The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1754-2731.htm

Training and continuous Training and

continuous
improvement: the moderation improvement

effect of transfer climate and the

mediation influence of self-efficacy
Pham Thu Trang Received 5 March 2023
Revised 20 June 2023
Banking Academy of Vietnam, Hanoi, Vietnam 11 July 2023
Accepted 13 July 2023

Abstract
Purpose – Although training is essential to continuous improvement, scant literature examines post-training
facilitators for continuous improvement. The study aims to explore the relationship between training and
continuous improvement, the mediating role of self-efficacy and the moderate role of training transfer climate.
Design/methodology/approach – This study utilizes the questionnaire survey of 455 Vietnamese
employees to test the link between continuous improvement training and continuous improvement, the
moderate role of the training transfer climate and the mediating role of self–efficacy.
Findings – Research results reveal that training positively influences continuous improvement. Furthermore,
self-efficacy fully intervenes in the link between training and continuous improvement. Finally, the training
transfer climate positively moderates this link.
Originality/value – Although the link between training and continuous improvement is suspicious, there is
scant research on post-training facilitators of continuous improvement applications. To the best of the author’s
knowledge, this study is one of the first to explore the moderation role of transfer climate and the mediation role
of self-efficacy in the relationship between training and continuous improvement.
Keywords Training for continuous improvement, Continuous improvement, Self-efficacy, Transfer climate,
An Asian developing country
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Continuous improvement is essential in total quality management, lean manufacturing, Six
Sigma and Lean Six Sigma (Singh and Singh, 2015; Bhuiyan and Baghel, 2005). Continuous
improvement refers to incremental innovation – small steps, high frequency and a
shortchange cycle (Bessant et al., 1994; Berger, 1997). If alone, its impact is insignificant, but in
the cumulative form, it can contribute significantly to firm performance (Berger, 1997). In
practice, continuous improvement is vital as it offers substantial benefits such as improving
financial performance (Beyhan Yasar et al., 2019; Khan et al., 2019), reducing operation costs
(Bessant et al., 1994; Nardella et al., 1995), upgrading product and service quality (Bessant
et al., 1994; Gr€
utter et al., 2002; Oprime et al., 2012; Godinho Filho and Uzsoy, 2014), enhancing
productivity (Gr€ utter et al., 2002; Oprime et al., 2012; Godinho Filho and Uzsoy, 2014) and
improving the level of customer satisfaction (Koval et al., 2018). Due to the above benefits,
businesses are pursuing a continuous improvement strategy (Singh and Singh, 2015) and
seeking to enhance continuous improvement effectiveness.
Acknowledging the necessity of continuous improvement in practice, numerous
companies worldwide implement continuous improvement programs; however, the high
failure percentage of those programs is reported in the literature (C^andido and Santos, 2011;

Funding: This work is a research output from the Research Working Group NCM.03.2023 (Group leader: The TQM Journal
Ph.D. Pham Thu Trang) of the Banking Academy of Vietnam and funded by the Banking Academy of © Emerald Publishing Limited
1754-2731
Vietnam. DOI 10.1108/TQM-02-2023-0066
TQM McLean et al., 2017). In a quest for the success of continuous improvement initiatives,
empirical studies explore exhibitors and inhibitors to implement those initiatives. By
surveying 109 businesses in Spain, Sanchez-Ruiz et al. (2020) argue that the three most
dominant impediments are time shortage, knowledge and experience scarcity and ambiguity
with the company’s objectives. Employing an in-depth interview with 14 managers from the
14 first-tier automotive suppliers in Valencia, Spain, Garcia-Sabater and Marin-Garcia (2011)
identify that the most critical facilitators and barriers to adopting continuous improvement
are management engagement, goal setting, the necessity to measure, lack of continuous
improvement manager, involvement of operators, availability of resources and
misunderstanding between concepts of lean manufacturing and continuous improvement.
Reviewing literature and utilizing the Delphi method, Jurburg et al. (2017) group continuous
improvement facilitators into ten groups, in which the most important groups are self-
efficacy, training, social influence and job satisfaction. By surveying 308 employees of a large
Spain company, Jurburg et al. (2019) contend that two predictors of employee engagement in
continuous improvement are ease of use and perceived usefulness. In turn, these predictors
are influenced by training, self-efficacy, continuous improvement alignment, communication,
continuous improvement method, organizational support, empowerment, social influence,
rewards and job satisfaction.
As mentioned above, human-related factors noticeably play critical roles in achieving the
effectiveness of continuous improvement programs (Jurburg et al., 2019). Hence, scholars and
practitioners have been paying attention to the impacts of human resource management
functions on continuous improvement. These functions include a system of rewards and
recognition (Chang, 2005; Kerrin and Oliver, 2002), training (Bushardt et al., 1994; Marin-
Garcia et al., 2008; Robinson and Schroeder, 1993; Assen and Marcel, 2021) and performance
appraisal using KPIs (Kang et al., 2016). Among these functions, training is confirmed as a
vital predictor of continuous improvement (Imai, 1986; Jurburg et al., 2019; Fryer et al., 2007;
McLean et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2002; Bessant et al., 1994). However, an insignificant relationship
between training and continuous improvement has been reported (Assen and Marcel, 2021;
Kaynak, 2003). Surveying 208 managers who are also studying MBA at a university in the
Netherlands, Assen and Marcel (2021) confirm that training has a direct relationship with
continuous improvement (β 5 0.16, p < 0.01, t 5 2.70) and an indirect linkage via employee
participation in continuous improvement. Kaynak (2003) surveys 214 employees, mainly the
presidents, vice presidents, directors, managers and coordinators, in the US. The results show
that training positively affects employee participation in the quality control circle (β 5 0.27,
p < 0.01, t 5 3.86). Hence, there is a need to explore strengthening factors in this relationship.
Moreover, the role of self-efficacy in the training-continuous improvement relationship has
been explored in several studies (Jurburg et al., 2017, 2019), but none of them, as far as the
author is concerned, confirm the mediating role. Finally, there is a shortage of research on
continuous improvement in developing Asian countries (Sanchez and Blanco, 2014).
Studies on continuous improvement in Vietnam have denoted that Vietnamese businesses
have been developing permanent continuous improvement but unique ones (Nguyen and
Robinson, 2010, 2015; Nguyen, 2011). The continuous improvement practices in Vietnam
depend heavily on suggestion systems, the application of lean production and the
implementation of quality and environment management systems such as ISO 9001 and
ISO 14001 (Nguyen, 2011). Although some large Vietnamese companies have change agents
to monitor continuous improvement practices, their roles are symbolic (Nguyen and
Robinson, 2010, 2015). Consequently, the number of suggestions per employee yearly is less
than one idea (Nguyen, 2011). The cited causes for this problem are a lack of understanding of
continuous improvement of both employees and executives due to the ignorance of the
importance of training (Nguyen and Robinson, 2015; Higuchi et al., 2015), cultural obstacles
(Nguyen, 2015) and focus heavily on short-term survival and benefits rather than sustainable Training and
continuous improvement (Nguyen and Robinson, 2010). continuous
Through the aforementioned analysis, this study aims to explore the post-training
facilitators of the relationship between training and continuous improvement that scant
improvement
research has examined. This research contributes to the literature on continuous
improvement in the following three aspects. First, this study examines the training
transfer climate – a post-training factor that moderates the link between training and
continuous improvement. Paying attention to post-training factors is essential because less
than 90% of training expenditure leads to applying skills learned back to the job
(Georgenson, 1982). Although transfer climate has claimed a moderate role in the linkage
between training and application of training skills in various courses such as hotel
management training (Rouiller and Goldstein, 1993), customer service skills training
(Richman-Hirsch, 2001) and safety training (Smith-Crowe et al., 2003), empirical studies
confirm little or no influence of transfer climate on this link in other training sessions such as
interpersonal skill training (Axtell et al., 1997) and handling customer complains training
(Van der Klink et al., 2001). Moreover, training sessions researched in previous studies are for
compulsory behavior, such as hotel management training, interpersonal training and
customer handling claim training; in contrast, continuous improvement is an extra-role
behavior (Brunet and New, 2003). Hence, it is controversial whether transfer climate works
effectively in continuous improvement training. Second, this study examines the effects of
training on continuous improvement through the mediating role of self-efficacy. Although
Jurburg et al. (2017) employing the Delphi method discover this relationship, there are no
studies, to the author’s knowledge, testing this mediator role, whereas self-efficacy is the
critical mediator in transferring skills learned in training sessions (Jurburg et al., 2016; Burke
and Hutchins, 2007). Finally, this study is undertaken in Vietnam, an Asian country.
Continuous improvement practices vary among nations (Jin and Doolen, 2014). Nguyen and
Robinson (2015) confirm that continuous improvement in Vietnam is unique. Therefore, it is
inappropriate to infer the results of Western countries as a basis for recommendations for
Vietnamese companies.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. The next part is the literature review
of continuous improvement, the relationship between training and continual improvement,
the mediating role of self-efficacy and the moderate role of the transfer for training climate.
The research methodology will be presented later, i.e. sample and measures. The fourth
section presents results, including confirmative factor analysis (CFA) and hypothesis testing.
The article concludes with a discussion and limitations.

