Predicting

Predicting immediate and transfer of

longer-term transfer of training

training
201
Carolyn M. Axtell and Sally Maitlis
Institute of Work Psychology, University of Sheffield, UK, and Received October 1995
Revised July 1996
Shawn K. Yearta
Hay Management Consultants, London, UK

The evaluation of training effectiveness

Most research on training uses trainees’ reactions to a course and their beliefs
about the amount they have learned to assess its effectiveness. This information
is usually gathered at the time of training (Saari et al., 1988). Little work has
examined the extent to which trainees effectively apply the knowledge, skills
and attitudes acquired in a training context once they are back in the job
(Tannenbaum and Yukl, 1992; Tracey et al., 1995). This is not only an essential
criterion against which training effectiveness should be evaluated (Kirkpatrick,
1967), but also relates to the concern raised by Patrick (1992), that much of the
training conducted within organizations fails to transfer to the work setting.
Clearly the success with which individuals apply new skills in the workplace is
of importance both to those attending training programmes and to employing
organizations who continue to invest heavily in such development activities.
This is particularly pertinent given the emphasis on organizational learning
that is currently regarded as being so central to organizational effectiveness
(Dodgson, 1993).

Predictors of training effectiveness

Baldwin and Ford (1988) noted that there is a lack of theory guiding research
into the transfer of training. In response, they proposed a model containing
three types of influences on transfer: aspects of the course, characteristics of the
trainee, and features of the work environment. A number of factors in the
literature have been identified as important predictors of training effectiveness
which can be classified into these categories. These include: the relevance or
usefulness of the course to the trainee’s job (e.g., Baldwin and Ford, 1988;
Goldstein, 1986) and principles of learning used (Decker, 1982), which have been
identified as important course characteristics; self-efficacy (e.g. Ford et al., 1992;
Gist et al., 1990; Tannenbaum et al., 1991), motivation (e.g. Mathieu et al., 1992;
Noe, 1986; Tannenbaum et al., 1991), job involvement (Mathieu et al., 1992; Noe
and Schmitt, 1986), ability (Robertson and Downs, 1989), which have been
Personnel Review, Vol. 26 No. 3,
The authors would like to thank Dr Paul Jackson at the Institute of Work Psychology for all his 1997, pp. 201-213. © MCB
statistical help and advice. University Press, 0048-3486
Personnel found to be important characteristics of the trainee; and managerial support (e.g.
Review Ford et al., 1992; Huczynski and Lewis, 1980), the amount of control or autonomy
available in an employee’s job (Huczynski and Lewis, 1980; Vandenput, 1973), or
26,3 more generally, transfer of training climate (Tracey et al., 1995), which have been
found to be critical aspects of the work environment. Such features of the work
environment have been thought particularly important to the transfer of training
202 (Baldwin and Ford, 1988; Tannenbaum and Yukl, 1992), because while
employees may be highly motivated individuals who have attended excellent
training courses and are keen to use their new skills, constraints in the work
environment may prevent them from applying what they have learned back in
their jobs. There is still relatively little work, however, which seeks to investigate
these factors (Tracey et al., 1995). Still less exists which examines multiple
influences (i.e. those related to the work environment, course and trainee) on the
transfer of skills to the workplace (Baldwin and Ford, 1988). To date, most of the
existing work has concentrated on course factors (Baldwin and Ford, 1988).

