets (Itami, 1987) or intermediate goods (Amit and Schoemaker, 1993). Essentially, capabilities encompass the
skills of individuals or groups as well as the organizational routines and interactions through which all the firm's resources
are coordinated (Grant, 1991). Capabilities have limited capacity in the short run due to learning and change difficulties but
have relatively unlimited capacities in the long run (Wernerfelt, 1989).

Resource Based Competence

Wernerfelt (1984) broadly defines a resource as “anything which could be thought of as a strength or weakness of
a given firm”. More specifically, resource-based competencies consist of core human and non-human assets, both tangible
and intangible, that allow a firm to outperform rival firms over a sustained period of time (Wernerfelt, 1984). A firm’s
innovative capabilities are dependent upon its unique competencies for acquiring and mobilizing specialized resources.
Innovative outputs require investments in idiosyncratic transformation processes. Subsequently, the firm’s technological
breakthroughs may generate desirable outcomes that may reinforce its resource-based, transformation-based, and
output-based competencies and elicit further internal and external support for the firm’s volition (Wernerfelt, 1984).
The acquisition and mobilization of resource-based competencies that potentially generate a sustainable competitive
advantage not only require managerial competencies in information gathering, but also accurate expectations about the
future earning steams from these resources.

Resource based view suggests that the firm attain sustainable competitive advantage by possessing key resources
which have the characteristics of value, barriers to duplication and appropriability. Barney (1991) proposed that advantage
creating resources must meet four conditions: value, rareness, inimitability, and non-substitutability. Grant(1991) argues
that levels of durability transparency, transferability and replicability are important determinants, while Collis and
Montgomery (1995) suggest that they must meet five tests, namely inimitability, durability, appropriability, substitutability
and competitive superiority. Thus, a firm that has unique skills and capabilities may earn above normal returns by buying

www.tjprc.org editor@tjprc.org
8 Shadma Parveen & Lovy Sarikwal

resources that are undervalued in the market and using these resources to implement its strategy. These inputs are
subsequently synergistically combined with other firm-specific competencies to generate a sustainable competitive
advantage.

Transformation Based Competence

Transformation-based competencies may be conceived as those organizational capabilities that are required to
advantageously convert inputs into outputs (Day & Wensley, 1988). The notion of transformation-based competencies is
also closely linked to the “value chain” concept first developed by McKinsey and Co. and subsequently adopted as an
analytical tool for strategic management by Porter (1985. Transformation-based competencies may encompass motivation
to work in teams and the commitment level of the employees, which provides the organization with the capability to
generate new products/processes faster than competitors (Nelson & Winter, 1982). Lado & Wilson (1994) categorized the
competencies into four groups i.e. Managerial (Leadership, and enacting organizational environment), Input based
(employee know-how, and external cooperation skills), Transformation based (Work motivation, organizational
commitment, enhancement of organizational learning, and speed & flexibility in the design of new products and services),
and Output based (Reputation, and excellence in job skills). Taylor (1995) and Allen Brady (1997) claim that competencies
building initiatives involve attitudes that entail a strong internalization of goals and values of the firm, a predisposition to
work hard for the organization, and a strong desire to be one of its members.

Output Based Competence

Output-based competencies not only refer to a firm’s physical outputs that deliver value to customers, but also to
the “invisible” outputs (Itami, 1987), such as reputation for product and service quality, brand name, and dealer networks
that provide value to customers. A firm’s long-run survival and growth largely depends on how well value is delivered to
its most important constituents – the customers (Anderson, 1993; Day & Wensley, 1988). The I/O paradigm has
conventionally focused on market share or relative market share and profitability as measures of a firm’s performance and
as indicators of strategic advantage (Gale & Buzzell, 1990). Also, the culture promoting the employee empowerment and
development will lead to the job mastery, prompt decision making, creativity, and understanding the value of work which
enhances the quality of output of the firm and thus its overall performance.

Transfer of Training

Training is one of the most important and reliable human resource techniques to enhance organizational and
employee productivity (Bhatti and Kaur, 2009). Acton (2003) argued that training and development of employees is
essential for organizational operation and advancement. From the employee’s perspective, these same factors are both
crucial and critical for skills development and for career advancement. Kauffeld and Lehmann-Willenbrock (2010) argued
that organizations invest considerable sums of money in human resource development and it is imperative for
organizations facing global competition continuously to improve employees’ knowledge, skills, abilities and attitudes.
Positive transfer of training represents the extent to which trainees apply the knowledge, skills, and attitudes gained in
the training context to the job (Wexley and Latham, 1981). If employees do not effectively transfer the trained skills to the
job-site, then clearly, neither the employee nor the organization profits from the training. Therefore, the effectiveness of
transfer of training plays a major role in determining the utility of training and development programs in organizations.
Thus, researchers and training professionals have focused on the factors affecting the transfer of training to the workplace,