2. Literature review
2.1 Background theories
2.1.1 Expectancy theory. The expectancy theory proposed by Vroom (1964) assumes that
employees are motivated to achieve designable outcomes and avoid negative consequences.
Employees are rational and careful information processors and use that information to decide
what to do and how hard to work. Vroom (1964) posits that people tend to act in a certain way
based on expected outcomes and the attractiveness of outcomes. Vroom (1964) proposes three
variables or linkages: Expectancy or effort–performance linkage, instrumentality or
performance–reward linkage, and valence or attractiveness of reward. Expectancy, also
known as the effort-performance relationship, is the likelihood that an individual believes
that applying a specific amount of effort will result in a particular degree of performance.
Instrumentality or performance-reward connection refers to the degree to which a person
thinks performing at a certain level would help them achieve their goals. Valence - the value a
TQM person sets on a potential outcome or reward that can be obtained when performing certain
behavior considers goals and individual needs.
Expectancy theory is considered the influential theory used to explain employee
motivation (Chiang and Jang, 2008; Fudge and Schlacter, 1999), technology adoption (Chen
et al., 2002; Song et al., 2023), and training (Shweiki et al., 2015; Gegenfurtner et al., 2009).
Furthermore, to explain the training transfer behavior, expectancy theory is proposed and
utilized in several studies (Yamnill and McLean, 2001; Chiaburu and Lindsay, 2008;
Gegenfurtner and Vauras, 2012). Hence, using expectancy theory to explain continuous
improvement training transfer in this research is reasonable.

2.2 Social cognitive theory

Self-efficacy theory, commonly referred to as social cognitive theory or social learning theory,
deals with a person’s confidence in his or her ability to carry out a specific task (Bandura and
Walters, 1977). Self-efficacy theory assumes that human behavior is influenced by three
interrelated variables: behavior, cognitive and other personal factors, and the external
environment (Miles, 2012). People are both creators and products of their environment since
the three components mutually influence one another (Miles, 2012).
Self-efficacy is an important predictor of task performance because it exerts employee
engagement (Salanova et al., 2011) and focused attention (Themanson and Rosen, 2015),
leading to employee performance (Themanson and Rosen, 2015; Salanova et al., 2011).
In difficult situations, low-level self-efficient employees tend to lessen their effort or give up,
while those with high levels tend to try hard and master the challenges (Ventura et al., 2015;
Chan et al., 2020). Last but not least, people with strong self-efficacy tend to respond to
negative feedback with increased motivation and effort, whereas those with low self-efficacy
are likely to put forth less effort after unfavorable criticism (Tolli and Schmidt, 2008).
There are four sources of self-efficacy: enactive mastery, vicarious modeling, verbal
persuasion, and arousal (Anderson and Betz, 2001). Enactive mastery is defined as
individuals who possess past successful experience performing some tasks and are more
confident in repeating them. The second source of self-efficacy is vicarious modeling; seeing
someone else performing successful those tasks leads to more confidence. Verbal persuasion,
the third source of self-efficacy, refers to the fact that we are more confident when someone
convinces us that we can perform. The last source of self-efficacy is arousal. Arousal makes
people more energized, feel up to the task, and perform better.
Self-efficacy theory has been applied in the field of organizational behavior (Ventura et al.,
2015; Chan et al., 2020), education (Burney, 2008), and training (Chiaburu and Lindsay, 2008).
The social cognitive theory also explains training transfer (Chiaburu and Lindsay, 2008; Iqbal
and Dastgeer, 2017). Hence, using self-efficacy theory to explain continuous improvement
training transfer in this study is reasonable.

2.3 Continuous improvement

Continuous improvement has its Japanese root name Kaizen, in which Kai means change and
Zen means for the better. Although researchers and practitioners often use Kaizen – the
Japanese variant and continuous improvement – The Western variant interchangeably, there
is a debate on whether they are synonyms or closely related but separated terms (Suarez-
Barraza et al., 2011; Singh and Singh, 2015; Berger, 1997). Suarez-Barraza et al. (2011) clarify
these two terms. From the Western variant, continuous improvement tends to be a developed
concept rather than a static concept (Bessant et al., 1994). These authors claim that continuous
improvement includes pre-continuous improvement, structured, goal-oriented, proactive, and
continuous improvement capability (Bessant et al., 1994). Moreover, the Western variant of
continuous improvement tends to be methodology or/and tools to reduce non-added value
activities (Suarez-Barraza et al., 2011). On the other hand, Kaizen – the Japanese variant tends Training and
to be philosophies and mindsets (Hamel, 2010). Although there are some differences between continuous
Kaizen and continuous improvement, they are still used as synonyms (Carnerud et al., 2018).
In this study, the author uses these terms interchangeably.
improvement
Since its introduction in the 1980s, several perspectives on continuous improvement have
been developed. Imai (1986) defines continuous improvement as “Improvement initiatives
that increase successes and reduce failures.” Zollo and Winter (2002) view continuous
improvement as an active ability and define continuous improvement as a learned and stable
pattern of collective activities through which the organization systematically creates and
modifies its routines to upgrade its effectiveness and efficiency. Brunet and New (2003) define
continuous improvement as persistent and ongoing activities beyond the employee’s explicit
contractual roles to identify and achieve outcomes that will support to attainment of
organizational goals.
Although there are several perspectives on continuous improvement, it is consensus that
it has three features (Sanchez and Blanco, 2014). First, continuous improvement is an ongoing
process, not a single activity. Second, every individual in an organization must engage in
continuous improvement practice, including workers and managers (Suarez-Barraza and
Smith, 2014). Third, continuous improvement aims to make positive changes in
organizations. Therefore, organizations should focus on reducing waste and finding
opportunities for improvement.
There are three types of continuous improvement: management-oriented continuous
improvement, group-level continuous improvement, and individual-level continuous
improvement (Imai, 1986). Management-oriented Kaizen concentrates on the company
strategy and involves all employees and managers. At a group level, quality control circles
are the best representatives, which require employees to form a team or a circle to find and
solve daily problems without any interventions of managers (Bhuiyan and Baghel, 2005).
Continuous improvement at an individual level has the root of the bottom-up approach, in
which the worker recommends the problems encountered (Singh and Singh, 2015). Individual
Kaizen often refers to Teian Kaizen or personal Kaizen as this level’s representative. Teian
Kaizen focuses only on the suggestion for change, and the implementations are the
specialist’s duties (Bhuiyan and Baghel, 2005). However, individual continuous improvement
has other dimensions, such as rule adherence and perseverance (Tyler and Blader, 2005;
Yokozawa et al., 2021). Moreover, the concept of individual Kaizen can be seen as a set of
personal values that promote personal development and suggest that the way of life—
including how people work, interact with others, and care for their families—should be
continuously improved (Suarez-Barraza et al., 2013). In this study, the author focuses on
individual-level continuous improvement, especially on suggestion systems.