Sustained use of trained skills

The few studies which do examine the application of trained skills to the job
tend to consider fairly immediate transfer, rather than examining it over a
longer time frame (e.g. Tracey et al., 1995). It is thought that the period of time
on the job immediately after training is critical for transfer to occur (e.g.
Baldwin and Ford, 1988; Noe, 1986). However, while immediate transfer is likely
to be an important prerequisite for subsequent skill application, another key
question concerns what helps to sustain the use of these trained skills. One
would expect factors relating to the trainee and to the work environment to
continue to be important, but perhaps playing different roles from those they
have in immediate skill transfer. For example, Marx (1982) suggests that during
the initial phases of transfer, when more errors are likely to occur, reinforcement
from managers may be particularly critical in helping trainees to maintain the
new skills. Certainly one might predict that, over time, employees with more
control over their jobs will be better able to try out new ways of working,
including, perhaps, the introduction of their recently acquired skills. However,
despite the evident importance of these issues, little work exists which
examines the maintenance of trained skills over time in any depth.
Some related studies have considered programmes designed to improve the
use of training through post-training interventions such as behavioural self-
management and goal setting (Gist et al., 1990, 1991; Marx, 1982; Tziner et al.,
1991; Wexley and Baldwin, 1986). In the typical self-management intervention,
trainees are required to identify obstacles at work which may prevent them
from using their training, and are instructed in appropriate coping skills to help
deal with these situations. The underlying rationale behind this approach is
that environmental stimuli and trainees’ feelings about them will influence their
application of learned skills (23). However, evidence on the effectiveness of self
management is inconclusive, some studies finding no effect (Wexley and
Baldwin, 1986) while others suggest it leads to higher overall performance
levels than goal setting interventions (Gist et al., 1990).
The present study – a theoretical framework Predicting
This exploratory study examines multiple influences on the application of transfer of
trained interpersonal skills at work, at intervals of one month and one year after
training has taken place. The research is guided by a framework developed from
training
that of Baldwin and Ford (1988). Thus key variables in this study are: a feature
of the course (its perceived relevance/usefulness), two characteristics of the
trainee (self-efficacy and motivation) and two factors in the work environment 203
(managerial support and the control or autonomy existing in the job) (see Figure
1). These particular variables, discussed in more detail below, were chosen
following a review of the transfer of training literature, and are based on findings
from preliminary interviews conducted in the organization under study.

Figure 1.
Transfer of training
framework

The present study – independent variables

A great number of course variables have been studied in some depth elsewhere
(Baldwin and Ford, 1988), and we did not seek to replicate this work fully in the
present study. However, the relevance of the course has been seen as an
especially important area of training design (Gagne, 1962; Goldstein, 1986) and
so was included as a key factor here. If the course is not relevant, then
individuals are unlikely to use the skills when they return to work, irrespective
of trainee and work environment characteristics which are present.
In terms of trainee variables, previous research (Gist et al., 1991) found that
initial self-efficacy (faith in one’s ability to perform successfully) in
interpersonal skills training was significantly related to initial performance
levels, as well as to skill maintenance over a seven-week period. Self-efficacy
Personnel may be important in skill maintenance because individuals who leave training
Review with the belief that they can successfully perform tasks they have been trained
26,3 to do, should be more resilient when they encounter obstacles in the work
environment (Marx, 1982). Motivation to transfer can be seen as the trainee’s
desire to use what she or he has learned on returning to work. Clearly the
chances of skill use after a course are likely to be greatly reduced if motivation
204 is low, and this variable has received considerable attention in transfer research
(Baldwin and Ford 1988; Noe, 1986; Noe and Schmitt, 1986). Self-efficacy and
motivation therefore stood out as important trainee characteristics for inclusion
in the present study.
Managerial support (for example, encouraging trainees to use new skills and
tolerating mistakes when they are practising them) has been identified as a key
environmental variable affecting transfer (Ford et al., 1992; Huczynski and
Lewis, 1980) and is likely to be of central importance in creating a “transfer-
friendly” climate. Indeed, relations with others (particularly the immediate
boss) were found to be the most common inhibitors to transfer in a study by
Vandenput (1973). However, where managers are highly supportive, individuals
are likely to feel more comfortable performing trained skills (Ford et al., 1992).
Autonomy (trainees having responsibility for their own work and deciding how
to carry our their jobs) was considered relevant to the present study as it has
been found to facilitate transfer of sales and human relations skills (Vandenput,
1973), which have high interpersonal skills content. In addition, as emphasized
in the self-management, post-training intervention literature (Gist et al., 1991)
described previously, part of successful transfer involves overcoming obstacles
to using new skills. It is therefore likely that the more control trainees have over
their own work, the greater their ability to avoid obstacles to transfer and so
incorporate new skills and knowledge into their job. Certainly, preliminary
interviews conducted in the organization under study suggested this was an
important factor.
H1: Short-term transfer: It is predicted that greatest initial transfer of
training will be found in those trainees who perceive the course to be
relevant, and who also have high levels of self efficacy and motivation to
use the skills, and who have more managerial support and autonomy in
their jobs.
H2: Long-term transfer: As discussed above, it has been suggested that the
immediate period on the job after training is critical to longer term
transfer, and hence transfer a year on is expected to relate to transfer
after one month. However it is also thought that other dispositional and
environmental factors may be additionally important to the
maintenance of trained skills. Therefore it is predicted that greatest
sustained transfer will occur in those trainees who initially transferred
a high level of skills, but who also have high levels of self efficacy and
motivation to use the skills, and work in an environment with greater
managerial support and autonomy.
Method Predicting
Sample and procedure transfer of
Non-managerial, technical staff from a multinational organization attended one of
six training courses aimed at developing interpersonal skills at work. The courses
training
covered very similar material and were all taught in a highly interactive style.
The first questionnaire, measuring the independent variables in the study,
was completed by 75 trainees at the end of the courses they attended (Time 1). 205
Transfer of training was assessed by them through a second questionnaire
(Time 2) one month after completing the course (62 questionnaires were
returned, a response rate of 83 per cent).
After one year, trainees again assessed their transfer of training (Time 3).
This time 45 trainees responded, a response rate of 75 per cent in relation to
responses after one month. The analysis in this study has been conducted on
these 45 complete data sets. T-tests were performed to ensure that there were no
differences on any of the variables between the 45 at Time 3 and the remainder
of the original 75 at Time 1. No significant differences were found.
Clearly there are issues surrounding the reliance on self-ratings for all the
variables in the study. Trainees are well placed to assess factors such as their
own self-efficacy and motivation, and how relevant they consider the training
course to be. In addition, one could argue that their perception of their
environmental conditions, such as the level of managerial support and their
degree of job autonomy, is more relevant to their ability to transfer training than
any more objective measure of these factors. However, in assessing skill
transfer, it is not ideal to work purely with self-ratings. In order to validate the
trainee ratings of transfer, ratings were also collected from managers, who were
asked to assess the level of transfer they felt the trainees had achieved.
Questionnaires to a trainee’s manager were sent out on receipt of that trainee’s
questionnaire, asking them to rate the level of transfer they perceived in their
subordinate. Of the 45 trainees used in this analysis, 27 of their managers
returned ratings after one month but only 12 after one year, because of
personnel changes. Clearly these numbers are too small to provide a separate
measure of trainee skill transfer. They were used, however, to give some
validation of the ratings received from trainees themselves (see below).