Impact Factor (JCC): 4.9926 Index Copernicus Value (ICV): 3.0

Managing Organizational Competence Through Transfer of Training: 9
A Study of Small and Medium Enterprises in India

such as content validity, self-efficacy, transfer design, the employee’s reaction towards training, and training transfer
motivation. Different researchers have identified varying factors that directly or indirectly affect the transfer of training.
These factors are categorized as individual, situational, environmental or contextual and intervention design factors.
The central issue of training and development is to engage employees in effective learning. To maximize the utility of
training, it is important that training deliverers actively promote such engagement (Robotham, 2004). The engagement of
employees with training activities can be increased by motivating them and making them realize how training can help
them improve their performance and organizational productivity. In addition, Nikandrou et al. (2009) argued that planning
of the training program is very important for its total success, and therefore for training transfer at work. They further
suggested that the goals and the extent of training, the training methods and means, as well as the training place and
equipment, are important factors related to training program planning. All these help employees transfer training to the
workplace. Among the training effectiveness criteria, the most vital impact is the transfer of training, which leads to
improvements in employee and organizational performance. Colquitt et al. (2000) identified a number of situational and
contextual factors that affect training outcomes, including organizational climate, organizational commitment and career
planning. Besides situational and contextual factors, individual factors that affect training outcome have also been
examined, such as general mental ability, self-efficacy, personality (Colquitt et al, 2000) and goal orientation
(Smith et al, 2008). In addition, Holton (1996) also developed the Learning Transfer System Inventory (LTSI) model,
which is another important contribution in the transfer of training literature. Holton’s (1996) LTSI model considered 16
factors likely to influence the transfer of training in the workplace. The 16 factors influencing the transfer of training can
be categorized into two heads – Specific factors and general factors. The specific factors include Learner readiness,
motivation to transfer, positive personal outcomes, Negative personal outcomes, and personal capacity to transfer,
peer-support, supervisor support, supervisor sanctions, perceived content validity, transfer design, and opportunity to use.
General factors include transfer-effort performance expectations, performance-outcomes expectations, and openness to
change, performance self-efficacy, and performance coaching (Holton et al. 2007). In this regard, the literature shows that
researchers have been giving consideration towards the most important aspect of training outcomes, i.e. the transfer of
training.

Brown and McCracken (2009) argued that little of the program content actually gets transferred to the workplace.
With the identification of many factors, researchers are still unable to develop strong training transfer theory and the
organizations reported low rate of training transfer. Ford (2009) argued that trainees transfer only 20 percent of their
learned skills to their workplace. In addition, Bhatti and Kaur (2009) stated that it remains a challenge to establish a theory
on the transfer of training even with the identification of many influencing factors. In addition, Kauffeld and
Lehmann-Willenbrock (2010) advocated that transfer is insufficiently considered in both practice and academic research.
Transfer of training should thus be considered essential for training programmes to be effective and efficient, and intended
return on investments in training programmes will only be achieved to the extent that training is transferred. Research on
the actual extent of transfer of training programmes is still relatively scarce, but, despite its importance, the little available
results in general indicate transfer to be slight and below expectations (e.g. Brinkerhoff and Gill, 1994). Employees only
seem to use knowledge, skills and attitudes from corporate training programmes to a very limited extent at their
workplaces. It has often been argued that the workplace itself could be a major force in hindering or enhancing transfer
(e.g. Rouiller and Goldstein, 1993), and especially managers and supervisors might play a crucial role in the achievement
of transfer of training. Support from supervisors has therefore been suggested to be one of the most powerful tools of