2.4 Hypotheses
2.4.1 Training and continuous improvement. Training is defined as a planned effort to
facilitate the learning of competencies, including knowledge, skills, or behaviors that are
critical for success in performance in an existing situation (Noe and Kodwani, 2018). There are
three training delivery methods: on-the-job training, classroom, and self-paced training
(Werner, 2021). On–the–job training contains delivering training at the trainee’s regular
work-station (e.g. desk, machines, . . .) (Werner and DeSimone, 2011). It is argued that trainees
can gain and attain more from on-the-job training rather than formal training (Huang and Jao,
2016). Classroom training approaches are implemented outside of the work sites (Werner and
DeSimone, 2011). Self-paced training refers to a training delivery method in which the learner
decides the space and time of training (Werner and DeSimone, 2011). In the field of quality
management, training focuses on problem-solving, data analysis, and statistical techniques
TQM (Ishikawa, 1982). Similarly, Saraph et al. (1989) point out that training for quality management
includes training on statistics and quality-related issues and trade training. Focus on
continuous improvement; training is the effort of companies to provide the necessary
knowledge and skills for employees to actively participate in the continuous improvement
practice (Jurburg et al., 2017; Assen and Marcel, 2021).
Continuous improvement training affects continuous improvement by blurring the
barriers and enabling motivating factors of continuous improvement implementation. As in
training sessions, trainers provide the necessary knowledge, skills, and attitude for trainees
to perform continuous improvement, supporting them to overcome the training transfer
barrier of lack of knowledge and experience (Sanchez-Ruiz et al., 2020). Moreover, continuous
improvement training sessions provide learners necessary skills to perform continuous
improvement in practice, so training may enhance perceived easiness, which affects
employee engagement in continuous improvement (Jurburg et al., 2019).
The link between training and continuous improvement has been depicted in empirical
studies and literature reviews. The survey results of 51 Netherlands companies show that
82% of the questionnaire respondents believe that training supports continuous
improvement (Middel et al., 2007). Collecting data from 95 organizations in the UK Sillince
et al. (1996) suggest that training enhances quality improvement. Using the Delphi method,
Jurburg et al. (2017) argue that training influences continuous improvement with the
mediating role of self-efficacy and empowerment. Collecting data from 208 managers
studying MBA at a university in the Netherlands, Assen and Marcel (2021) suggest that
training has direct and indirect relationships with continuous improvement.
From the above considerations, the author has the following hypothesis.
H1. Training for continuous improvement positively impacts continuous improvement.
2.4.2 The moderator role of transfer climate. Transfer climate refers to trainees’ perception of
a range of work environment variables that encourage or impede the usage of learned skills or
behaviors (Noe and Kodwani, 2018; Yamnill and McLean, 2001). These variables include
manager and peer support, the opportunity to use skills, and the consequences of using
learned capabilities (Tracey et al., 1995; Tesluk et al., 1995; Ford et al., 1992). Rouiller and
Goldstein (1993) divide transfer climate into eight dimensions: goal cues, social cues, task, and
structural cues, self-control cues, positive feedback, negative feedback, punishment, and no
feedback. Those dimensions are categorized into situational cues and consequences (Tracey
et al., 1995; Rouiller and Goldstein, 1993). Table 1 displays definitions of those dimensions.
According to the stimuli-response model, individuals receive cues from the external
environment, interpret them, and behave in response to the environmental stimuli. After
the training session, the trainees who encounter a supportive transfer climate have
reminded of the contents of the training by vivid cues available in the work environment
(Rouiller and Goldstein, 1993). According to the expectancy theory proposed by Vroom
(1964), people execute behaviors if those behaviors expectedly result in positive
outcomes. In the facilitating transfer climate, the rewards for applying are visible,
resulting in higher transfer motivation (Rouiller and Goldstein, 1993; Tracey et al., 1995).
Thus, it is acceptable to infer that transfer climate predicts the application of skills
learned in training sessions.
Extant literature reveals that the positive transfer climate moderates the link between
training and the application and maintenance of skills learned in various types of training
with different kinds of trainees (Rouiller and Goldstein, 1993; Tracey et al., 1995; Lim and
Morris, 2006; Sookhai and Budworth, 2010). Collecting data from 102 trainees working in a
large franchise fast-food chain Rouiller and Goldstein (1993) suggest that transfer climate
moderates the linkage between training and the application of skills learned in training
sessions. The results of surveying 505 supermarket managers from 52 stores confirm the
Dimensions Definitions and examples
Training and
continuous
Goal cues These cues play a role of a reminder for trainees to use their learned knowledge and skills improvement
when they return to the workplace. For example, the managers set goals for trainees to
apply knowledge from training on the job
Social cues These cues arise from behavior and influence processes exhibited by supervisors, peers,
and/or subordinates. For example, managers and/or peers treat trainees who use their
training differently from the existing employees
Task cues These cues relate to the characteristics of the job. For example, the trainees can approach
equipment used to apply learned skills
Self-control cues These cues pertain to numerous self-control mechanisms that enable trainees to apply
what they have learned. For example, trainees are allowed to practice handling real and
job-relevant problems
Positive In this case, the trainees are provided positive feedback on their application of the
feedback instructed behavior. For example, trainees who successfully apply their trained behavior
will receive a reward
Negative The trainees are informed of the negative consequences if the trainees do not use their
feedback training. For example, the managers notify the trainees who do not apply learned skills
Punishment Trainees perceive that they might receive negative consequences for using trained
behaviors. For example, experienced workers mock the use of techniques learned in
training
No feedback Trainees perceive that they do not receive any information about the use or importance of
the learned skills. For example, the managers are too busy to discuss whether trainees use Table 1.
learned behavior Definitions of transfer
Source(s): Adapted from Rouiller and Goldstein (1993) climate dimensions

above results by revealing that training transfer facilitates post-training behavior (Tracey
et al., 1995). Lim and Morris (2006), utilizing answers from 181 Korean employees, recommend
that the transfer climate does not affect immediate training transfer but facilitates the long-
run application of learned skills. Employing a research sample of newly recruited employees
Sookhai and Budworth (2010) suggest that the transfer climate positively impacts the
training transfer process.
The roles of transfer climate have been mentioned in continuous improvement literature.
Jurburg et al. (2019) claim that organizational support, rewards for continuous improvement,
and social influence are exhibitors of continuous improvement. Training for continuous
improvement provides employees with the skills and knowledge needed to engage in
continuous improvement activities (Jurburg et al., 2017). Training for continuous
improvement is one kind of training in organizations. As transfer climate facilitates the
link between training and the applications of learned capabilities in several types of training;
thus, it is reasonable to deduce that positive transfer climate exhibit the relationship between
training for continuous improvement and continuous improvement.
From the above considerations, the author has the following hypothesis.
H2. Training transfer moderates the relationship between Training and continuous
improvement.
2.4.3 The mediating role of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is an essential concept in the field of
organizational behavior and training and development. Self-efficacy is the belief that a person
can successfully perform the necessary behavior to produce desirable outcomes (Bandura
and Walters, 1977). Although self-efficacy derives from possessed abilities, it differs partly
from underlying skills (Bandura, 1982). The trainees develop two types of self-efficacy: pre-
training self-efficacy and post-training self-efficacy (Esfandagheh et al., 2012). The former is
the individual’s beliefs about the acquisition of knowledge and skills in the training sessions
TQM (Tracey et al., 1997), while the latter relates to individuals feeling that they can successfully
apply the knowledge and skills from the course in the work settings (Esfandagheh et al.,
2012). While the perception of being efficacious before training events is argued to strengthen
the relationship between training and behavior, self-efficacy developed after training is
contented to mediate this relationship (Saks, 1995). This study argues that post-training self-
efficacy is the mediating variable for the relationship between training and continuous
improvement.
The mediating role of self-efficacy in the relationship between training and applications
of learned skills has been studied. On the one hand, empirical studies of different kinds of
training sessions reveal that self-efficacy mediates the relationship between training and
performing learned behavior. Longitudinal study results indicate that self-efficacy
mediates the relationship between socialization training and newcomers’ ability to
adjust after training events (Saks, 1995). Moreover, can-do perception intervenes in the link
between online training and training effectiveness (Lin et al., 2015). Self-efficacy mediates
the relationship between entrepreneurship training and entrepreneurial intention (Zhao
et al., 2005). Morin and Latham (2000) also suggest that self-efficacy is intermediate
between interpersonal communication training and applying skills learned in the training
session. On the other hand, research denotes that the mediating role is not statistically
supported. The intervening role of self-efficacy between training and job performance is
not statistically significant in some studies (Saks, 1995). In short, the number of studies
supporting the mediating role of self-efficacy outstrips that against the mediating role of
self-efficacy.
To the best of the author’s knowledge, among the studies on continuous improvement,
there is no quantitative study that has examined the mediating role of self-efficacy in the
relationship between training and continuous improvement; however, the role of self-efficacy
in the field of continuous improvement has been explored. Through the Delphi method,
Jurburg et al. (2017) suggest that training enhances employee self-efficacy, simplifying
continuous improvement. In addition, Jurburg et al. (2019) show that employees are more
likely to engage in continuous improvement activities as they perceive it easier. Moreover,
self-efficacy determines employee participation in quality projects (Tang et al., 2010; Ruiz-
Perez et al., 2020) (see Figure 1).
From the above considerations, the author has the following hypothesis.
H3. Self-efficacy mediates the relationship between training and continuous
improvement.

