Factors Affecting Training Effectiveness

Factors Affecting Training Effectiveness: Meta-Analysis and Revision of Learning Effort
Model
Author(s): Omer Bin Sayeed
Source: Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Oct., 1998), pp. 193-211
Published by: Shri Ram Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27767586 .
Accessed: 28/06/2014 17:18
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Shri Ram Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Indian Journal of Industrial Relations.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 193.105.245.150 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:18:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
IJIR,Vol. 34, No. 2, October 1998
FACTORS AFFECTING TRAINING

EFFECTIVENESS: META-ANALYSIS AND
REVISION OF LEARNING EFFORT MODEL
Omer Bin Sayeed
Thepresent
studyexamined
viability
ofLearning Model
Effort
(Biswas, 1998) in the lightof hierarchical regressionanalysis
and canonical correlationtechniqueapplied throughre-analysis
ofcorrelationmatrix. The proposedmodel had putforth learning
effort as a function of career utility and organisational
commitment,besidesproposingfirst and second level variables
thatpresumably influencedtraining impact in organisations.
Our re-analysiscontendedtheissue ofnot including interaction
termof otliervariables in themodel (Biswas, 1998). The main
findings obtained by us suggestedneed for revising themodel
to accommodate job involvement and career utility having
greater importance in themodel instead of career utility and
organisationalcommitmentoriginallytestedbyBiswas. Further,
itwas also shown that learning effort,career and job utility
factors as a linear composite is signifcantlyrelated to a set of
antecedentswhich includesourcecredibilty, job involvementand
decision involvementin tliatorder.
INTRODUCTION
The learning effortsput in by participants of a programme

and the subsequent application in the back-home situation are
significantdimensions calling forequal attention from the training
Dr. Omer Din Sayeed is Professor ofOrganisational Behaviour, National Institute

of Industrial Engineering, Vihar Lake, Mumbai.

194 Indian Journalof IndustrialRelations
manager, participants themselves and the organisational policy

makers. The trainingmanager's role is to invoke specific training
functions such as conducting trainingneeds assessment, designing
and executing programme modules in a sequential order,
motivating trainees tomake effortsin the trainingprocess and then
determining the extent towhich learning is transferredfor job and
organisational applications. The organisation by virtue of itshuman
resources policies is expected to visualize and create such features
of organisational climate that can facilitate transferof training. In
thisprocess employees are expected to genuinely adopt a posture
of implementing some or all of the ingredients of actionable
knowledge (Argyris, 1996).
Theoretically, it is believed that such an important function like

training performed with due sincerity (trainingmatching with
work related need deficiency, delivery of training input and
evaluation of training output) would eventually yield benefits to
the organisation. Whether thisbenefit is accruing immediately or
at a later stage isof concern to theparties involved, namely, trainees,
training manager and the organisation as a whole. Training
functions in successful companies are performedwith a distinction
between forward financial return?and
"pay-back"?straight
"pay-forward" a termused to describe the benefits from training
in termsof the firm'sability to learn and change (Lee, 1996). Both
of the above mentioned goals are achieved by the successful
companies with equally strong zeal. The other companies wherein
-
"pay-back' is more important and "pay-forward" is less valued
seem to experience lesserdegree of adaptabilitywhen timechanges
in termsofmarket conditions, technological bases and the quality
ofhuman resources available within thecompany.Hence, successful
companies with sophisticated training system look forward to
gaining training support for building corporate strategy and
sustaining change process much more frequently than theydo for
immediate financial returns.
the above, in many less successful companies

Costrasting
training is imparted routinelywithout proper assessment of its
impact on the organisation for each one of the parties believed
thatdoing is importantrather than regularly assessing the imediate
financial gains or long termbenefits such as learning and adaptive