www.tjprc.org editor@tjprc.org
10 Shadma Parveen & Lovy Sarikwal

enhancing transfer of training (e.g. Baldwin and Ford, 1988; Elangovan and Karakowsky, 1999). This supposed
importance stems both from notions of the effects of social support in general and from the works of industrial and
organizational psychologists, who indicated supervisors to be among the most significant sources of feedback for
employees on their performance (Van der Klink et al, 2001). Feedback is indeed often considered a part of supervisor
support, in addition to, for example, the encouragement of trainees, assisting trainees in identifying suitable situations in
which to use new knowledge, skills and attitudes, and guiding trainees in applying these (Elangovan and Karakowsky,
1999). The supervisor is mostly believed to affect transfer outcomes directly, or indirectly by means of the trainees’
motivation to transfer or different factors in the transfer climate (e.g. Cromwell and Kolb, 2002). In contrast to the small
amount of studies on the levels of transfer of training, several studies have been conducted on the relationship between
supervisor support and transfer of training. Transfer outcomes consisted of a decrease in scrap rates after taking part in a
training programme, and the results of the study show that the extent of supervision is the most important positive predictor
of these transfer outcomes. Brinkerhoff and Montesino (1995) examined the transfer outcomes of some training
programmes on behavioural skills, differing between trainees who received experimentally-controlled support from
supervisors and trainees who did not receive specific supervisor support. Trainees in the experimental group not only
achieved higher transfer outcomes, but also mentioned fewer transfer-inhibiting and more transfer-facilitating factors in
their work environment. The results of a qualitative study by Lim and Johnson (2002) indicate that the most important
work environment factors affecting transfer of training are considered to be a discussion with the supervisor on the use of
new learning, the supervisor’s involvement or familiarity with the training and positive feedback from the supervisor.
These findings, as well as similar positive direct effects described by other researchers (e.g. Cromwell and Kolb, 2004;
Gumuseli and Ergin, 2002; Kontoghiorghes, 1998) have led to a widespread agreement on the positive effects of supervisor
support on transfer of training. Since Baldwin and Ford’s (1988) highly recognized review of the “transfer problem” in
training research, an outpouring of conceptual and research-based suggestions have focused on how to lessen the gap
between learning and sustained workplace performance. For transfer to occur “learned behavior must be generalized to the
job context and maintained over a period of time on the job” (Baldwin & Ford, 1988, p. 63). An enhanced
understanding of the different aspects and processes, in turn, would assist organizations in improving the
utility of their training and organizational development programs. A review of the literature on transfer of training issues
revealed four major problems or inadequacies. First, prior research has often focused on the learning component of
training rather than specifically examining the issue of transfer, or has combined the two (e.g. Gagne and Briggs, 1979;
Hicks and Klimoski, 1987). Second, consistent with Noe's (1986) observation, research on transfer of training has focused
primarily on issues concerning training design; specifically, the appropriateness of various instructional methods.
Third, the majority of studies on trainee characteristics have focused on a narrow range of variables, i.e. the various factors
that influence trainee motivation and ability have not been systematically examined. Four, environmental effects on
the transfer of training have been the least investigated of the various relevant factors. Again, the lack of a theoretical
framework to guide research has resulted in a narrow examination of environmental characteristics, focusing primarily
on transfer climate.

Perceived Utility/Value

Transfer can be influenced by the perceived utility or value associated with training. Baumgartel, Reynolds, and
Pathan (1984) showed that managers who believe in the utility of training or value the outcomes training will provide are
more likely to apply skills learned in training. Axtell et al. (1997) found trainees who perceived training as relevant had

Impact Factor (JCC): 4.9926 Index Copernicus Value (ICV): 3.0

Managing Organizational Competence Through Transfer of Training: 11
A Study of Small and Medium Enterprises in India

higher levels of immediate skill transfer. Also, trainees’ immediate training needs significantly affected their perceived
learning transfer in Lim and Morris’ (2006) study of 181 Korean employees who completed a 3-day training program.
Perceived value or utility of training can be influenced by trainees’ evaluation of: (1) the credibility of the new skills for
improving performance, (2) a recognized need to improve their job performance, (3) a belief that applying new learning
will improve performance, and (4) the practicality of the new skills for ease of transfer (Ruona et al, 2002; Warr & Bunce,
1995; Yelon, Sheppard, Sleight, & Ford, 2004). For maximal transfer, learners should perceive that the new knowledge and
skills will improve a relevant aspect of their work performance (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Clark, Dobbins, & Ladd, 1993).
Furthermore, in a meta-analysis of training criteria Alliger, Tannenbaum, Bennett, Traver, and Shotland (1997) found that
learner utility reactions (i. e, the extent trainees felt like training was useful to helping them perform on the job) were
associated with transfer of learning more than trainees’ affective or emotional reactions.

Transfer Climate

The importance of holistic and more systemic models of transfer takes into account various factors outside of the
learning intervention (Ruona et al, 2002; Kontoghiorghes, 2002; Russ-Eft, 2002). Those situations and consequences in
organizations that either inhibit or facilitate the use of what has been learned in training back on the job—referred in the
literature as transfer climate (Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993)—have been shown to influence transfer outcomes directly
(Kontoghiorghes, 2001; Lim & Morris, 2006; Mathieu et al, 1992; Tracey et al, 1995), indirectly as a moderator between
individual or organizational factors and transfer (Burke & Baldwin, 1999), and as a correlate to transfer implementation
intentions (Machin & Fogarty, 2004). Features of a positive transfer climate have been identified as cues that prompt
trainees to use new skills and social support from peers and supervisors in the form of incentives and feedback
(Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993). The corrected correlation coefficient between climate and transfer was moderately strong at
.37 (cumulative sample size _ 525) in Colquitt et al. (2000). Additionally, transfer climate has functioned to moderate the
influence of post training transfer interventions, as found by Burke and Baldwin (1999) and Richman-Hirsch (2001),
suggesting that climate should be considered before appending transfer intervention to training programs in hopes of
increasing skill application. Specifically, Richman-Hirsch (2001) found trainees who perceived a supportive transfer
climate were more likely to use goals to support transfer of skills from a customer service skills training than those that
perceived an unsupportive transfer climate.