Transfer
climate

Continuous
improvement Continuous
training improvement

Self-efficacy
Figure 1.
Research model
Source(s): Figure by the author
3. Methodology Training and
3.1 Sample continuous
The questionnaires were created in the Google Forms platform and sent to respondents.
Before sending the questionnaires to the sample, a pilot test was performed to check question
improvement
translation. This step was necessary because the measures were all created in English and
had yet to be translated into Vietnamese. The author sent the first version of the
questionnaires to 40 people and asked them to comment on whether the questions needed to
be clarified and appropriate to Vietnamese culture and practice. After receiving comments
from pilot test respondents, the author adjusted the questionnaires and sent them to
respondents using the Snowball sampling technique. The author sent the questionnaires to
40 access people and asked them to send the questionnaires to other people joining in
continuous improvement training in their companies. Most of the survey participants worked
in the operation department, quality department, and production lines.
The respondents answered the first question in the questionnaire: “Have you ever taken
part in any continuous improvement programs?”. If the answers were no, then the
respondents quit answering the questionnaires. If the answers were yes, the respondents
continued answering the follow-up questions. The total number of participants experiencing
continuous improvement training sessions was 455.
Table 2 summarizes the demographic characteristics of respondents.
The participants of this study were marginally male-dominant, highly educated, service-
employee-dominant, and slightly young. The male respondents accounted for 55.4% of the
sample, while the females comprised 44.6%. Most research participants possessed
undergraduate degrees (50.3%), followed by college degrees (25.9%) and postgraduate
degrees (23.7%). In terms of sector, the number of answerers working in the service sector
outraged the other sectors (53.2%), and the running-up was the manufacturing sector

No Criteria Frequency Percentage

1 Sex
Male 252 55.4
Female 203 44.6
2 Education
Under high school 4 0.9
High school 46 10.1
Intermediate 44 9.7
College 24 25.9
Undergraduate 229 50.3
Postgraduate 108 23.7
3 Sector
Manufacturing 127 27.9
Service 242 53.2
Commerce 96 21.1
Agriculture 11 2.4
4 Age
Average age 31.24
Minimum 20
Maximum 60 Table 2.
Standard Deviation 7.773 Demographic
Note(s): One participant might work in more than one sector characteristics of
Source(s): Table by the author respondents
TQM (27.9%). The commerce sector accounted for 21.1%, and the agriculture sector constituted
only 2.4%. Regarding age, the trainees participating in this study were slightly young, the
average age being 31.24 (S.D 5 7.773). The oldest participant was at the age of 60, while the
youngest was at the age of 20.
3.2 Measure
This study measured continuous improvement training using six items from Saraph et al. (1989)
work. Saraph et al. (1989) proposed ten statements to measure quality management training. The
author found that the statement “Specific work-skills training (technical and vocational) given to
hourly employees throughout the division” and “Team building and group dynamics training
for employees in the division” were not appropriate with the contents of continuous
improvement training. Moreover, the author realized that “Quality-related training given to
hourly employees throughout the division”, “Quality-related training given to managers and
supervisors throughout the division”, and “Training in the “total quality concept” (i.e.
philosophy of company-wide responsibility for quality) throughout the division” could be
combined in one item “My company trained me in the methods and techniques used in
continuous improvement.”. These modifications were verified by 40 pilot test participants. In
short, the author selected six out of ten items from Saraph et al. (1989) work and modified them to
fit the context of continuous improvement training in Vietnam. The respondents were asked to
rate their level of agreement to 6 statements based on Likert 7 (1 5 Strongly disagree,
7 5 strongly agree). An example of those statements was, “My company trained me in the
methods and techniques used in continuous improvement.” The reality of this scale was 0.900.
Transfer climate was measured by adapting the work of Rouiller and Goldstein (1993). At first,
the author selected eight critical items from eight dimensions proposed by Rouiller and Goldstein
(1993) in the pilot test questionnaires. In each dimension, the author, with the consultation of 3
experts in the field of quality management, selected one item. The participants in the pilot test
commented that the items of no feedback and punishment were not applicable in Vietnam.
Therefore, the author deleted those two items and retained six items measuring continuous
improvement transfer climate. The respondents were required to rate the extent to which they
agreed or disagreed with six statements (1 5 Strongly disagree, 7 5 strongly agree). An example
of those statements was, “My manager and I discussed how to apply knowledge learned from
continuous improvement course at the workplace.”. The reality coefficient of this scale was 0.920.
As aforementioned analysis, among several types of continuous improvement, this study
focused on individual-level continuous improvement. Hence, the author adapted the continuous
improvement measure proposed by Peccei and Rosenthal (1997) and the modified scale
suggested by Lee (2004). The respondents were asked to rate their agreement to four statements
(1 5 Strongly disagree, 7 5 strongly agree). An example of those statements was, “I voluntarily
search for any work-related new information and knowledge, which may help improve the quality
of work I do.”. The Alpha coefficient for this scale was 0.879.
Self-efficacy was measured by eight statements adapted from Chen et al. (2001) work. The
statements suggested by Chen et al. (2001) were initially used to measure self-efficacy in
general. The author modified them so that they were suitable for the training context in
Vietnam. The respondents were asked to rank their agreement to eight statements
(1 5 Strongly disagree, 7 5 strongly agree). An example of those statements was, “I will be
able to achieve most of my goals in the continuous improvement program.”. The Alpha
coefficient for this scale was 0.897.

4. Results
4.1 Measurement model
This study used self-reported survey data, so common variance bias was possible. The
author followed the suggestions of Podsakoff et al. (2003) using Harman’s single-factor
analysis to detect common variance bias. Podsakoff et al. (2003) propose that if common Training and
method variance exists, either (a) a single factor will emerge from the factor analysis or (b) one continuous
general factor will account for most of the covariance among the measures. The results
indicate that four factors emerged with an Eigenvalue greater than 1.0, which accounted for
improvement
66.94% of the variance. The first factor accounted for 28.81% of the variance. Furthermore,
the author performed a CFA of the one-factor model, and the results revealed a poor model fit
(χ 2/d.f. 5 16.798, GFI 5 0.394, CFI 5 0.506, NFI 5 0.492; TLI 5 0.459; and RMSEA 5 0.186).
Thus, the common method variance was considered insignificant in this study sample data.
The construct validity of the proposed model has been determined with convergent
validity and discriminant validity. The results of measurement model fit indices indicate a
reasonably good fit. The overall χ 2 was 463.826 with 247 degrees of freedom, χ 2/d.f. 5 1.878,
smaller than the threshold of 3. Moreover, the value of RMSEA, the absolute fit index, was
0.044, smaller than the threshold of 0.08 proposed by Hair et al. (2006). The value of NFI and
TLI was 0.933 and 0.963, respectively, more significant than the cutoffs of 0.9. The GFI and
CFI are 0.921 and 0.967, respectively, representing the acceptable fit model.
The author adopted Hair et al. (2006) suggestions to test the convergent and discriminant
validity using CR, AVE, and MSV. Table 3 displays convergent and discriminant validity.
As is shown in Table 3, loadings varied from 0.603 to 0.879, exceeding the threshold of 0.5. All
the Cronbach Alpha coefficients and the composite reality (CR) indices exceeded the
recommended cut-off of 0.7. The AVE ranged from 0.525 to 0.660, greater than the threshold

Construct Items Loadings Cronbach alpha CR AVE MSV

Continuous improvement CI1 0.790 0.879 0.880 0.648 0.470

CI2 0.832
CI3 0.826
CI4 0.770
Self-efficacy SE1 0.711 0.897 0.898 0.525 0.324
SE2 0.730
SE3 0.733
SE4 0.711
SE5 0.752
SE6 0.752
SE7 0.699
SE8 0.704
Continuous improvement training CIT1 0.830 0.900 0.902 0.609 0.127
CIT2 0.603
CIT3 0.879
CIT4 0.657
CIT5 0.800
CIT6 0.870
Transfer climate TTC1 0.822 0.920 0.921 0.660 0.470
TTC2 0.842
TTC3 0.771
TTC4 0.872
TTC5 0.769
TTC6 0.792

Model fit χ 2/d.f GFI CFI RMSEA NFI TLI

Indices 1.878 0.921 0.967 0.044 0.933 0.963 Table 3.

Thresholds ≤3 ≥0.9 ≥0.9 ≤0.08 ≥0.9 ≥0.9 Convergent and
Source(s): Table by the author discriminant validity
TQM of 0.5, confirming the convergence validity. The discriminant validity is satisfactory if all AVE
indices exceed the corresponding MSV (Hair et al., 2006). In all constructs, the MSV indices were
smaller than the corresponding AVE indices, indicating acceptable discriminant validity.