Factors AffectingTraining Effectiveness:
Meta-Analysis 195
transformation. In.otherwords, it is stronglybelieved thatnicely

executing a function ismuch significant than evaluating positive
impact of the training programmes. Following reasons seem to
account forthedecision ofnot initiatingan assessment programme
of the training impact:
*
A feel of organisation that has absorbed new learning
kindled through trainingprogrammes isdifficulttoobtain
due to lack of objectivity and prevalent assumption that
training is simplymeant fordeveloping people only.
*
Inadequate knowledge ofmodem tools and techniques of
assessing trainingmpact in the organisation.
*
Lack of drive on thepart ofmanagement to visualize and
monitor growth curve forhuman resources utilization as
objectively as possible so as to activate "pay-forward"
mechanism.
As a result of the above experiences, the training impact

assessment is seldom attempted as compared to participants'
general reactions to the programme which include delivery of
training, training related facilities and the comforts provided by
the training organizers. The direct connections between learning
effortsmade by theparticipants and the training transferclimate
of the organisation could have provided a basis for the
management to assess whether theplace ofwork is amendable to
enhance core competencies of the employees. If it is not so, the
remedial measures could be taken up to realign learning efforts
and training transferclimate, enabling the organisation to achieve
immediate financial gains through improved work performance
and long termorganisational change and development.
On the other hand, the current research scenario concerning

the impact of training assessment through sophisticated research
design isnot very encouraging in the Indian context.Often, interest
has been shown with respect to how training can lead to
performance improvement in thework environment. The Indian
organisations, however, contended themselves with subjective
internalreportsdescribing nature, number and typeofprogrammes

conducted and the reactions of trainees regarding various features

of theprogrammes. The evaluation of performance improvement
in the supervisory and management cadre jobs,
involving complex
mental processes, are generally sidelined. Sayeed (1986) has
critically appraised two such attempts of training evaluation
undertaken in the Indian context with a view to highlight the
shortcomings in the framework of researches in this area. Until
recently what has been reported on evaluation of training?
specifically linking training imparted and the degree of training
implementation achieved?is meager enough to warrant any
mention.
Thus, thealternatives forovercoming several ticklishproblems

associated with training impact assessment need to be identified.
As against a complex research design for evaluating
training
impact in organisations, which is often difficult to evolve, it seems
easy to establish strong connections between several training
process variables, individuals' motivation or expectancy, learning
effortsmade by the trainees and the perceived training transfer
climate (Clark, Dobbins and Ladd, 1993; Facteau, Dobbins and
Russell, 1995; Biswas, 1998). If the linkages were found to be
stronger, itmay indicate training impact to a reasonable extent,
even though
methodoligically thedesign of research could be faulty
to some extent.
In view of the fact thatvery littlework has been done to

explore
various dimensions of learning effort,Clark et als (1993) research
in theWestern context and Biswas study of similar factors in the
Indian organisational settings are to be recognised as useful
attempts. In comparison with Kirkpatrick's classicalfour levelmodel
(viz., (1) how well trainees liked the programme; (2) what
knowledge theygained; (3) how it changed their job behaviours;
and (4) how this benefited the organisation), the above noted
studies explored such features of the programme which were
intrinsicto thebackground and execution of trainingand also dealt
with trainees' attitudes and behaviours during the training event.
The process factors dealing with utility to the individuals were
explored with greater emphasis on theknowledge gained, i.e. their
attempted learning effort.Itneeds mention thatone's development
in organisation is proportional to the
learning effortmade by

Meta-Analysis 197
oneself. To what extent such learning effortsare translated into

actual application on the job need to be verified from seniors
concerned. If superior's are favourable, it can be concluded
ratings
that traning is successful inmaking its desired impact on the
individuals.
BRIEF REVIEW OF STUDIES
Coffman (1990) proposed that Training Impact Assessment