Supervisor/Peer Support

Perhaps the most consistent factor explaining the relationship between the work environment and transfer is the
support trainees receive to use their new skills and knowledge (Clarke, 2002). supervisory support offered to the trainee
takes the form of encouragement to use newly learned skills, assistance in identifying situations where the skills can be
used, guidance in the proper application of the trained skills, provision of feedback, positively reinforcing new applications
and improvements, etc, all of which facilitate positive transfer of training. Supervisory support can also occur prior
to training, in the form of encouragement to attend (Wexley and Baldwin, 1986). An employee who receives support and
encouragement from the supervisor will be highly motivated to apply the newly learned skills. In addition, supervisory
guidance, along with sufficient practice, will improve the ability to transfer, and positively affect the transfer process.
Supervisory support also positively affects the trainee's attitude towards the training, which in turn has a direct effect on
effective transfer of training (Huczynski and Lewis, 1980). However, as Baldwin and Ford (1988) observed, further
research is required to delineate the specific aspects of supervisory support that most clearly impact the transfer of training.

www.tjprc.org editor@tjprc.org
12 Shadma Parveen & Lovy Sarikwal

Although a few researchers have found mixed findings for the role of supervisory support in positively
influencing transfer (Awoniyi, Griego, & Morgan, 2002; Chiaburu & Marinova, 2005; Facteau et al, 1995; Van der Klink,
Gielen, & Nauta, 2001), the role of supervisors in influencing and supporting trainee transfer has been widely supported in
both empirical and qualitative studies (Brinkerhoff & Montesino, 1995; Broad & Newstrom, 1992;

Burke & Baldwin, 1999; Clarke, 2002). Foxon (1997) found that trainees’ perception of managerial support for
using skills on the job correlates with increased report of transfer. Researchers have identified manager supportive
behaviors such as discussing new learning, participating in training, providing encouragement and coaching to trainees
about use of new knowledge and skills on the job as salient contributors to positive transfer (McSherry & Taylor, 1994;
Smith-Jentsch, Salas, & Brannick, 2001; Tannenbaum, Smith-Jentsch, & Behson, 1998). Lim and Johnson (2002)
identified that discussions with supervisors on using new learning, supervisor’s involvement in training, and positive
feedback from supervisors were forms of support most recognized by trainees as positively influencing their transfer of
learning. supervisory support offered to the trainee takes the form of encouragement to use newly learned skills, assistance
in identifying situations where the skills can be used, guidance in the proper application of the trained skills,
provision of feedback, positively reinforcing new applications and improvements, etc, all of which facilitate
positive transfer of training. Supervisory support can also occur prior to training, in the form of encouragement to attend
(Wexley and Baldwin, 1986). When testing a model of individual and organizational support for transfer, peer support
emerged as having the only significant relationship with skill transfer, the other variables (supervisory support,
self-efficacy, and goal orientation) affected skill transfer through pre-training motivation (Chiaburu & Marinova, 2005).
In a qualitative study exploring which peer support behaviors were most influential on transfer, Hawley and Barnard
(2005) found networking with peers and sharing ideas about course content helped promote skill transfer 6 months after
training.

RESEARCH GAPS

Based on the literature review, it has been observed that very few studies have identified the impact of transfer of
training on organizational competence, i.e. the effect of relevance of training programmes, Supervisor’s support,
culture promoting transfer of training, Performance orientation, and Peer support towards the achievement of
organizational competitiveness. Similarly, the second research gap identified is to study the impact of Transfer of training
at Three levels of competence i.e. resource based competence, transformation based competence, and output based
competence accruing the competitiveness of the organization.

RESEARCH OJBECTIVES

• To study the relationship between transfer of training and resource based competence.

• To study the relationship between transfer of training and transformation based competence.

• To study the relationship between transfer of training and output based competence.

RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

H01: There is no significant relationship between transfer of training and Resource Based Competence..

H02: There is no significant relationship between transfer of training and Transformation Based Competence.

Impact Factor (JCC): 4.9926 Index Copernicus Value (ICV): 3.0

Managing Organizational Competence Through Transfer of Training: 13
A Study of Small and Medium Enterprises in India

H03: There is no significant relationship between transfer of training and Output Based Competence.