4.2 Hypotheses testing

4.2.1 Training and continuous improvement. Structural equation modeling was employed to
test the relationship between training and continuous improvement. The model fit indices
showed that this model was a satisfactory fit. In detail, χ 2/d.f. 5 1.579, below the threshold of
3; GFI 5 0.977, above the cut-off of 0.9; CFI 5 0.992, above the recommended value of 0.9;
RMSEA 5 0.036, below the threshold of 0.08; and NFI and TLI were 0.990 and 0.980, more
than 0.9. The above results showed that the regression results were reliable.
As is shown in Table 4, continuous improvement training positively impacts continuous
(β 5 0.126; S.E 5 0.025; p < 0.01). Thus, hypothesis 1 is supported.
4.2.2 The moderator role of transfer climate. To test the moderator role of transfer climate
to the linkage of training and continuous improvement, the author calculated the average
values of items in continuous improvement training, continuous improvement, and transfer
climate scales. Then, the author converted these mean values to the standardized coefficient
using SPSS 26 package. Regression results for new variables are given in Table 5.
The results show that the Durbin–Watson index was 1.026, displaying insignificant
autocorrelation in this study’s sample. In addition, the VIF indices were appropriately 1 and
showed insignificant multicollinearity. The independent variables accounted for 40.6% of the
variance of the dependent variable.
As shown in Table 5, the variable CIT x TTC positively affects CI with β 5 0.175 (S.
E 5 0.038; p < 0.01), indicating that training transfer moderated the relationship between
training and continuous improvement. Thus, hypothesis 2 was supported.

Hypothesis β Se p Decision

CIT → CI 0.126 0.025 *** Accept H1

Model fit χ 2/d. f GFI CFI RMSEA NFI TLI

Indices 1.579 0.977 0.992 0.036 0.990 0.980

Thresholds ≤3 ≥0.9 ≥0.9 ≤0.08 ≥0.9 ≥0.9
Note(s): *** is p < 0.01
Table 4. CIT: continuous improvement training; CI: continuous improvement
Hypothesis 1 testing Source(s): Table by the author

Relationships β Se p VIF

Z(TTC) 0.616 0.038 *** 1.108

Z(CIT) 0.166 0.042 *** 1.362
CIT x TTC 0.175 0.038 *** 1.354
Adjusted R 5 0.406; Durbin–Watson 5 1.026
2

Note(s): *** is p < 0.0

Z(TTC); Z(CIT) are standardized coefficients of training transfer climate and training
Table 5. CIT X TTC is equal to the production of Z(TTC) and Z(CIT)
Hypothesis 2 testing Source(s): Table by the author
4.2.3 The mediating role of self-efficacy. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), the mediating Training and
role is proven if (1) the independent variable significantly predicts the mediator variable; (2) continuous
the independent variable significantly predicts the dependent variable; and (3) In the
regression model, when the independent variable and the intermediate variable appear
improvement
simultaneously, the moderator impacts on the dependent variable and the impact of the
independent variable on the dependent variable is reduced or eliminated.
Following Baron and Kenny’s (1986) guidance, the author conducted structural equation
modeling on three models. In model 1, the independent variable was continuous improvement
training, and the dependent variable was self-efficacy; in model 2, the independent variable
was continuous improvement training, and the dependent variable was continuous
improvement; in model 3, the independent variables were training and self-efficacy, and
the dependent variable was continuous improvement. The results are shown in Table 6.
The model fit indices showed that model 1 was satisfactory. The model fit indices of model
1 exceeded the recommended thresholds, indicating a satisfactory fit. The χ 2/d. f. ratio was
2.074, below the threshold of 3. GFI and CFI indices were 0.952 and 0.976, respectively,
exceeding the cut-off point of 0.9. The value of RMSEA was 0.049, below 0.08 – the cut-off
point proposed by Hair et al. (2006). NFI and TLI were 0.955 and 0.971, above the threshold of
0.9. The regression results revealed that training positively predicted self-efficacy with
standardized β was 0.135, p < 0.01. Therefore, the first condition of the mediator is satisfied.
The model fit indices of model 2 were at a satisfactory level. The value of χ 2/d.f. was 1.579,
below the threshold of 3. GFI and CFI indices were 0.977 and 0.992, respectively, above the cut-
off point of 0.9. The value of RMSEA was 0.036, below 0.08 – the cut-off point proposed by Hair
et al. (2006). NFI and TLI were 0.980 and 0.990, respectively, exceeding the cut-off of 0.9. The
regression results revealed that training positively predicted continuous improvement with
standardized β was 0.258, p < 0.01. Therefore, the second condition of the mediator is satisfied.
The model fit indices of model 3 exceeded the recommended cut-offs, indicating a
satisfactory fit. The χ 2/d. f. ratio was 2.358, below the threshold of 3. GFI and CFI indices were
0.932 and 0.956, respectively, exceeding the cut-off point of 0.9. The value of RMSEA was
0.055, below 0.08 – the cut-off point proposed by Hair et al. (2006). NFI and TLI were 0.927 and
0.949, above the threshold of 0.9. The regression results revealed self-efficacy positively
predicted continuous improvement with standardized β was 0.706, p < 0.01; training did not
statistically impact continuous improvement with standardized β was 0.022, p 5 0.338. This
result showed that when the moderator (self-efficacy) was in the model, the effect of the
independent variable (training) was eliminated. Consequently, the third condition of the
mediator is satisfied. Thus, self-efficacy fully mediates the relationship between training and
continuous improvement. Therefore, hypothesis 3 was supported.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Dependent variable: SE Dependent variable: CI Dependent variable: CI
Standardized Standardized Standardized
Variable β p Variable β p Variables β p

CIT 0.135 *** CIT 0.126 *** CIT 0.022 0.338

SE 0.706 ***
χ /d. f 5 2.074; GFI 5 0.952
2 2
χ /d. f. 5 1.579; GFI 5 0.977 χ /d. f 5 2.358; GFI 5 0.932
2

CFI 5 0.976; RMSEA 5 0.049 CFI 5 0.992; RMSEA 5 0.036 CFI 5 0.956; RMSEA 5 0.055
NFI 5 0.955; TLI 5 0.971 NFI 5 0.980; TLI 5 0.990 NFI 5 0.927; TLI 5 0.949
Note(s): CIT: training; SE: self-efficacy; CI: continuous improvement Table 6.
Source(s): Table by the author Testing hypothesis 3
TQM 5. Discussion and recommendations
5.1 Discussion and conclusion
This study examines the relationship between training and continuous improvement, the
mediating role of self-efficacy, and the moderating role of transfer climate in Vietnam, an
emerging economy. The study results indicate that training is positively related to
continuous improvement. This result implies that to achieve the effectiveness of continuous
improvement programs, it is necessary for employees to undergo continuous improvement
training. In other words, before joining continuous improvement programs, employees need
to be trained knowledge and skills required in those programs. This result aligns with
previous studies (Assen and Marcel, 2021; Jurburg et al., 2019).
The results also reveal that self-efficacy fully mediates the link between training and
continuous improvement. This finding implies that leveraging the post-training can-do
perception of trainees is vital for them to apply learned knowledge and skills. This finding
aligns with the studies of (Saks, 1995) and Sukserm and Takahashi (2012) and opposes that of
Holladay and Qui~ nones (2003). Holladay and Qui~ nones (2003) claim that although self-
efficacy does not predict short-term training transfer, it enhances the maintenance of skills
learned in training events. The difference in the findings can be explained by the different
types of self-efficacy used in each study. Self-efficacy can be classified as level, strength, and
generality (Holladay and Qui~ nones, 2003). Self-efficacy level refers to the level of task
difficulty people believe they can perform, and self-efficacy strength refers to confidence in
achieving a particular level of performance. Self-efficacy generality focuses on being
generalized to similar ones within the same activity domain or across a range of activities
(Holladay and Qui~ nones, 2003). While the confirming mediating role studies pay attention to
the first two types of self-efficacy, Holladay and Qui~ nones (2003) focus on self-efficacy
generality. The reason for focusing on the first two types of self-efficacy (level and strength)
in Vietnam is that continuous improvement programs are rare in Vietnam (Nguyen and
Robinson, 2010), so self-efficacy generality – the belief in repeat actions and outcomes of
continuous improvement programs is unclear.
Finally, the results show that transfer climate positively moderates training and
continuous improvement linkage. This discovery implies that Vietnamese businesses
should create a positive transfer climate to increase the application of learned skills from
continuous improvement training programs. This finding aligns with the results of
previous research (Rouiller and Goldstein, 1993; Smith-Crowe et al., 2003) and disagrees
with the other studies (Axtell et al., 1997; Van der Klink et al., 2001; Burke and Baldwin,
1999). The opposite findings originate from the contexts of the contradictory studies.
Axtell et al. (1997) argue that if the employees are provided a high level of autonomy in the
workplace, the role of superior support is blurred. Moreover, even the managers create the
learning and transfer climate, but if the transfer support is superficial, the application of
learned skills is not guaranteed. Transfer climate includes situation cues and consequences
(Rouiller and Goldstein, 1993), so the managers should set goals for applying skills learned
from continuous improvement courses and provide necessary material, equipment, and so
on for continuous improvement. In addition, it is vital to provide feedback for training
applications such as an increase in salary and bonus and to prevent any negative feedback
for applying learned skills.