(TIA) Model helps managers evaluate the effectiveness of training
programmes by involving both managers and executives. The
process is a company-wide efforttogather data on theeffectiveness
of employee trainingprogrammes, and sharing positive, negative
and unachieved results. In line with above, Imberman (1993)
showed that 32 of the 42 companies surveyed reported varying
results of supervisory training focussed on such topics as to how
to teach a job, give an order, deal with absenteeism, distribute the
work and delegate. As against a success rate of 76 per cent, the
other 10 companies (or 24 per cent) failed to report improvement
in supervisory behaviour and the overall management of the
factory.
Self-efficacywas proposed as a variable thathad substantial

implications for training effectiveness (Mathieu, Martineau, and
Tannenbaum, 1993).Mid-course efficacywas stated tohave linear
tieswith training reactions and subsequent performance, and an
interactive tiewith performance when training reactions were
considered as a moderator. All of thehypothesized antecedents of
mid-course self-efficacy were substantial except foraggregate and
individual situational constraints, yet both constraints related
negatively to training reactions. Besides, significant positive
influences on reactions and were
training subsequent performance
seen. A model of individual and situational influences on
individual's trainingrelatedmotivation and trainingwas also tested
byMathieu, Tannenbaum and Salas (1992). The findings supported
thehypothesized relationship between learning and performance.
In view of obtaining minimal support for the hypothesized
antecedents of training related motivation, a revised model was
formulated inwhich reactions to trainingplay a complex role of
moderating some relationships yet mediating others, thereby

emphasizing the content and process pact of the trainingand the

associated positive reactions to theprogramme itself.
Ostroff (1991) developed a new measure of training

effectiveness that comprised of scripted situation and also used
expert and empirical scoring schemes for such measurements. It
was hypothesized that thenew measure which was based on job
related scenarios, would be more sensitive to the detection of
change due to training than would more traditional training
criteria, such as behaviour and performance rating scales. Results
of the study confirmed thehypothesis, as significant trainingeffects
were found for the new assessment measure.
only training
Whether or not enduring behaviour and life styles are

drastically influencedby trainingwas examined by Parsons (1990).
An analysis of questionnaire responses from 150 past participants
in a division of labour studies stress education course shows that
thematerials distributed and the programme were retained and
used. The programmes were not effective inprompting individual
lifestyle changes.
Return on training investment being an evaluation technique

was observed that
was applied by Pine and Tingley (1993). It
Kirkpatrick's classic evaluation model, includingmeasurement of
company's return on investment can be applied to soft-skills
training such as problem solving, team building, communication
and stressmanagement. The evaluation of a two day course in
team building with the maintenance team that repair
manufacturing machines showed a return on investment of 125
per cent.
M?hr Consulting Firm (1991) used video-tape based evaluation

scheme of judging behavioural changes resulting from soft-skill
training, viz. leadership behaviour. The simulated leadership
situations before and after leadership trainingwere videotaped
and then judges assessed the tapes. Itwas concluded that the
technique provided hard evidence on individuals' behavioural
changes in leadership situations resulting from the soft skill
training.Efficacyof video-tape methods forevaluating behavioural
was independently
changes, as used in the previous study,

Meta-Analysis 199
confirmed inHewlett-Packard's leadership simulation studies. It

was concluded that thebefore and after assessment of leadership
simulation helped participants to formuseful new ideas about
managing technical professionals in their respective divisions.
An empirical study of 50 Canadian organisations provided

with positive resultswith respect to training impact inorganisations
resulting fromwell designed human resources development
programmes (Benabou, 1996). Itwas concluded thatdifferentkinds
of training contributed to increased productivity and cost
attainment. Key performance indices were specifically linked to
changes in job behaviour of trainees and application of training
material.
The aspects of pre-trainingmotivation and perceived training

transferwas addressed in an empirical study that covered 967
managers and supervisors (Facteau, Dobbins and Russel, 1995).
Structural equation analysis of questionnaire responses indicated
that the overall reputation of training, intrinsic and compliance
incentives, organisational commitment, and subordinate,
supervisor and top management support were predictive of
trainingmotivation. Pretrainingmotivation and subordinate, peer,
and supervisory support were predictive ofmanager's perceived
training transfer.
Utilizing Multi-attribute Utility Analysis Model (MUAM),