METHODS

The research design is quantitative in nature. A survey of 150 employees working in Small and Medium
Enterprises in Delhi/NCR region was performed using anonymous questionnaire. The questionnaire containing measures
of Transfer of Training, resource based competencies, transformation based competencies, output based competencies,
and Organizational competitiveness was distributed to the employees using the drop-off method. The study sample was
homogenous since all respondents were Indian citizens and working in SMEs in Delhi/NCR. The collection of data was a
two- fold process. First step was to identify the SMEs which fit in the criterion of our study design and then the second step
was to collect data from the respondents through a structured questionnaire. The questionnaire contained 41 items.
The criteria for selecting the SMEs are: The total number of employees working with firm should be less than 500 and the
firm should not be older than 5 years. The responses are taken through Likert 5 point scale where: 1- Strongly Disagree,
2 – disagree, 3- neither agree nor disagree, 4 – Agree, and 5- Strongly Agree. The study has two types of
variables- Independent variable i. e, Transfer of training which is measured through Relevance of training programmes,
Supervisor’s support, Culture promoting transfer of training, Performance orientation, and Peer support, and dependent
variable i. e, Organizational competence which included Resource based competencies (measured through KSA i. e.
Knowledge, Skills and Abilities and Innovation), Transformation based competencies (measured through commitment and
work efficiency, and Output based competencies (measured through job mastery and quality of products/services)

ANALYSIS & DISCUSSIONS

Instrument Reliability
Descriptive statistics and reliability coefficients of the valid items (Fourteen items) of transfer of training, RBC,
TBC, and OBC constructs is calculated. The value of Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.906, which is exceeding the acceptable limit
of 0.7 and therefore it suggests that the constructs in the scale demonstrate acceptable reliability for survey of SMEs in
India.

Hypothesis Testing

To test the hypotheses, the data was subjected to linear regression analysis in order to test the relationship.

The Resource Based Competence is measured and studied through KSA and innovation skills of the employees.
Findings indicate that the variables Relevance of Training programmes (.004, p<.05, Performance Orientation
(.000, p<.001) and Peer Support (.000, p<.001) were found to have significant relationship with KSA of the employees.
Also, the relationship between Performance Orientation and innovation skills of the employees was found to be highly
significant (.000, p<.001) at 99.999% confidence level. Hence, H01 is not accepted for Relevance of Training programmes,
Performance orientation and Peer support. Therefore, it can be said that Transfer of training facilitates the development of
Resource Based Competence.

The transformation based competence is measured and studied through commitment level of the employees and
the work efficiency of the employees. Findings indicate that the variables culture promoting transfer of training
(.009, p<.01), Peer Support (.003, p< .01), Performance Orientation (.000, p<.001) were found to be significantly related to
the commitment level of the employees. Also, the variables Relevance of Training programmes (.010, p =.01),
Supervisor’s support (.033, p<.05) Performance Orientation (.001, p =.001) and Peer Support (.000, p<.001) were found to

www.tjprc.org editor@tjprc.org
14 Shadma Parveen & Lovy Sarikwal

be significantly related to work efficiency of the employees. Hence, H02 is not accepted for Culture promoting transfer of
training, Relevance of Training programmes, Supervisor’s support, Performance Orientation, and Peer support. Therefore,
it can be said that transfer of training facilitates the development of Transformation Based Competence.

Output based competence is studied through Job mastery of the employees and the quality of products/services.
Finding of regression analysis indicate that the variables Performance Orientation (.023, p<.05) and Peer Support
(.003, p<.01) were found to be significantly related to the job mastery of the employees. Also, the variables Performance
Orientation (.000, p<.001) and Peer support (.020, p<.05) were found to be significantly related to the quality of
products/services. Hence, H03 is not accepted for Performance orientation and Peer support. Therefore, it can be said that
transfer of training facilitates the development of Output Based Competence.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of above analysis it has been found there is significant effect of various elements of transfer of
training on all the three levels of competencies i.e. Resource based competence, Transformation based competence,
and Output based competence. It was found that the factors which affect KSA are Relevance of training programmes,
Performance orientation, and peer support. Innovation skills of the employees are related significantly with performance
orientation. TBC was studied through Commitment and work efficiency of the employees. The results shows that
commitment is significantly related to the culture promoting transfer of training, performance orientation, and peer support,
whereas work efficiency was found to be related with relevance of training programmes, performance orientation, and peer
support. OBC was studied through job mastery and quality of products/ services and it was found during the study that job
mastery was significantly related with performance orientation and peer support, whereas quality of products/services was
found to be significantly related to performance orientation and peer support.

Overall it was found that the factors of transfer of training which have exhibited the strong relationships with the
RBC, TBC, and OBC were relevance of training programmes, performance orientation and peer support.

