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

www.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.htm

Motivation
Motivation to transfer training in to transfer
learning organizations training
Talat Islam
Institute of Business Administration, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan
273
Abstract Received 27 March 2018
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to empirically investigate the role of resistance to change and Revised 17 March 2019
self-efficacy (SE) on the relationship between learning culture and motivation to transfer training (MTT). Accepted 8 April 2019
Design/methodology/approach – The study collected data from 412 faculty members of higher
education institutions on the basis of multi-stage sampling technique. First, the population was divided into
two strata. Second, universities were selected on a random basis and finally, respondents were selected on
simple random basis.
Findings – The study used structural equation modeling and hierarchical regression techniques to test the
hypotheses. The study found that in the presence of high SE and low resistance to change learning culture
more likely to influence on MTT.
Research limitations/implications – The study contributed to cognitive theory, signaling theory and
experimental learning theory and has implications for managers and academic policymakers.
Originality/value – The study is a novel attempt to examine the side by side role of learning culture, SE and
learning transfer climate toward MTT.
Keywords Self-efficacy, Higher education, Organizational learning, Motivation to transfer,
Workplace training, Resistance to change
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
In today’s age of rapid technology and innovation, gaining sustainable competitive
advantage has become essential for organizations (Banerajee et al., 2017; Islam et al., 2016;
Islam and Tariq, 2018). One of the ways to remain competitive is to foster a learning and
knowledge-based culture (Bates and Khasawneh, 2005). Each year, organizations spend a
mammoth percentage of their profits on training and developing employees (Silverman,
2012), but such training programs are not sufficient for employees to transfer the acquired
knowledge (Salas and Kosarzycki, 2003). According to the arguments by Cromwell and Kolb
(2004), only 15 percent of the total learning through training is transferred at the workplace.
In addition, several training programs end up with no learning (Islam and Ahmed, 2018). For
example, the training by the US Postal Service regarding team building (Feiden, 2003) or by
Burger King regarding “burning their feet while trying to walk over hot coal” (Bunch, 2007)
cost millions of dollars without any gain. Therefore, experts are of the view that learning
through training activities are usually disseminated within a year (Salas et al., 2012).
The literature has focused on the need for fostering a learning culture in organizations (Islam
et al., 2016, 2013) because a learning environment enables employees to learn and then share
their learning with their colleagues. Garvin (1993) suggested a learning culture as the key driver
for promoting learning at the organizational level. At the same level, employees of the
organization (who attended training programs) should take the responsibility to share their
learning with those who are unable to attend the training (Clarke, 2004), however, this rarely
happens (Cromwell and Kolb, 2004). According to Bates and Khasawneh (2005), climate can
positively affect employees’ perceptions about their organizational culture, and this may lead
employees to share their training with colleagues (Egan et al., 2004; Islam and Tariq, 2018). Journal of Management
Development
Vol. 38 No. 4, 2019
pp. 273-287
The author is thankful to the editor and reviewers for their appreciation and suggestions to improve © Emerald Publishing Limited
0262-1711
this manuscript. The author is also thankful to Dr Ghulam Ali for his services as a proofreader. DOI 10.1108/JMD-03-2018-0098
JMD It is not only the climate that enables employees to transfer training but also self-efficacy
38,4 (SE) (Simosi, 2012). SE is “an individuals belief in his/her capabilities to meet task-specific
demands and to successfully carry out a particular course of action” (Bandura, 1997), known
as “generative capability.” This ability helps individuals to learn skills and resources to
perform better. Thus, SE is an imaginary concept that motivates toward better performance.
Axtell et al. (1997) demonstrated that employees with a high level of SE positively relate to
274 intention to transfer. However, employees with a low level of SE are less likely to transfer
the learning which they acquired through training programs (Switzer et al., 2005).
This study also adds value to the existing literature as it is conducted on highly
knowledgeable workers (i.e. academicians). Academicians are not only required to share
advanced topics with their students but are also required to publish high-quality research in
well-reputed journals, thus, create intangible assets for their institutions. Apart from this, most
of the higher education institutes conduct faculty development programs on a regular basis.
Such programs are essential to cope with pedagogic innovation such as virtual simulations or
e-learning (Kim and Bonk, 2006). Moreover, the advances in statistical software (e.g. AMOS,
PLS, SPSS or MATLAB, etc.) have also created a challenging environment for academicians
(Hagenson and Castle, 2003). Considering such advancements, academic institutions
purchase costly software and train their employees to increase their level of understanding,
but the outcomes are often not effective (Kong, 1999), thus generating the need to study
transfer of training.
Given that, drawing from organizational support theory (Eisenberger et al., 1986),
experiential learning theory (Kolb, 1984) and signaling theory (Spence, 1973), this study
argues that in the presence of a learning environment, SE and transfer climate, faculty
members may be motivated to transfer their acquired knowledge and skills.
Thus, this study made an attempt to empirically investigate the joint effect of a learning
transfer climate (LTC), organizational learning culture (OLC) and SE on talented employees’
(i.e. knowledge-based employees) motivation to transfer knowledge which they acquired
through various training programs, a gap that still exists (Islam and Ahmed, 2018; Banerajee
et al., 2017; Simosi, 2012; Zumrah and Byole, 2015).