Morrow, Jarrett and Rupinski (1997) evaluated results of 18 training
programmes in a Fortune 500 pharmaceutical company. Itwas
found thatgreat variation existed between the effectiveness of the
programmes. Managerial trainingwas found to have less effect
and utility (mean Return On Investment [ROI]=45 per cent) than
sales and technical training (Mean ROI=418 per cent).
Saks (1996) examined the relationship between the amount

and helpfulness of entry training and work outcomes for
newcomers during organisational socialisation. The resultsobtained
from the analysis of 152 newly hired entry level professionals
indicated that the amount of training received by newcomers was
significantly related to job satisfaction, commitment, intention to
quit, ability to cope and severalmeasures of job performance. The

perception of helpfulness of trainingwas significantly related to

job satisfaction, commitment and intention to quit beyond that
explained by training.
THE PRESENT STUDY
The evaluation of learning effort indicative of training impact

in organization can also be studied by including additional
organisation related parameters concerned with managerial role
actualisation that would enable participants to increase role
motivation forperformance and building a positive organisational
climate. The inclusion of role actualisation variable (viz. role
efficacy)helps assessing the degree towhich individual is able to
activate his role and the extent organisation is supportive of
desirable role behaviours. Probably, this could serve the purpose
of furtherwork in this area. The present study has a specific goal
of evaluating conceptual framework of Biswas (1998) study and
performingmeta-analysis to revise themodel by adding or deleting
some of itscomponents thatare not properly fitting into themodel.
It is proposed that thispaper would also serve as a precursor to
our futurestudywith role actualization as an additional parameter
in themodel. In the process of present meta-analytic exploration
the framework of learning effortwill be furtherrevised to test the
criticality of various components of themodel and a set of
antecedents and the outcome variables would be defined ofwhich
learning effortwould be one of them.
COMPONENTS OF THEMODEL
Biswas (1998) has proposed an extension of themodel of

learning effortin Indian settingusing baseline researches ofClarke
et al (1993) and Facteau et al (1995). The extended model
enunciated that learning effortwas the final outcome and source
credibility,trainingtransferclimate and job involvement (providing
motivational force)were the first level antecedents. The second
level antecedents were career utility and job utility.This set also
included organisational commitment stated to have influenced
learning effort.Using regression analysis themodel of learning
effort was interpretedtohave been supported by direct and indirect
paths. In brief,as interpretedby Biswas, decision involvement and

Meta-Analysis 201
source credibility contributed to career utility,whereas source

credibility and job involvement contributed to job utility and
organisational commitment. Training transfer climate being the
first level antecedent had a path to job utility being the second
level antecedent. Both the second level variables as antecedents to
learning effortwere career utility and organisational comitment.
The variable of job utility failed to establish its path to learning
effort in themodel.
A reappraisal of the model indicates apparent flaws.

Conceptually and also in terms of sequential importanceofvariables
decision involvement and source credibilityshould be the firstlevel
antecedents followed by career utility and job utility factors.These
two levels should be followed by positivemotivational forcecreated
by one's job involvement and commitment togetherwith training
transfer climate as positive and supportive aspect of the
organisation that can aid in implementing transferof training.The
Biswas approach followed selective linkages between the levels of
variables without assessing impact of first level variables on the
learning effortwhile other variables were also present. Defining
selective paths may explain linkages between firstand second level
of variables, butmay not clearly explain actual impact on the final
outcome variable, viz. learning effort. In effect, themodel as
extended by Biswas, did not assess the impact of firstand second
levelvariables in relation to learningeffort
mad? by theparticipants.
Thus, the regression results explained paths between first level
variables and second level variables and similarly second level
variables and the learning effortas final outcome of themodel.
The interactiveeffectsof firstand second level variables while they
were all present have not been fully tested. The simple inter
correlationmatrix is suggestive ofunilateral relationships but not
necessarily the interactive relationships among the variables. The
obtained path coefficients, in no way, represented interactive or
moderated effects of several variables of themodel on learning
effort.
In view of the above, it is necessary to understand the

conceptual linkages between various parameters of themodel and
the learning effortin an interactiveway rather than in a simplistic
way. Conceptually, itneeds tobe clarified that thenegative effects