5.2 Practical implications

The findings of this study provide several implications for business managers whose
businesses are applying permanent continuous improvement. First, the present study agrees
with Assen and Marcel (2021) and Jurburg et al. (2019) that employee training before
assigning them to continuous improvement programs is essential. Hence, before assigning
and encouraging employees to join a continuous improvement project, the companies should Training and
train them with the necessary knowledge and skills. Secondly, this study confirms that self- continuous
efficacy is vital in training and continuous improvement. This finding implies that a trainee’s
application of learned knowledge depends on the feeling of self-efficacy development.
improvement
Therefore, companies should design continuous improvement training sessions to support
learners can develop self-efficacy. Finally, as transfer climate moderates the link between
training and continuous improvement, creating a positive transfer climate is essential for
Vietnamese companies.

5.3 Theoretical implications

Although training is vital to continuous improvement, there is a dearth of studies exploring
the role of post-training variables on continuous improvement. Using the expectancy
theory and self-efficacy theory, this study explores two post-training variables: transfer
climate and self-efficacy. In detail, the research has established the moderator role of
transfer climate in several types of compulsory training (Rouiller and Goldstein, 1993;
Richman-Hirsch, 2001; Smith-Crowe et al., 2003; Axtell et al., 1997; Van der Klink et al.,
2001); there is a scarcity of studies on this moderator role in extra-role behavior training.
This study extends the literature on transfer climate by confirming the moderate role of
transfer climate on the link between continuous improvement training and continuous
improvement, an extra-role behavior. Moreover, research using the qualitative approach
has noted the mediating role of self-efficacy in the relationship between continuous
improvement training and continuous improvement behavior (Jurburg et al., 2017), but
scant empirical research tests this mediating role. This study confirms the fully mediating
role of self-efficacy on this link. Consequently, when investigating the relationship between
training and continuous improvement, the researchers should include self-efficacy in their
study and test the mediating role.

5.4 Limitations and future research

Although this study has contributed to the theory and practice of continuous improvement,
academia and practitioners should consider the following limitations when using the research
results or deducing from them. First, training, self-efficacy, transfer climate and continuous
improvement were measured from the personal point of view and collected simultaneously.
Future research should collect data from multiple stages for more precise results. Second,
continuous improvement is assessed from the individual perspective, making the self-
assessed continuous improvement higher than the actual behavior. Future studies should
employ more objective measurements, e.g. the number of suggestions per year or the cost
saving of continuous improvement, to produce more reliable results. Third, the sample size
used in this study is acceptable (n 5 455), but the sample group structure is not guaranteed.
The survey respondents were mostly undergraduates and postgraduates and were working
in the service and manufacturing sectors. This limitation is frequently found in studies of
continuous improvement training and continuous improvement (Robinson and Schroeder,

1993; Dermol and Cater, 2013; El-Said et al., 2020). Future studies could focus on a sample with
different education levels rather than undergraduate and postgraduate levels and different
sectors, such as agriculture or commercial. Fourth, the sample in the study was chosen
through snowball sampling. If future studies utilize random sampling, this will be valuable
for generalizing the research results. Fifth, this research investigates continuous
improvement at the individual level; future research focus on other levels, such as team or
organizational level, might complement this research.
Despite the above limitations, the author believes that the research has made certain
contributions to the literature on continuous improvement in Vietnam.
TQM References
Anderson, S.L. and Betz, N.E. (2001), “Sources of social self-efficacy expectations: their measurement
and relation to career development”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 98-117.
Assen, V. and Marcel, F. (2021), “Training, employee involvement and continuous improvement - the
moderating effect of a common improvement method”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 32
No. 2, pp. 132-144.
Axtell, C.M., Maitlis, S. and Yearta, S.K. (1997), “Predicting immediate and longer-term transfer of
training”, Personnel Review, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 201-213.
Bandura, A. (1982), “Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency”, American Psychologist, Vol. 37 No. 2,
pp. 122-147.
Bandura, A. and Walters, R.H. (1977), Social Learning Theory, Prentice Hall, Englewood cliffs.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Berger, A. (1997), “Continuous improvement and kaizen: standardization and organizational designs”,
Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 1173-1182.
Bessant, J., Caffyn, S., Gilbert, J., Harding, R. and Webb, S. (1994), “Rediscovering continuous
improvement”, Technovation, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 17-29.
Beyhan Yasar, N., Sezen, B. and Karakadilar, I.S. (2019), “Mediating effect of continuous improvement
on the relationship between innovation and financial performance”, Total Quality Management
and Business Excellence, Vol. 30 Nos 7-8, pp. 893-907.
Bhuiyan, N. and Baghel, A. (2005), “An overview of continuous improvement: from the past to the
present”, Management Decision, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 761-771.
Brunet, A.P. and New, S. (2003), “Kaizen in Japan: an empirical study”, International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, Vol. 23 Nos 11-12, pp. 1426-1446.
Burke, L.A. and Baldwin, T.T. (1999), “Workforce training transfer: a study of the effect of relapse
prevention training and transfer climate”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 38 No. 3,
pp. 227-241.
Burke, L.A. and Hutchins, H.M. (2007), “Training transfer: an integrative literature review”, Human
Resource Development Review, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 263-296.
Burney, V.H. (2008), “Applications of social cognitive theory to gifted education”, Roeper Review,
Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 130-139.
Bushardt, S.C., Fretwell, C. and Cumbest, P.B. (1994), “Continuous improvement through employee training:
a case example from the financial services industry”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 11-16.
C^andido, C.J. and Santos, S.P. (2011), “Is TQM more difficult to implement than other transformational
strategies?”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 22 No. 11, pp. 1139-1164.
Carnerud, D., Jaca, C. and B€ackstr€om, I. (2018), “Kaizen and continuous improvement–trends and
patterns over 30 years”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 371-390.
Chan, E.S., Ho, S.K., Ip, F.F. and Wong, M.W. (2020), “Self-efficacy, work engagement, and job
satisfaction among teaching assistants in Hong Kong’s inclusive education”, Sage Open, Vol. 10
No. 3, pp. 1-11.
Chang, H.H. (2005), “The influence of continuous improvement and performance factors in total
quality organization”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 16 No. 3,
pp. 413-437.
Chen, G., Gully, S.M. and Eden, D. (2001), “Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale”,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 62-83.
Chen, Y., Lou, H. and Luo, W. (2002), “Distance learning technology adoption: a motivation Training and
perspective”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 38-43.
continuous
Chiaburu, D.S. and Lindsay, D.R. (2008), “Can do or will do? The importance of self-efficacy and
instrumentality for training transfer”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 11
improvement
No. 2, pp. 199-206.
Chiang, C.-F. and Jang, S.S. (2008), “An expectancy theory model for hotel employee motivation”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 313-322.