Measures
The Time 1 questionnaire contained measures on which trainees rated their
perceived level of new skills and knowledge acquired (to screen out those who
felt they had not learned any new skills) and the job relevance/usefulness of the
course. In addition the questionnaire measured characteristics of the trainee:
self efficacy (i.e. their faith in their ability to perform successfully) and their
motivation to transfer a list of course skills to their jobs (see below). Work
environment measures assessed trainees’ beliefs about their existing levels of
managerial support (i.e. whether employees were encouraged to use new skills
and whether mistakes were tolerated when these new skills were being
practised); and autonomy (whether employees had responsibility for their own
work and were able to decide how to carry out their jobs). All scales had good
Personnel internal reliability (ranging from 0.81 to 0.87). Descriptive statistics of these
Review scales can be found in Table I. Measuring such variables at the time of the
26,3 course, one month prior to the assessment of initial skill transfer, ensured that
trainees’ perceptions of their course, work environment, and personal
characteristics would not be biased by any training transfer which then
occurred.
206 Transfer was measured by trainees and managers after periods of one month
(Time 2) and one year (Time 3). Each trainee was given a questionnaire to
complete containing a list of between four and eight skills relevant to the course
they had attended.
These lists of transferable skills were obtained through course
documentation and discussions with trainers, and reflected a range of skills
from each course. Trainees rated the degree to which they felt they had
transferred a list of course skills to the workplace (on a five-point scale from
“not at all” to “a great deal”). Managers were given the same list of skills against
which to rate the trainee. Descriptive statistics of the transfer scores can be seen
in Table I. Use of such subjective ratings in the assessment of interpersonal
skills is common (e.g. Noe, 1986; Tracey et al., 1995) since they represent
qualities which are extremely difficult to measure objectively. In this case, the