Literature review
Organizational learning culture (OLC)
The root cause of “organizational learning” can be tracked back to the 1930s, though the concept
gained popularity through Argyris and Schön’s (1978) argument, “learning as an important
organizational process.” In the 1990s a famous book called The Fifth Discipline opened new
horizons for researchers as this book sparked the concept of a “learning organization.” Before
that, researchers have used both the terms (i.e. learning organization and organizational
learning) interchangeably, though both are different in meaning. For instance, a learning
organization provides and promotes continuous learning among its employees, while
organizational learning is an employee’s shared learning process (Song et al., 2009). Senge (1990)
defined a learning organization as, “an organization with continuous testing of experience and
its transformation into knowledge available to the whole organization and relevant to their
mission” (p. 6). Learning organizations, when studied in the cultural context named as OLC
(Islam et al., 2015). Thus, the learning culture of an organization (i.e. OLC) focuses on acquisition,
distribution and transfer of skills and knowledge (Yang et al., 2004).
Literature is mixed about the conceptualization of OLC, as some of the researchers
considered it a multi-dimensional construct, while others consider it single-dimensional
( Joo, 2010). However, the present study has treated OLC as a single construct (Yang, 2003).
OLC helps organizations to maintain a competitive advantage over its rivals (Fiol, 1991).
According to Bates and Khasawneh (2005), a learning-oriented culture not only enables
employees to understand the value of learning but also enables them to use that learning at
the workplace to accomplish challenging goals. OLC not only enhances an organization’s Motivation
financial performance and knowledge (Yang, 2003), but also enhances its employees to transfer
job-related outcomes such as emotional attachment, job satisfaction, citizenship behavior, training
SE and intention to be with the organization (Egan et al., 2004; Joo, 2010).
In today’s era, academic institutions are supposed to have a continuous learning culture
(Watkins, 2005) as its employees (i.e. faculty members) have to teach to produce new
knowledge and insights. Hence, academic institutions have a similar need of training 275
programs to the corporate sector, so that their faculty members keep themselves updated.
Indeed, faculty members are the key representatives of knowledge workers (Drucker, 1993).
Therefore, academic institutions of today have focused on the training of faculty. However,
a lack of faculty members’ motivation toward transferring the acquired knowledge is
observed (Kong, 1999) and because of this, the majority of the higher learning institutions
remained unable to serve their true purpose. Therefore, there is a need to focus on how
faculty’s motivation to transfer learning may be increased.