Dermol, V. and Cater, T. (2013), “The influence of training and training transfer factors on
organisational learning and performance”, Personnel Review, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 324-348.
El-Said, O.A., Al Hajri, B. and Smith, M. (2020), “An empirical examination of the antecedents of
training transfer in hotels: the moderating role of supervisor support”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 32 No. 11, pp. 3391-3417.
Esfandagheh, F.B., Harris, R. and Oreyzi, H.R. (2012), “The impact of extraversion and pre-training
self-efficacy on levels of training outcomes”, Human Resource Development International,
Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 175-191.
nones, M.A., Sego, D.J. and Sorra, J.S. (1992), “Factors affecting the opportunity to
Ford, J.K., Qui~
perform trained tasks on the job”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 511-527.
Fryer, K.J., Antony, J. and Douglas, A. (2007), “Critical success factors of continuous improvement in
the public sector”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 497-517.
Fudge, R.S. and Schlacter, J.L. (1999), “Motivating employees to act ethically: an expectancy theory
approach”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 18, pp. 295-304.
Garcia-Sabater, J.J. and Marin-Garcia, J.A. (2011), “Can we still talk about continuous improvement?
Rethinking enablers and inhibitors for successful implementation”, International Journal of
Technology Management, Vol. 55 Nos 1/2, pp. 28-42.
Gegenfurtner, A. and Vauras, M. (2012), “Age-related differences in the relation between motivation to
learn and transfer of training in adult continuing education”, Contemporary Educational
Psychology, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 33-46.
Gegenfurtner, A., Festner, D., Gallenberger, W., Lehtinen, E. and Gruber, H. (2009), “Predicting
autonomous and controlled motivation to transfer training”, International Journal of Training
and Development, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 124-138.
Georgenson, D.L. (1982), “The problem of transfer calls for partnership”, Training and Development
Journal, Vol. 36 No. 10, pp. 75-78.
Godinho Filho, M. and Uzsoy, R. (2014), “Assessing the impact of alternative continuous improvement
programmes in a flow shop using system dynamics”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 52 No. 10, pp. 3014-3031.
utter, A.W., Field, J.M. and Faull, N.H. (2002), “Work team performance over time: three case
Gr€
studies of South African manufacturers”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 20 No. 5,
pp. 641-657.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis,
Pearson Prentice Hall, Uppersaddle River. NJ.
Hamel, M.R. (2010), Kaizen Event Fieldbook: Foundation, Framework, and Standard Work for Effective
Events, Society of Manufacturing Engineers, New York, NY.
Higuchi, Y., Nam, V.H. and Sonobe, T. (2015), “Sustained impacts of Kaizen training”, Journal of
Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 120, pp. 189-206.
nones, M.A. (2003), “Practice variability and transfer of training: the role of self-
Holladay, C.L. and Qui~
efficacy generality”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 6, p. 1094.
Huang, W.-R. and Jao, Y.-J. (2016), “Comparison of the influences of structured on-the-job training and
classroom training approaches on trainees’ motivation to learn”, Human Resource Development
International, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 116-134.
TQM Imai, M. (1986), Kaizen, Random House Business Division, New York.
Iqbal, K. and Dastgeer, G. (2017), “Impact of self-efficacy and retention on transfer of training: the
mediating role of motivation to transfer”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 36 No. 10,
pp. 1270-1282.
Ishikawa, K. (1982), Guide to Quality Control, Dunod, Paris.
Jin, H.W. and Doolen, T.L. (2014), “A comparison of Korean and US continuous improvement
projects”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp.
384-405.
Jurburg, D., Viles, E., Tanco, M., Mateo, R. and Lleo, A. (2016), “Measure to succeed: how to improve
employee participation in continuous improvement”, Journal of Industrial Engineering and
Management, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 1059-1077.
Jurburg, D., Mateo, R., Viles, E. and Tanco, M. (2017), “What motivates employees to participate in
continuous improvement activities?”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence,
Vol. 28 Nos 13/14, pp. 1469-1489.
Jurburg, D., Tanco, M., Viles, E., Mateo, R. and Lleo, A.  (2019), “Understanding the main
organisational antecedents of employee participation in continuous improvement”, TQM
Journal, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 359-376.
Kang, N., Zhao, C., Li, J. and Horst, J.A. (2016), “A Hierarchical structure of key performance indicators
for operation management and continuous improvement in production systems”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 54 No. 21, pp. 6333-6350.
Kaynak, H. (2003), “The relationship between total quality management practices and their effects on
firm performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 405-435.
Kerrin, M. and Oliver, N. (2002), “Collective and individual improvement activities: the role of reward
systems”, Personnel Review, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 320-337.
Khan, S.A., Kaviani, M.A., Galli, B.J. and Ishtiaq, P. (2019), “Application of continuous improvement
techniques to improve organization performance: a case study”, International Journal of Lean
Six Sigma, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 542-565.
Koval, O., Nabareseh, S., Chromjakova, F. and Marciniak, R. (2018), “Can continuous improvement lead
to satisfied customers? Evidence from the services industry”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp.
679-700.
Lee, H.J. (2004), “The role of competence-based trust and organizational identification in continuous
improvement”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 623-639.
Lee, S., Choi, K.-s., Kang, H.-y., Cho, W. and Chae, Y.M. (2002), “Assessing the factors influencing
continuous quality improvement implementation: experience in Korean hospitals”, International
Journal for Quality in Health Care, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 383-391.
Lim, D.H. and Morris, M.L. (2006), “Influence of trainee characteristics, instructional satisfaction, and
organizational climate on perceived learning and training transfer”, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 85-115.
Lin, S., Hung, T.-C. and Lee, C.-T. (2015), “Revalidate forms of presence in training effectiveness: mediating
effect of self-efficacy”, Journal of Educational Computing Research, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 32-54.
Marin-Garcia, J.A., del Val, M.P. and Martın, T.B. (2008), “Longitudinal study of the results of
continuous improvement in an industrial company”, Team Performance Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 56-69.
McLean, R.S., Antony, J. and Dahlgaard, J.J. (2017), “Failure of Continuous Improvement initiatives in
manufacturing environments: a systematic review of the evidence”, Total Quality Management
and Business Excellence, Vol. 28 Nos 3-4, pp. 219-237.
Middel, R., Op De Weegh, S. and Gieskes, J. (2007), “Continuous improvement in The Netherlands:
a survey-based study into current practices”, International Journal of Technology Management,
Vol. 37 Nos 3-4, pp. 259-271.
Miles, J.A. (2012), Management and Organization Theory: A Jossey-Bass Reader, John Wiley & Sons, Training and
San Francisco.
continuous
Morin, L. and Latham, G. (2000), “The effect of mental practice and goal setting as a transfer of
training intervention on supervisors’ self-efficacy and communication skills: an exploratory
improvement
study”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 566-578.
Nardella, A., Pechet, L. and Snyder, L. (1995), “Continuous improvement, quality control, and cost
containment in clinical laboratory testing. Effects of establishing and implementing guidelines
for preoperative tests”, Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Vol. 119 No. 6,
pp. 518-522.
Nguyen, P.A. (2011), The State and Development of Continuous Improvement Practices in an Emerging
Economy: the Case of Vietnam, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Nguyen, P.A. (2015), “Issues and challenges in the establishment of continuous improvement in
Vietnam”, International Journal of Business and Social Research, Vol. 5 No. 10, pp. 10-21.
Nguyen, P.A. and Robinson, A.G. (2010), “Managing continuous improvement in Vietnam: unique
challenges and approaches to overcome them”, Quality Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 27-41.
Nguyen, P.A. and Robinson, A.G. (2015), “Continuous improvement in Vietnam: unique approaches for
a unique culture”, Journal of Asia Business Studies, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 195-211.
Noe, R.A. and Kodwani, A.D. (2018), Employee Training and Development, 7e, McGraw-Hill Education.
Oprime, P.C., de Sousa Mendes, G.H. and Pimenta, M.L. (2012), “Continuous improvement: critical
factors in Brazilian industrial companies”, International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 69-92.
Peccei, R. and Rosenthal, P. (1997), “The antecedents of employee commitment to customer service:
evidence from a UK”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 66-86.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Richman-Hirsch, W.L. (2001), “Posttraining interventions to enhance transfer: the moderating effects
of work environments”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 105-120.
Robinson, A.G. and Schroeder, D.M. (1993), “Training, continuous improvement, and human relations:
the US TWI programs and the Japanese management style”, California Management Review,
Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 35-57.
Rouiller, J.Z. and Goldstein, I.L. (1993), “The relationship between organizational transfer climate and
positive transfer of training”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 377-390.
 Viles, E. and Jurburg, D. (2020), “Enhancing participation through
Ruiz-Perez, F., Lleo, A.,
organizational drivers”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 823-840.
Saks, A.M. (1995), “Longitudinal field investigation of the moderating and mediating effects of self-
efficacy on the relationship between training and newcomer adjustment”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 211-225.
Salanova, M., Llorens, S. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2011), “‘Yes, I can, I feel good, and I just do it!’ On gain
cycles and spirals of efficacy beliefs, affect, and engagement”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 2,
pp. 255-285.
Sanchez, L. and Blanco, B. (2014), “Three decades of continuous improvement”, Total Quality
Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 25 Nos 9-10, pp. 986-1001.
Sanchez-Ruiz, L., Gomez-Lopez, R. and Blanco, B. (2020), “Barriers to effectively implementing
continuous improvement in Spanish firms”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence,
Vol. 31 Nos 13-14, pp. 1409-1426.
Saraph, J.V., Benson, P.G. and Schroeder, R.G. (1989), “An instrument for measuring the critical factors
of quality management”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 810-829.
TQM Shweiki, E., Martin, N.D., Beekley, A.C., Jenoff, J.S., Koenig, G.J., Kaulback, K.R., Lindenbaum, G.A.,
Patel, P.H., Rosen, M.M. and Weinstein, M.S. (2015), “Applying expectancy theory to residency
training: proposing opportunities to understand resident motivation and enhance residency
training”, Advances in Medical Education and Practice, Vol. 6 No. 2015, pp. 339-346.
Sillince, J.A.A., Sykes, G.M.H. and Singh, D.P. (1996), “Implementation, problems, success and
longevity of quality circle programmes: a study of 95 UK organizations”, International
Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 88-111.
Singh, J. and Singh, H. (2015), “Continuous improvement philosophy–literature review and directions”,
Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 75-119.
Smith-Crowe, K., Burke, M.J. and Landis, R.S. (2003), “Organizational climate as a moderator of safety
knowledge–safety performance relationships”, Journal of Organizational Behavior: The
International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior,
Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 861-876.
Song, H., Han, S. and Yu, K. (2023), “Blockchain-enabled supply chain operations and financing: the
perspective of expectancy theory”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/IJOPM-07-2022-0467.
Sookhai, F. and Budworth, M.H. (2010), “The trainee in context: examining the relationship between
self-efficacy and transfer climate for transfer of training”, Human Resource Development
Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 257-272.
Suarez-Barraza, M.F. and Smith, T. (2014), “The Kaizen approach within process innovation: findings
from a multiple case study in Ibero-American countries”, Total Quality Management and
Business Excellence, Vol. 25 Nos 9-10, pp. 1002-1025.
Suarez-Barraza, M.F., Ramis-Pujol, J. and Kerbache, L. (2011), “Thoughts on kaizen and its evolution:
three different perspectives and guiding principles”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma,
Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 288-308.
Suarez-Barraza, M.F., Ramis-Pujol, J. and Mi Dahlgaard-Park, S. (2013), “Changing quality of life
through the Personal Kaizen approach: a qualitative study”, International Journal of Quality
and Service Sciences, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 191-207.
Sukserm, T. and Takahashi, Y. (2012), “Self-efficacy as a mediator of the relationships between
learning and ethical behavior from human resource development in corporate social
responsibility activity”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, Vol. 4 No. 1,
pp. 8-22.
Tang, Z., Chen, X. and Wu, Z. (2010), “Using behavior theory to investigate individual-level
determinants of employee involvement in TQM”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 21 No. 12,
pp. 1231-1260.
Tesluk, P.E., Farr, J.L., Mathieu, J.E. and Vance, R.J. (1995), “Generalization of employee involvement
training to the job setting: individual and situational effects”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48
No. 3, pp. 607-632.
Themanson, J.R. and Rosen, P.J. (2015), “Examining the relationships between self-efficacy, task-
relevant attentional control, and task performance: evidence from event-related brain
potentials”, British Journal of Psychology, Vol. 106 No. 2, pp. 253-271.
Tolli, A.P. and Schmidt, A.M. (2008), “The role of feedback, causal attributions, and self-efficacy in
goal revision”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 3, p. 692.
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, p. 239.
Tracey, J.B., Hinkin, T.R., Tannenbaum, S.I. and Mathieu, J.E. (1997), “The influence of individual
characteristics and the work environment on varying levels of training outcomes”, Academy of
Management Proceedings, Academy of Management Briarcliff Manor, New York, Vol. 10510,
pp. 210-214.
Tyler, T.R. and Blader, S.L. (2005), “Can businesses effectively regulate employee conduct? The Training and
antecedents of rule following in work settings”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 6,
pp. 1143-1158. continuous
Van der Klink, M., Gielen, E. and Nauta, C. (2001), “Supervisory support as a major condition to
improvement
enhance transfer”, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 52-63.
Ventura, M., Salanova, M. and Llorens, S. (2015), “Professional self-efficacy as a predictor of burnout
and engagement: the role of challenge and hindrance demands”, The Journal of Psychology,
Vol. 149 No. 3, pp. 277-302.
Vroom, V.H. (1964), Work and Motivation, Wiley, Oxford, England.
Werner, J.M. (2021), Human Resource Development: Talent Development, Cengage Learning,
Mason, OH.
Werner, J.M. and DeSimone, R.L.R.L. (2011), Human Resource Development, Cengage Learning,
Mason, OH.
Yamnill, S. and McLean, G.N. (2001), “Theories supporting transfer of training”, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 195-208.
Yokozawa, K., Nguyen, H.A. and Tran, T.B.H. (2021), “Role of personal anxiety in individual kaizen
behaviour and performance: evidence from Japan”, International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 942-961.
Zhao, H., Seibert, S.E. and Hills, G.E. (2005), “The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of
entrepreneurial intentions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 6, p. 1265.
Zollo, M. and Winter, S.G. (2002), “Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities”,
Organization Science, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 339-351.