From the above study it can be concluded that in case of SMEs in India the transfer of training plays a very
important role in the enhancement of organizational competence. The SMEs should focus on enhancing those factors
which are exhibiting the maximum impact and strong relation with the competencies. Also, it is recommended for the
SMEs to focus on various methods and practices through which other factors of transfer of training also like supervisor’s
support and culture promoting the transfer of training could also be adopted, implemented and practiced as it can further
help the SMEs to enhance their competitiveness.

REFERENCES

1. Acton, T. (2003), “Training the knowledge worker”, Journal of European Industrial Training, 27:137-46.

2. Allen, M. W, & Brady, R. M, (1997). Total quality management, organizational commitment, perceived
organizational support, and intra-organizational communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 10(3),
316-342.

3. Alliger, G. M, Tannenbaum, S. I, Bennett, W. Jr, Traver, H. and Shotland, A. (1997), “A meta-analysis of the
relations among training criteria”, Personnel Psychology, 50: 341-58.

Impact Factor (JCC): 4.9926 Index Copernicus Value (ICV): 3.0

Managing Organizational Competence Through Transfer of Training: 15
A Study of Small and Medium Enterprises in India

4. Amit, R. and Schoemaker, P. J. (1993), Strategic assets and organizational rent, Strategic Management Journal,
14: 33-46.

5. Anderson, Eugene W, and Mary W. Sullivan. (1993). "The Antecedents and Consequences of Customer
Satisfaction for Firms." Marketing Science, 12: 125-143.

6. Awoniyi, E. A, Griego, O. V, & Morgan, G. A. (2002). Person—Environment Fit and Transfer of training.
International Journal of Training and Development, 6: 25–35.

7. Axtell, C. M, Maitlis, S. and Yearta, S.K. (1997), “Predicting immediate and longer-term transfer of training”,
Personnel Review, 26: 201-13.

8. Baldwin, T. T. and Ford, J. (1988), “Transfer of training: a review and directions for future research”, Personnel
Psychology, 41: 63-105.

9. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37: 122–147.

10. Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

11. Barney, J.B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage, Journal of Management, 17: 99-120.

12. 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 Labor Studies, 9: 1-16.

13. Bhatti, M. A. and Kaur, S. (2009), “Factors effecting transfer of training: a fresh review”, paper presented at the
12th International Business Information Management Conference (IBIMA), Kuala Lumpur.

14. Brinkerhoff, R. O. and Gill, S. J. (1994), The Learning Alliance: Systems Thinking in Human Resource
Development, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

15. Brinkerhoff, R. O. and Montesino, M. U. (1995), “Partnerships for training transfer: lessons from a corporate
study”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 3: 263-74.

16. Broad, M. L. and Newstrom, J. W. (1992), Transfer of Training: Action-Packed Strategies to Ensure High Payoff
from Training Investments, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

17. Brown, T. C. and McCracken, M. (2009), “Building a bridge of understanding: how barriers to training
participation become barriers to training transfer”, Journal of European Industrial Training, 33: 492-512.

18. Burke, L. A, & Baldwin, T. T. (1999). Workforce training transfer: A study of the effect of relapse prevention
training and transfer. Human Resource Management, 38: 227–243.

19. Clark, S. C, Dobbins, G. H, & Ladd, R. T. (1993). Exploratory field study of training motivation: Influence of
involvement, credibility, and transfer climate. Group & Organization Management, 18: 292–307.

20. Clarke, N. (2002). Job/work environment factors influencing training effectiveness within a human service
agency: Some indicative support for Baldwin and Fords’ transfer climate construct. International Journal of
Training and Development, 6: 146–162.

www.tjprc.org editor@tjprc.org
16 Shadma Parveen & Lovy Sarikwal

21. Collis, D. J, & Montgomery, C. A. (1995). Competing on resources: Strategy in the 1990s. Harvard Business
Review,73: 118-128

22. Colquitt, J, LePine, J. and Noe, R. (2000), “Towards an integration theory of training motivation: a meta-analytic
path analysis of 20 years of research”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 678-707.

23. Cromwell, S. E. and Kolb, J. A. (2002), in Egan, T. M. and Lynham, S. A. (Eds), “The effect of organizational
support, management support, and peer support on transfer of training”, Proceedings of the Academy of Human
Resource Development 2002 Conference, Academy of Human Resource Development, Bowling Green, OH,
pp. 537-544.

24. Daley, D. M. (1991). Great expectations, or a tale of two systems: Employee attitudes toward graphic rating scales
& MBO-based performance appraisal. Public Administration Quarterly, 15: 188-209.

25. Day, George S. and Robin Wensley. 1988. "Assessing Advantage: A Framework for Diagnosing Competitive
Superiority." Journal of Marketing, 52: 1-20.

26. Eden, D. and Ravid, G. (1982), "Pygmalion versus self-expectancy: effects of instructor and self-expectancy on
trainee performance", Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30: 351-64.