–
All variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 X SD

1. Management
support 0.00 3.5 0.87
2. Autonomy 0.31* 0.00 3.7 0.90
3. Relevance 0.20 0.29* 0.00 3.6 0.70
4. Motivation 0.07 –0.17 0.23 0.00 3.4 0.75
5. Self-efficacy 0.33* 0.04 0.17 0.38** 0.00 3.6 0.64
6. T. transfer
T2 0.31* 0.22 0.61** 0.55** 0.28 0.00 2.9 0.78
7. T. transfer
T3 0.35* 0.46** 0.45** 0.39** 0.25 0.62** 0.00 3.0 0.76
8. M. transfer
T2 –0.07 –0.27 0.01 0.30 0.02 0.38* 0.02 0.00 2.6 0.79
9. M. transfer
T3 0.49 0.70* 0.50 –0.23 –0.04 0.31 0.70** –0.17 0.00 2.8 0.83
10. Skills
acquired 0.22 0.05 70** 0.40** 0.12 0.49** 0.30 0.16 0.13 0.00 3.5 0.87
Notes:
*p < 0.05
**p < 0.01
Table I.
Correlation matrix and M. = Manager-rated
descriptive statistics T. = Trainee rated
manager and trainee ratings of transfer were found to correlate fairly highly Predicting
(0.38 after one month and 0.70 after one year – see Table I). In addition, no transfer of
significant differences were found with t-tests. This provided some training
confirmation of the validity of the trainees’ self-ratings, but, owing to the low
response rates (i.e. 12 after one year), the managers ratings were not used
separately in further analysis.
Examples of transferable skills listed in the questionnaires include “use of 207
assertive behaviour”, “appropriate use of questioning techniques (open,
closed, funnelling)”, “effective problem solving in teams (defining the
problem, identifying objectives, information gathering and identifying
possible solutions)”. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out to
identify any differences between these courses in terms of the amount of new
skills trainees felt they had acquired, and ratings of the levels of transfer of
skills at Time 2 and Time 3. No significant differences were found between
these scores, and so for the purposes of this study the courses can be treated
as equivalent.

Results
Time 1 measures
As measured immediately after the courses, 86 per cent of the 45 delegates felt
they had acquired at least a moderate amount of new skills and knowledge from
them. There were no respondents who felt they had failed to acquire any new
skills at all. Therefore, all the 45 trainees were used in the subsequent analysis.
Some intercorrelation existed between the independent variables (management
support, autonomy, relevance, motivation and self efficacy) measured at the
time of the course. However, there was minimal likelihood of multicollinearity,
as the highest intercorrelation was 0.38 (p < 0.01), between self efficacy and
motivation to transfer (see Table I). Other variables that correlated (p < 0.05)
were autonomy and management support, autonomy and relevance/usefulness
of the course, and management support with self-efficacy.

Time 2 – transfer after one month

After one month (Time 2), 49 per cent of the 45 trainees felt that they had
transferred at least a moderate amount of skill.
Relationships with transfer at Time 2. Correlation analysis showed three
significant positive relationships with trainees’ perceptions of their skill
transfer to the job after one month. Trainee ratings of their motivation to
transfer and their perceived relevance/usefulness of the course were both highly
significantly correlated with transfer (p < 0.01 – see Table I). Management
support was also found to correlate with trainee rated transfer (p < 0.05).
A hierarchical regression analysis (Table II) was carried out, first entering
course related variables – as the course needs to be relevant if the skills are to
be used – followed by individual characteristics, and then environmental
factors. The analysis revealed that relevance/usefulness was a significant
predictor of trainee-rated transfer on the first step (p < 0.01). On the second step,
Personnel Independent variable Beta R-square R-square change
Review
26,3 Step 1 0.37
Relevance/usefulness 0.61*
Step 2 0.54 0.17*
Relevance/usefulness 0.50*
208
Motivation to transfer 0.42*
Self-efficacy 0.02
Step 3 0.59 0.05
Relevance/usefulness 0.41*
Motivation to transfer 0.48*
Self-efficacy –0.05
Management support 0.17
Autonomy 0.13
Notes:
Table II.
Regression analysis on *p < 0.01
transfer at Time 2 N = 45

motivation to transfer also made a significant contribution to the variance in R

square (p < 0.01) with the effects of self-efficacy and relevance/usefulness
partialled out, producing a significant change of 0.17 (p < 0.01). Adding the
work environment variables on the third step did not significantly change the
amount of explained variance, and no further significant predictors were
observed. Together these variables explained 59 per cent of the variance.