of training transferclimate are more likely to disturb or nullify

learning effort.Hence, there is a need to assess themoderating
effect of training transfer climate on the learning effort of
participants in the finalmodel in which several variables are
simultaneously used in a manner that conform to a conceptual
scheme. The analysis of path diagram demands conceptual
strengths of themodel wherein all possible combinations are
explicitly tested.
In this connection the alternative ways of establishing paths

call for defining conceptual linkages firstand then establishing
paths between conceptually defined variables and final outcome
of themodel. The paths of intermediate variables would suggest
firstand second level contributionat each levelwhen otherpotential
variables are present. Thus, all the variables' influences over the
final outcome are to be established to communicate the
completeness of themodel inwhich finaloutcome (learning effort)
receivesmaximum number of paths. In view of theabove we have
envisaged that the appropriate methods could be hierarchical
regression analysis and canonical correlation technique tobe used
with defined levels of variables in themodel.
META-ANALYSIS
In order to retest themodel using above logic the inter

correlationmatrix of Biswas (1998) study was used. The firstand
second level variables were taken as per the depicted model. The
reanalysis followed the logic as discussed above. More specifically,
hierarchical regression approach was chosen to include a set of
variables in sequential blocks and the obtained standardized
regression coefficients (path coefficients) were tested for their
significant contribution to themodel. Further analysis for testing
multivariate effectsof variables between a set of antecedents (i.e.
decision involvement, training transfer climate, source credibility,
job involvement, organisational commitment) and consequents (i.e.

job utility,career utility and learning effort)were testedusing SPSS
Manova version 6.1 (Norusis/Spss Inc., 1994) which provides
as
canonical correlation part of its output. The canonical correlation
technique provides a sound basis of evaluating theextent towhich

predictor and criterionvariables as linear composites of variables

Meta-Analysis 203
influenced each other of which learning effort is one of the

significantoutcomes. The other functional aaspects such as utility
of training for job performance as well as forone's career building
(job utilityand careerutilitydimensions) are also equally important
factorsof themodel. In a similarway predictor variables may not
be taken as factors contributing individually; rather they seem to
contribute interactively and together.Hence, themultiplicative
effectsof several variables in each predictor and criterion set are
fully reflected in the canonical correlation analysis.
MAJOR FINDINGS
In comparison with Biswas (1998) findings our re-analysis of
the inter-correlationmatrix showed differentcombinations. (Table
1). was
It noted that career utility emerged as a strong contributing
factor as also found by Biswas, but organisational commitment
factorwhich was heavily weighted inBiswas model was sidelined
and replaced by job involvement dimension. In termsof thedirect
path to learning effort, career utility emerged as a strong
contributing factormaking othervariables redundant in themodel.
Similarly/organisational commitmentwhich was said to indicate
a direct path to learning effort (Biswas, 1998) failed to assert itself
in the hierarchical regression model and gave way to job
involvement thatdirectly influenced learning effort. Itmeans that
in order tomake learning efforts to be successful, participants
should have higher job levelmotivation rather thanhigher level of
commitment to the organisation. As a net effect, the participants
tended to perceive a strong connection between utility of training
for career building and strong valence towards learning effort.
It is furtherinterestingtonote that simple correlational results

indicated importance of first level variables as depicted in the
original testedmodel (Figure 1). The firstlevelvariables as observed
related positively with second level variables. It seems firstand
second level variables shared higher level of commonality with
the learning effort. However, the actual test of hierarchical
regression at the third level showed non-significant influence of
several variables excepting careerutilityand job involvement.What
ismore important in the path analysis is the test of predictor
variables thathave significantlypredicted increased learning effort