27. Eden, D. and Shani, A.B. (1982), "Pygmalion goes to boot camp: expectancy leadership and trainee performance",
Journal of Applied Psychology, 67: 194-9.

28. Elangovan, A. R. and Karakowsky, L. (1999), “The role of trainee and environmental factors in transfer of
training: an exploratory framework”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 20: 268-75.

29. Eriksen, B, & Mikkelsen, J. (1996). Competitive advantage and the concept of core competency. In N. J. Foss &
C. Knudsen (Eds.), Towards a competency theory of the firm. London, New York: Routledge, 38–53.

30. Escrig-Tena, Ana Belén; Bou-Llusar, Juan Carlos.(2005). A model for evaluating organizational competencies: an
application in the context of a quality management initiative, Decision Sciences, 36: 221-257.

31. 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 pre-training motivation and perceived training transfer. Journal of
Management, 21: 1–25.

32. Fleury, Afonso; Fleury, Maria Teresza.(2003). The evolution of strategies and organizational competencies in the
telecommunication industry, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 2: 577-596.

33. Ford, L. (2009), “Improving training transfer”, Industrial and Commercial Training, 41: 92-6.

34. Foxon, M. (1997). The influence of motivation to transfer, action planning, and manager support on the transfer
process. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 10: 42–63.

35. Frayne, C, & Latham, G. P. (1987). Application of social learning theory to employee self management of
attendance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72: 387–392.

36. Gagne, R. M. and Briggs, L. J. (1979), Principles of Instructional Design, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York,
NY.

Impact Factor (JCC): 4.9926 Index Copernicus Value (ICV): 3.0

Managing Organizational Competence Through Transfer of Training: 17
A Study of Small and Medium Enterprises in India

37. Gale, Bradley T. and Robert D. Buzzell. 1990. “Market Position and Competitive Strategy.” In The Interface of
Marketing and Strategy. Eds. George S. Day, Barton Weitz, and Robin Wensley. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

38. Garvin, D. A. (2000). Learning in action: A guide to putting the learning organization to work. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.

39. Grant, R. M. (1991).The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation,
California Management Review, 33: 114-135.

40. Gumuseli, A. I. and Ergin, B. (2002), “The manager’s role in enhancing the transfer of training: a Turkish case
study”, International Journal of Training and Development, 6: 80-97.

41. Hawley, J. D, & Barnard, J. K. (2005). Work environment characteristics and implications for training transfer:
A case study of the nuclear power industry. Human Resource Development International, 8: 65–80.

42. Hicks, W. D. and Klimoski, R. J. (1987), "Entry into training programs and its effects on training outcomes:
a field experiment", Academy of Management Journal, 30: 542-52.

43. Holmes, L. & Joyce, P. (1993). Rescuing the useful concept of managerial competence: From outcomes back to
process. Personnel Review, 22: 37-52.

44. Holton, E. F. III (1996), “The flawed four-level evaluation model”, Human Resource Development Quarterly,
7: 5-21.

45. Leadership: The Cutting Edge, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL.

46. 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.

47. Iles, P. A. (1993). Achieving strategic coherence in HRD through competence-based management and
organization development. Personnel Review, 22: 63-80.

48. Itami, H. (1987). Mobilising Invisible Assets, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

49. Kauffeld, S. and Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2010), “Sales training: effects of spaced practice and training
transfer”, Journal of European Industrial Training, 34: 23-37.

50. King, Adelaide Wilcox; Fowler, Sally W; Zeithaml, Carl P. (2001). Managing organizational competencies for
competitive advantage: the middle management edge, Academy of Management Executive, 15: 95-106.

51. Kontoghiorghes, C. (1998), in Torraco, R. J. (Ed.), “Training transfer as it relates to the instructional system and
the broader work environment”, Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development 1998 Conference,
Academy of Human Resource Development, Baton Rouge, LA, pp. 466-73.

52. Kravetz, D. J. (2008). Building a job competency data base to link HR activity. Unpublished manuscript.
(Available from Kravetz Associates, 671 Timber Ridge Drive, Bartlett, IL 60103).

53. Lado, A. A, & Wilson, M. C. (1994). Human resource systems and sustained competitive advantage:
A competency-based perspective. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 699-727.

www.tjprc.org editor@tjprc.org
18 Shadma Parveen & Lovy Sarikwal

54. Lado, Augustine A; Boyd, Nancy G; Wright, Peter .(1992). A competency based model of sustainable competitive
advantage: toward a conceptual integration, Journal of Management, 18: 77-91.

55. Levine, E. L. (1983). Everything you always wanted to know about job analysis. Tampa, FL: Mariner.

56. Lim, D. H. and Johnson, S. D. (2002), “Trainee perceptions of factors that influence learning transfer”,
International Journal of Training and Development, 6: 37-49.