(The Appendix follows overleaf)

TQM Appendix
Original statements
Training transfer climate
1. New managers discuss how to apply their training
on the job with their supervisor and other managers
2. New managers who use their training supervise
differently from the existing managers (reverse-
scored)
3. The job of the newly trained managers is designed
in such a way as to allow them to apply the skill touch
in training
4. I was allowed to practice handling real and job-
relevant problems
5. New managers who successfully use their training
will receive a salary increase
6. When newly trained managers failed to use their
training, they can expect to be reprimanded
7. More experienced workers ridicule the use of
techniques learned in training (reverse-scored)
8. Existing managers are too busy to note whether
trainees use learned behavior (reverse- scored)
Continuous improvement training
1. Specific work-skills training (technical and
vocational) given to hourly employees throughout the
division
2. Team building and group dynamics training for
employees in the division
3. Quality-related training given to hourly employees
throughout the division
4. Quality-related training given to managers and
supervisors throughout the division
5. Training in the “total quality concept” (i.e.
philosophy of company-wide responsibility for
quality) throughout the division
6. Training of employees to implement quality circle
type program
7. Training in the basic statistical techniques (such as
histograms and control charts) in the division as a
whole
8. Training in advanced statistical techniques (such
as design of experiments and regression analysis) in
the division as a whole
9. Commitment of the divisional top management to
employee training
10. Availability of resources for employee training in
the division
Continuous improvement
1. I voluntarily search for any work-related new
Table A1. information and knowledge which may help improve
Comparison between the quality of work I do
original and used
measurements
Survey statements
1. My manager and I discuss how to apply knowledge
learned from the continuous improvement course at
the workplace
2. Applying the knowledge and skills learned in the
continuous improvement course make me be
supervised closely by my supervisor (reverse-scored)
3. My job was arranged in such a way as to allow me
to apply the knowledge and skills learned from the
continuous improvement course to the job
4. I am allowed to practice handling real and job-
relevant problems
5. I will receive a compensation or a promotion
opportunity increase if I apply successfully learned
skills in a continuous improvement course
6. I will be reprimanded if I fail to use my training in
the continuous improvement course
Eliminated due to comments from pilot test
participants
Eliminated due to comments from pilot test
participants
Eliminated
Eliminated
1. My company trained me in the methods and
techniques used in continuous improvement
2. I received training to implement quality circle
program
3. I received training in the basic statistical techniques
(such as histograms and control charts) to implement
continuous improvement
4. I received training in advanced statistical
techniques (such as design of experiments and
regression analysis) to implement continuous
improvement
5. My top management commit to continuous
improvement training
6. The resources for continuous improvement training
are available in my company
1. I voluntarily search for any work-related new
information and knowledge which may help improve
the quality of work I do
(continued )
Original statements Survey statements
Training and
continuous
2. I make it routine to make suggestions about how to 2. I usually make suggestions about how to improve improvement
improve the work procedure the work procedure
3. I am always monitoring if there is any room for 3. I am always monitoring if there is any room for
improvement in the work I do improvement in the work I do
4. I am always working to continuously improve the 4. I am always working to continuously improve the
quality of product and work process quality of product and work process
Self-efficacy
1. I will be able to achieve most of the goals that I have
1. I will be able to achieve most of the goals of
set for myself continuous improvement in the continuous
improvement program (Chen et al., 2001)
2. When facing difficult tasks, I am certain that I will 2.When facing difficult tasks related to continuous
accomplish them improvement, I am certain that I will accomplish them
3. In general, I think that I can obtain outcomes that 3. In general, I think that I can obtain continuous
are important to me improvement outcomes that are important to me
4. I believe I can succeed at most any endeavor to 4. I believe I can succeed at most any continuous
which I set my mind improvement endeavor to which I set my mind
5. I will be able to successfully overcome many 5. I will be able to successfully overcome many
challenges challenges during continuous improvement projects
6. I am confident that I can perform effectively on 6. I am confident that I can perform effectively on
many different tasks many different continuous improvement tasks
7. Compared to other people, I can do most tasks very 7. Compared to other people, I can do most continuous
well improvement tasks very well
8. Even when things are tough, I can perform quite 8. Even when continuous improvement tasks are
well tough, I can perform quite well
Source(s): Original scales were adapted from Saraph et al. (1989), Rouiller and Goldstein (1993), Peccei and
Rosenthal (1997), and Chen et al. (2001)
Table by the author Table A1.

About the author

Pham Thu Trang is Lecturer of operations and quality management in Banking Academy of Vietnam,
Vietnam. She received her Ph.D. from National Economics University, Vietnam, 2020. Dr Pham Thu
Trang’ research interests lie in the areas of the links between human resource practices and employee
perceptions, attitudes and behaviors with quality management designable outcomes. Dr Pham Thu
Trang also is Auditor for quality systems according to ISO 9001:2015, ISO 45001:2018. Pham Thu Trang
can be contacted at: trangpt@hvnh.edu.vn

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com