of theparticipants. The path diagram presented by Biswas showed

a patterned relationshipwithout testingactual contribution of first
level variables in different combination with respect to learning
effort.This sort of artificially designed pattern of a model may
demonstrate paths between firstand second level of variables,
second and third level of variables butmay not empirically validate
and confirm the path-based linkages among the stated variables
of themodel, inwhich interactiveeffectsof predictor variables are
fully accounted for.
.19?(.18)
Decision
Involvement
.22*(.22) .27"(31)
Source I Career
Credibility Utility
21"[M
Training
Transfer
Climate
Job Learning
Utility Effort
29** (.33)
Job
Involvement
27** (.40)
.22**(28)
.34**(.45) Organisational
Commitment
Figure 1:Results/romthePathAnalysis
Note:Unsupportedpaths are indicatedbydashed lines.
Figures inpalenthesisare zero-ordercorrelations.*p<.05,Mp<.01.
Source : Biswas (1998), p.323.
As an additional attempt to test the model more

comprehensively, we explored thepossibility of testing themodel
with multiple criteria and multiple predictors inwhich learning
was one of the criteria.For thepurpose, theutility aspects of
effort
training (viz. careerutilityand job utilty) and theamount of learning
effortsparticipants put in the training programmes served the

Meta-Analysis 205
objective ofmultiple criteria.The antecedents of training such as

decision involvement, training transferclimate, source credibility,
job involvement, and organisational commitmentwere proposed
tobe themultiple predictors of themodel.
Using the above framework canonical correlation analysis is

reported in Table 2. It can be observed that the findings include
goodness of fit (canonical correlations up to two roots) between 5
predictor variables or trainingantecedents and 3 criteriaof training
utility or consequents. The specific contribution of each of the
antecedents and the consequents to the respective canonical variate
or linear composites are reported along with the percentages of
variances associated with each canonical function.These findings
clearly reflect the interactive effects of several criterion and
predictor variables simltaneously assessed by the statistical
technique.
It can be observed that the significant canonical correlations

up to two roots, the criteria and predictor correlations separately
with their respective canonical variables were high enough to
suggest importance of career utility and learning effort. In
conformitywith regression analysis, thepresent findings showed
career utility as a contributing factor to the respective canonical
variable rather than the job utility, which Biswas originally
identified. Further, among predictor variables, source credibility,
job involvement and decision involvement in that order turned
out tobe equally importantparameters. The percentages ofvariance
(redundancy analysis) explained by criterion and predictor
variables separately were 17.8 and 16.1 respectively. Surprisingly
training transferclimate, being a crucial predictor failed to suggest
direct effect.However, indirectlyat the second root the correlation
of training transfer climate with respective canonical variable
turned out to be substantially high.
DISCUSSION
The model presented by Biswas (1998) as an extension ofClark

et als (1993) model does not appear to be viable in view of the
reasons below:
given

1. The path coefficients suggested relationships among the

selected components of themodel, which are presumed to reflect
indirect relationship with the criterion variable namely learning
effort,without explicitly testing contribution of first and second
level components of themodel. The main factorof themodel being
learning effortneed to be predicted using differentcombinations
of the predictor variables. The model's firstand second level
variables are adequately conceptualised yet the path coefficients
only defined paths fromfirst level to second level and fromsecond
level to third level thereby indirectlyrather thandirectlypredicting
learning effortof the participants.
2. There was a need to test the interactive effects among

predictor variables vis-a-vis criterion variables either through a
hierarchical regression approach or through a unique process of
selecting variables thatexpress hypothesized relationships between
predictors and criteriondimensions. The path coefficientspresented
in the Biswas (1998) study related to job utility,career utility and
organisational commitment (second level variables) ofwhich latter
two dimensions had paths to learning effort,but they failed to
relate togetherwith the learning effortthough simple correlations
have shown many significant relationships.
In view of the above, when hierarchical regression was used

with explicit combination of variables entering into the equation
in specific hierarchical blocks, it showed change in statistical
significance for the source credibilityvariable consistently across
two hierarchical levels. At the third level of entry, career utility
and job involvement continued tomaintain theirposition despite
the influence of other variables of themodel. This means, in the
final stage of the analysis, many predictor variables failed to
influence the learning effortsattempted by trainees.What appears
to be significant in the analysis is the greater valence for the job
involvement and stronger career building orientation among the
employees. The comparative value of job utility of training could
not be established in reference to career utility factor.Therefore,
it can be stressed that if the programme helps in building one's
career through skill acquisition leading to hierarchical growth of
the trainees it is likely to create strongmotivation for training
transfer in the back-home situation. What ismost surprising is