57. Machin, M. A, & Fogarty, G. J. (2004). Assessing the antecedents of transfer intentions in a z

58. McSherry, M, & Taylor, P. (1994). Supervisory support for the transfer of team-building training.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 5: 107–119.

59. Milgrom, Paul, Roberts, John. (1982), Limit Pricing and Entry under Incomplete Information: An Equilibrium
Analysis. Econometrica, 50: 443-460.

60. Nelson, R, & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

61. Nikandrou, I, Brinia, V. and Bereri, E. (2009), “Perspective on practice: trainee perceptions of training transfer: an
empirical analysis”, Journal of European Industrial Training, 33: 255-70.

62. Noe, R. A. and Schmitt, N. (1986), “The influence of trainee attitudes on training effectiveness: test of a model”,
Personnel Psychology, 39: 497-523.

63. Prahalad, C. K. and Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation, Harvard Business Review, 68:
79-91.

64. Porter, Michael E. 1985. Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. New York:
The Free Press.

65. Richman-Hirsch, W. L. (2001). Posttraining interventions to enhance transfer: The moderating effects of work
environments. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12: 105–120.

66. Robotham, D. (2004), “Developing the competent learner”, Industrial and Commercial Training, 36: 66-72.

67. Rouiller, 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.

68. Ruona, W. E. A, Leimbach, M, Holton III, E. F, & Bates, R. (2002). The relationship between learner utility
reactions and predicted learning transfer among trainees. International Journal of Training & Development,
6: 218–228.

69. Russ-Eft, D. (2002). A typology of training design and work environment factors affecting workplace learning
and transfer. Human Resource Development Review, 1: 45–65.

70. Sago, Brad.(2003). Building organizational competencies for competitive advantage, Business Credit, 105: 16-17.

71. Sarkar, Shulagna. (2009). Employee empowerment in the banking sector. The IUP Journal of Management
Research, 8(9), 48-66.

Impact Factor (JCC): 4.9926 Index Copernicus Value (ICV): 3.0

Managing Organizational Competence Through Transfer of Training: 19
A Study of Small and Medium Enterprises in India

72. Smith, R, Jayasuriya, R, Caputi, P. and Hammer, D. (2008), “Exploring the role of goal theory in understanding
training motivation”, International Journal of Training and Development, 12: 54-72.

73. 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: 279–292.

74. Spencer, L. M. & Spencer, S. M. (1993). Competence at work: Models for Superior performance. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.

75. Stewart, J. & Page, C. (1992). Competence—are they useful to trainers? Industrial and Commercial Training,
24: 32-35.

76. Tannenbaum, S. I, Smith-Jentsch, K. A, & Behson, S. J. (1998). Training team leaders to facilitate team learning
and performance. In J. A. Cannon-Bowers & E. Salas (Eds.), Making decisions under stress: Implications for
individual and team training. (pp. 247–270). Washington DC: American Psychological Association Press.

77. Taylor, W.A. (1995), Senior executives and ISO 9000: Attitudes, behaviors and commitment, International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 12(4), 40-57.

78. 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: 239–252.

79. Turner, D, & Crawford, M. (1994). Managing current and future competitive performance: The role of
competency. In G. Hamel & A. Heene (Eds.), Competency-based competition. Chichester, UK: The Strategic
Management Series, Wiley, 241–264.

80. Ussahawanitchakit, Phapruke.(2007). Innovation Capability and Export Performance: An Empirical Study of
Textile Businesses in Thailand. International Journal of Business Strategy, 7: 1-9.

81. Van der Klink, M.R, Gielen, E.W.M. and Nauta, C. (2001), “Supervisory support as a major condition to enhance
transfer”, International Journal of Training and Development, 5: 52-63.

82. Warr, P. B, & Bunce, D. (1995). Trainee characteristics and the outcomes of open learning. Personnel
Psychology, 48: 347–375.

83. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm, Strategic Management Journal, 5: 171-180.

84. Wernerfelt, B. (1989). From critical resources to corporate strategy, Journal of General Management, 14: 4-12.

85. Wexley, K. N. and Baldwin, T. T. (1986), “Post-training strategies for facilitating positive transfer: an empirical
exploration”, Academy of Management Journal, 29: 503-20.

86. Wexley, K. N. and Latham, G. P. (1981), Developing and Training Human Resources in Organizations,
Scott Foresman, Glenview, IL.

87. Yelon, S, Sheppard, L, Sleight, D, & Ford, J. K. (2004). Intention to transfer: How do autonomous professionals
become motivated to use new ideas? Performance Improvement Quarterly, 17: 82–103.

www.tjprc.org editor@tjprc.org