Time 3 – transfer after one year

At this time, 53 per cent of the 45 trainees who responded rated that they had
transferred at least a moderate amount of skill and knowledge from the training
course to the job after one year. Trainee ratings of transfer at Time 2 and Time
3 were significantly correlated (p < 0.01 – see Table I), and no significant
differences were found between them when t-tested, suggesting that use of
skills had not changed much over the year.
Relationships with ratings of transfer at Time 3. Correlation analysis at Time
3 revealed an additional correlate of transfer to those occurring at Time 2. After
one year autonomy became a highly significant correlate with transfer, as well
as motivation and relevance/usefulness of the course (p < 0.01). As before,
management support correlated with transfer at the 5 per cent level (p < 0.05)
(see Table I).
It was predicted that transfer after one month (Time 2) would predict later
transfer (Time 3) and that the other predictor variables would be of additional
importance. A hierarchical regression analysis was carried out in order to
investigate this relationship entering Time 2 transfer as an independent
variable on the first step. The results of this are shown in Table III.
Independent variable Beta R-square R-square change
Predicting
transfer of
Step 1 0.39 training
Transfer at Time 2 0.62**
Step 2 0.40 0.00
Transfer at Time 2 0.57**
Motivation to transfer 0.06 209
Self-efficacy 0.07
Step 3 0.59 0.19**
Transfer at Time 2 0.30*
Motivation to transfer 0.32*
Self-efficacy –0.02
Management support 0.16
Autonomy 0.43**
Notes:
* p < 0.005 Table III.
** p < 0.01 Regression analysis on
N = 45 transfer at Time 3

On the first step, transfer at Time 2 was a significant predictor of transfer at

Time 3 (p < 0.01), accounting for 39 per cent of the variance. On the second step,
trainee characteristics did not cause a significant change in the variance
explained, nor were they significant predictors at this stage. However, after
adding the environmental variables on the third step, more variance was
explained (59 per cent), a significant increase of 0.19 (p < 0.01), and motivation
became a significant predictor (p < 0.05) along with transfer at Time 2 (p < 0.05)
and autonomy (p < 0.01).