Meta-Analysis 207
the fact that training transferclimate failed to emerge as a factor

thathas no bearing on the training event whereas organisation's
value climate and facilitative conditions are often considered as
supportive factors for change and development (Facteau et al,
1995; Imberman, 1993; Bemthal, 1995). As an alternative to the
above model, multiple criteria vs. multiple predictor approach
has explained more variance thanwas possible by the generic
regression approach. In an organisational context learning effort
is expected to have linearitywith training transferclimate if it is
facilitative. It is equally useful to know that learning effort is a
function of the extent towhich the competency of people at the
workplace is used forbuilding one's career. Thus, the benefit of
learning effort is seen as a motivating force to take all the pains
for successful performance and bringing about a positive change
in the functioning of organisation. As a set of three criterion
variables predicted by 5 predictor variables in a multivariate
framework it confirmed a point of view that utility aspects of
training and learning effortsexerted by trainees forbuilding their
core competencies go hand inhand, thereby it seems to serve the
crucial purpose of the output factorof themodel. The predictor
variables comprising of sourcemotivation (one's job involvement,
organisational commitment, decisional involvement at the level
of self and source credibility experienced by the subordinates)
have clearly shown meaningful linkages with the criteria of
training impact.
CONCLUSION
It can be concluded that learning effort is a function of

trainees' ability to develop meaningful expectancy about career
utility of the training besides nurturing a deep sense of job
involvement. The stronger the integration of individual with his
job and itscore activities thegreater is the learning effortinitiated
and sustained by him. The alternativemodel as linear composites
of training related factors extended the learning effortmodel
further and comprehensively described more than one critical
factor of training effort.These factors are source credibility, job
involvement and decision involvement in that order as inputs to
training efforts.Nevertheless, in futurework, role efficacy (sense
of actualisation of managerial role) as an additional parameter

can also be considered to enhance the efficiency and usefulness

of themodel.
IMPLICATIONS
It needs to be recognised that training yields better results

when it is fully internalized and used by the employees as
actionable knowledge. The learning effortscould be greater yet
transferof knowledge to theworkplace could be short of desired
expectations due to participants' dearth ofmanagerial acumen
to conduct themselves tactfully.On the other hand, seasoned
employees may continue to put in lesser effortdue to numerous
mental blocks and organisationally reinforcedmindset which may
not allow learning effort to take place. For such individuals
learning in itselfcould be useful but itbecomes less transferable
in the context of organisation owing to negative salience of
training transferclimate intenselyexperienced by such employees.
If the organisation's policy makers develop a meaningful
framework inwhich these variables are fully integrated to give
maximum benefit, it is possible for the employees tomaximize
theirgains through training events organized and conducted by
the company. An involved employee sees many possibilities of
his growth and development. One's willful option to trainoneself
and the managerial willingness in the organisation to utilize
subordinates more effectivelywould create a productive and
committed workforce in the post training scenario.
REFERENCES
Argyris,C. (1996), "ActionableKnowledge: IntentVersus Actuality", JournalofApplied

Behavioural Science, 32 (4), 441-444.
Benabou, C. (1996), "Assessing the Impact of Training Programmes on the Botton

Line," National ProductivityReview, 15,91-96.
Biswas, S.N. (1998), "FactorsAffecting Training Effort: Influence of Involvement,

Credibility,Utility and Training TransferClimate, IndianJournalofIndustrial
Relations, 33(3), 313-327.
Clark,CS., Dobbins, G.H. and Ladd, R.T. (1993), "ExploratoryField Study ofTraining
Motivation: Influence of Involvement,Credibility and TransferClimate,"
Group and OrganisationManagement, 18,292-307.

Meta-Analysis 209
Cofferman, L. (1990), "Involving Managers in Training Evaluation," Training and

Development Journal,44,77-80.
Facteau, J.D.,Dobbins, G.H. and Russell, J.E. (1995), "The Influence of General
of the Training Environment on Motivation and
Perceptions Pre-training
Perceived Training Transfer,"Journalof
Management, 21,1-25,
Hewlett-Packard (1992), "Hewlett-Packard's Technical Leadership Programme/'

Supervision, 53,18-19.
Imberman,W. (1993), "What ever Happened to Supervisory Training," Business

Horizons, 36, 75-78.
Lee, R. (1996), "The Pay-Forward' View of Training", PeopleManagement, 2,30-32.
Mathieu, J.E.,Tannenbaum, S.I., Salas, E (1992), "Influences of Individual and

Situational Characteristics onMeasures ofTraining Effectiveness,"Academy
ofManagement Journal,35, 828-847.
Mathieu, J.E.,Martineu, J.W., and Tannenbaum, S.I. (1993), "Individual and Situational
Influences on theDevelopment of Self-Efficacy:Implications forTraining
Effectiveness," PersonnelPsychology,46,125-147.
M?hr Consulting Firm (1991), "Evaluating Soft-skills Training," Training, 28,

14-15.
M.Q., and Rupinski, M.T. (1997), "An Investigation of the

Morrow, C.C., Jarrett,
Effect and Economic Utility of Corporate Wide Training," Personnel
Psychology,50,91-119.
Norusis, J/SPSS Inc. (1994), SPSS Manual Version 6.1, Chicago, II.: SPSS Inc.
Ostroff, C. (1991), "Training Effectiveness Measures and Scoring Schemes: A

Comparison, "PersonnelPsychology,44, 353-374.
Parsons, M.D. (1990), "Evaluation of a Four-step Model forTeaching Workers to

Deal with JobStress, Labour Studies Journal,15, 39-46.
Pine, J.and Tingley ]. (1993), "ROI of Soft-skillsTraining," Training,30,55-85.
Saks, A.M. (1996), 'The Relationship Between theAmount and Helpfulness ofEntry
and Work Outcomes," Human Relations, 49,429-451.
Training
a
Sayeed, O.B. (1986), "Evaluation ofManagement Training: Analysis of Neglected
Research Area," Indian Management, 25 (6), 12-18.

Table 1: Hierarchical Regression Analysis Between Learning Effort (Dependent)

and Three Levels of Variables as Independent Variables Suggested by
theModel
Hierarchical Level I Level IILevel HI

Levels
Variables Beta R2chg R2 Beta R2chg R2 Beta R2chg R2

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
_(%)
Decision .10
involvement
Source .26* 7.73
credibility
Decision .04
involvement
Source credibility .19*
Jobutility .06
Career utility .25* 6.23** 13.97**
Decision .02
involvement
Source credibility .09
Jobutility .00
Career utility .23**
Job involvement .19*
Organisational .12
commitment
Training transfer -.02 4.67 18.64

climate
.
**p<.01, *p<.05

Meta-Analysis 211
Table 2: Canonical Correlation Between Training Utility Variables (JobUtility,

Career Utility and Learning Effort) and Motivating Force
Root No. Wilks' Lamba Canonical R F ratio
I .58 .59 5.02**

II .88 .34 2.01*
Criterion Correlation with Predictor Correlation

Variables Canonical Variables with Canonical
Variable Variables
I II I II
Jobutility .20 -44Decision
involvement .69 -.19
Career utility .55 -.81 Training
transfer .38 .90
Learning effort .95 .03 Source .81 -.04

credibility
Job involvement .70 -.17
Organisational
commitment .45 .27
Redundancy(%) 14.45 3.33 Redundancy(%) 13.67 2.45


Factors Affecting Training Effectiveness

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Factors Affecting Training Effectiveness

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Factors Affecting Training Effectiveness: Meta-Analysis and Revision of Learning Effort

This content downloaded from 193.105.245.150 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:18:46 PM