Discussion
The results suggest that trainees’ perceptions of the relevance and usefulness of
the course and their motivation to transfer skills are key variables in
determining the level of transfer of training they feel they have achieved after
one month. In other words, if new skills are to be transferred to the workplace,
trainees first need to feel that the course is relevant to their jobs, and must also
be committed to using what they have learned. The importance of these
variables in the present study is consistent with findings in previous research
(e.g. Goldstein, 1986; Mathieu et al., 1992). The environmental variables
measured, however, do not appear to have a significant effect during this initial
period, which runs counter to predictions (e.g. Marx, 1982).
After one year the most important factors influencing trainees’ self-rated
transfer appear to be the amount they believe they have transferred after one
month, the degree of autonomy in their jobs, and their original motivation to use
what they have learned. Thus, the key predictors of transfer after one year are
slightly different from those after one month.
Personnel Trainee-rated transfer of training at one month was a significant predictor of
Review trainee-rated transfer after one year, and as such plays an important role in the
sustained use of these skills. As in other studies (e.g. Baldwin and Ford, 1988;
26,3 Noe, 1986), the results imply that the period immediately after the course may
be critical in laying the foundations for future skill use. Support for this notion
can be found in the present study, where trainee rated levels of skill did not
210 change much between one month and one year; hence trainees probably
transfer key skills in the first month, with little additional transfer occurring
subsequently. It follows that the predictors of trainee rated transfer after one
month have an indirect effect on longer term transfer, that is, course
relevance/usefulness and trainee motivation (the determinants of initial
transfer) indirectly determine longer-term transfer.
Additionally, in the long term, those who have more control over the way
they work may find they can create more opportunities to use new skills than
those who have less autonomy in their jobs. This idea is in keeping with the
findings of Ford and colleagues (1992), that a key factor affecting transfer of
training to the job is having the opportunity to use learned skills. Being free to
create these opportunities may be critical to the sustained application of trained
skills. Autonomy appears to have the strongest effect on longer term transfer,
although having a good base of initial transfer and high motivation to seek out
opportunities to use the skills are also important.
In opposition to findings in previous research (Ford et al., 1992; Huczynski
and Lewis, 1980), in this study managers do not appear to have a significant
effect on transfer after partialling out the effect of other variables. However, in
informal discussion, members of the participating organization commented
that the amount of control employees have over their work is largely a result of
the autonomy given to them by their managers. In this study, managerial
support and autonomy were indeed correlated. This raises issues about the role
of managers in the effective transfer of training which will be discussed further
later. It could be argued that conceptual overlap exists between management
support and autonomy, and that because of this, the effect of managerial
support may have been masked in the regression. However, while these
concepts are certainly likely to be related, the correlation coefficient between the
two is only moderate (0.31) and it therefore seems likely that two connected but
distinct factors have been measured here.
Although self-efficacy has been found to be important in other studies (e.g.
Ford et al., 1992; Tannenbaum et al., 1991) it was not correlated with transfer
ratings here. The evidence in this study suggests that having high initial
transfer, autonomy or motivation are more powerful ways of overcoming
obstacles to transfer than high self-efficacy. However, self-efficacy is related to
motivation in this study, and so it may influence transfer via motivation. This
relationship could be considered further in future research. As before, there is a
possibility of conceptual overlap between these two variables, but again, the
correlation coefficient is only moderate (0.38). In addition, they are not
correlated in the same way with other variables, which suggests the existence
of two different constructs.
Implications Predicting
A number of important implications arise from these findings. Initial skill transfer of
transfer appears to be a key predictor of longer term transfer. Ensuring that
trainees successfully transfer learned skills in the period immediately following
training
their return to work is therefore desirable. This may not only mean providing
opportunity and encouragement for skill use, but could additionally involve
providing trainees with training-related goals to be attained in the first month 211
back at work.
Because of the link between initial and subsequent transfer, determinants of
initial skill use may be of considerable importance in improving the long term
utility of organizational training programmes. That employees perceive courses
as relevant to their jobs is clearly critical. Effort should be made not only to
ensure that courses are relevant and tailored to meet specific needs, but also
that they are perceived as such by potential attendees. Thus, not only the
delivery, but the presentation and marketing of courses in an organization
should be considered important functions of the training department.
Related to this is the finding that trainees’ motivation to transfer learned
skills is a prominent predictor of trainee ratings of transfer one month and one
year after the course. Those who were originally more motivated are likely to
put more effort into initially transferring and subsequently maintaining a high
level of use of trained skills. It is therefore central to the success of a training
programme that employees are fully motivated to transfer what they have
learned on courses. Managers may be influential here in fostering positive
attitudes to training, learning and development within the work environment.
Such practice, related to the internal marketing of training programmes
discussed above, is consistent with the approach that is found in companies
seeking to develop a “learning organization” culture.
One year on from training, workplace autonomy was found to play an
important role in skill transfer. It was suggested earlier that employees who
have control over the way they work may find it easier to try out new skills. By
ensuring staff have adequate levels of autonomy in their jobs, the organization
can be quite instrumental in facilitating the transfer of training to the
workplace. However, clearly, autonomy at work is only likely to be beneficial
when employees have achieved a certain level of competence in what they do,
which again has implications for managers. As time passes and trainees feel
increasingly comfortable with their trained skills, they will benefit from being
in an environment where they can find more opportunities to use these new
skills. Where possible, managers should be encouraged to help create such an
environment.
As with much human resource management practice, an integrated
approach is most likely to lead to effective change. In this instance, it is
important to ensure that initial skill use, motivation and autonomy are all
present to promote sustained transfer. Thus, fostering positive attitudes to
training and learning, making sure the courses are relevant, clearly
communicating the benefit of courses, and then ensuring that staff have
adequate initial practice and subsequent freedom later to find opportunities to
Personnel use those skills, are together likely to maximize the utility of work-based
Review training programmes.
26,3
Study limitations and future work
The results must be interpreted in the light of the study’s limitations. One such
limitation is the relatively small sample size, which is lower than desirable for
212 the regression analysis. Because this study has mainly relied on self-ratings, it
could be argued that the significant results obtained with these ratings are a
methodological artefact. However, while the simultaneous measurement of
independent variables at Time 1 may have meant that one rating was
influenced by another, we can have more confidence in the trainees’ ratings of
transfer, which were taken at two different times (Times 2 and 3) and both some
time after the assessment of the dependent variables. These course skills are
difficult to measure objectively, and also the importance of how much trainees
believe they have transferred skills should not be underestimated. As the self-
management approach implies, how trainees themselves feel about different
stimuli can be significant in the successful application of trained skills (Wexley
and Baldwin, 1986). In addition, the relatively high correlation between trainee
and manager ratings lends further support to the validity of these ratings.
Another limitation of this exploratory study was that no pre-measures of the
use of these skills were available prior to the course. Levels of transfer may have
remained similar between one month and one year because the trainees were
using these skills anyway. However, trainees were explicitly directed to consider
the recent application of trained skills and their improvements in trained areas.
Also, the trainees’ ratings of the levels of new skills and knowledge they felt
they had acquired at the course would seem to go against such an
interpretation. In any case, without a control group (always difficult to set up in
naturalistic organizational research), the difference between pre- and post-
training behaviours cannot conclusively be attributed to training (Tracey et al.,
1995). Certainly it is still possible without pre-measures to see the changes
occurring over time between the various course, trainee, and work environment
factors examined, and post-training behaviours (Tracey et al., 1995).
Bearing in mind the important effect of trainees’ motivation to transfer,
future research should examine possible antecedents of this motivation,
perhaps in part by studying the relationship between self-efficacy and
motivation more closely. In addition it should be noted that this study
considered only the transfer of interpersonal skills training. It is possible that
the importance of key variables will vary with the skills to be transferred.
Future researchers should therefore consider different types of trained skills
and knowledge in seeking to extend our understanding of the factors affecting
the short term and sustained application of training to the workplace.

References
Baldwin, T. and Ford, J.K. (1988), “Transfer of training: a review and directions for future
research”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 41, pp. 63-105.
Decker, P.J. (1982), “The enhancement of behaviour modeling training of supervisory skills by the Predicting
inclusion of retention processes”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 32, pp. 323-32.
Dodgson, M. (1993), “Organizational learning: a review of some literatures”, Organization Studies,
transfer of
Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 375-94. training
Ford, J.K., Quinones, M., Sego, D. and Sorra, J. (1992), “Factors affecting the opportunity to
perform trained tasks on the job”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 45, pp. 511-27.
Gagne, R.M. (1962), “Military training and principles of learning”, American Psychologist,
Vol. 17, pp. 83-91. 213
Gist, M., Bavetta, A.G. and Stevens, C.K. (1990), “Transfer training method: its influence on skill
generalisation, skill repetition and performance level”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 43,
pp. 501-23.
Gist, M., Stevens, C. and Bavetta, A. (1991), “Effects of self efficacy and post training interventions
of the acquisition and maintenance of complex interpersonal skills”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 44, pp. 837-61.
Goldstein, I. (1986), Training in Organizations: Needs Assessment Development and Evaluation,
(2nd ed.), Brooks Cole, Pacific Grove, CA.
Huczynski, A. and Lewis, J. (1980), “An empirical study into the learning transfer process in
management training”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 17, pp. 227-40.
Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1967), “Evaluation of training”, in Craig, R.L and Bittel, L.R. (Eds), Training &
Development Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 87-112.
Marx R.D. (1982), “Relapse prevention for managerial training; a model for maintenance of
behaviour change”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 433-41.
Mathieu, J., Tannenbaum, S. and Salas, E. (1992), “Influences of individual and situational
characteristics on measures of training effectiveness”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 35, pp. 828-47.
Noe, R. (1986), “Trainee’s attributes and attitudes: neglected influences on training effectiveness”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 39, pp. 497-523.
Noe, R. and Schmitt, N. (1986), “The influence of trainee attitudes on training effectiveness: test of
a model”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 39, pp. 497-523.
Patrick, J. (1992), Training: Research and Practice, Academic Press, London.
Robertson, I. and Downs, S. (1979), “Learning and the prediction of performance: development of
trainability testing in the United Kingdom”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 64, pp. 42-55.
Saari, L.M., Johnson, T.R., McLaughlin, S.D. and Zimmerle. D.M. (1988), “A survey of management
training and education practices in US companies”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 41, pp. 731-43.
Tannenbaum, S. and Yukl, G. (1992), “Training and development in work organizations”, Annual
Review of Psychology, Vol. 43, pp. 399-441.
Tannenbaum, S., Mathieu, J., Salas, E. and Cannon-Bowers, J. (1991), “Meeting trainees’
expectations: the influence of training fulfilment on the development of commitment, self
efficacy and motivation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76, pp. 759-69.
Tracey, J.B., Tannenbaum, S.I. and Kavanagh, M.J. (1995), “Applying trained skills on the job: the
importance of the work environment”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 2,
pp. 239-52.
Tziner, A., Haccoun, R.R. and Kadish, A. (1991), “Personal and situational characteristics
influencing the effectiveness of transfer of training improvement strategies”, Journal of
Occupational Psychology, Vol. 64, pp. 167-77.
Vandenput, M. (1973), “The transfer of training: some organizational variables”, Journal of
European Training, Vol. 2, pp. 251-62.
Wexley K.N. and Baldwin, T.T. (1986), “Post training strategies for facilitating positive transfer:
an empirical exploration”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29, pp. 508-20.