Motivation to transfer training (MTT)

According to Bates and Khasawneh (2005), employees of an organization willingly learn and
then share their knowledge when provided with the transfer climate and learning culture.
Motivation to transfer is operationalized as “the employees willingness to learn through
training programs and then share the acquired knowledge” (Noe and Schmitt, 1986). Thus,
MTT is the trainees’ inspiration not only to apply the acquired knowledge from formal or
informal learning programs but also to share it with their peers.
It is also true that sharing of acquired knowledge depends upon training effectiveness.
Training effectiveness is influenced by trainees’ expectations, values, interests and attitudes
(Noe and Schmitt, 1986). In this regard, Egan et al. (2004) highlighted the importance of an
LTC in motivating individuals’ to transfer their learning. Hence, serious participants in any
training program (who came with the aim of adding value) are considered as more
motivated to share their knowledge and work better compared with those who attend the
training without intention to gain (Huczynski and Lewis, 1980).
Past studies have not focused on understanding how the climate of an organization
complements its learning culture to motivate workers to transfer training. In addition,
understanding the culture of an organization is difficult for the employees, therefore, the
learning climate of that organization give cues to the employees to understand the existence of
the learning culture (Saks and Belcourt, 2006). Therefore, a learning supportive culture must
facilitate an LTC in specific institutions (such as academics) (Lightner et al., 2008). A dearth of
studies in the past have identified the impact of the climate of academic institutions on the
faculty members’ perception about their organization (Locke et al., 1983), and motivation to
share their knowledge (Senge, 1990). However, there is still a need to examine the joint effect of
climate and culture on faculty member’s MTT.

Theoretical framework and hypotheses

The model of the present study is supported by experimental learning theory (Kolb, 1984),
signaling theory (Spence, 1973) and organizational support theory (Eisenberger et al., 1986).
Signaling theory is of the view that certain signals try to communicate about the meaning of
messages to the receiver. Therefore, the learning culture of an organization signals its
employees to learn (i.e. from formal or informal ways) and share learning with their colleagues,
especially if learning is provided through training programs (Spence, 2002). In addition, if the
learning culture portrays management’s intention to be flexible and transfer, then employees
may reciprocate with innovative solutions, creative ideas and attitudes. This argument sparks
the concept of reciprocation which is relevant to organizational support theory.
JMD On the other hand, experimental learning theory states that the individual learns when
38,4 interacting with stakeholders, of which one is the environment (Kolb, 1984). Moreover, in the
learning process, there is a need for acknowledgment through feedback and employees when
perceiving that their organization promotes a learning culture through mentorship and
feedback, they would be motivated to share their learning and knowledge (Islam and Tariq,
2018). In a similar way, if the transfer climate signals that management encourages feedback
276 then employees feel inspired to share the knowledge which they acquired through training
programs (Clark et al., 1993). However, in the case of lesser opponents regarding new ideas,
employees would be more willing to share knowledge. Thus, this study hypothesized:
H1. LTC (resistance to change dimension) will moderate the relationship between OLC
and MTT.
Moderating role of self-efficacy
Though, literature is clear that SE and the culture of a learning organization are prime
predictors of transfer training. However, little is known about the mechanism of how
learning culture interacts with SE to motivate transfer as Simosi (2012) argued that
achievement-oriented culture or SE (alone) is not enough to motivate transfer of training.
More specifically, apart from the direct association among learning culture, SE and transfer,
few of the studies have demonstrated the moderating or mediating role of trainee’s SE
between employees work-related behaviors (Saks, 1995; Islam and Ahmed, 2018). For
example, Saks (1995) noted a partial moderating role of SE on the relationship between
training and adjustment, while Sookhai and Budworth (2010) found SE performing a
mediating role between organizational climate and transfer training. Trainees who perceive
their organization as supportive, transfer their skills (i.e. SE) with peers and reciprocated
through motivation to transfer.
Despite the fact that a supportive work environment enhances employee’s confidence,
however, organizational factors may affect employees in a different way (Islam et al., 2018;
Ahmad et al., 2019; Ahmad and Islam, 2019; Islam et al., 2019). For instance, in a typical
organizational culture, employees with low SE may find limited learning opportunities
(through training programs) to transfer. On the other hand, Ford et al. (1992) noted,
trainees from a learning culture (i.e. graduates from Air Force) with high SE exhibit more
opportunities to perform more difficult tasks.
Based on the above arguments, it is plausible that employees of achievement-oriented
organizations (i.e. higher education institutes) have high confidence (i.e. SE), and when they
perceive their organizational culture as full of learning, person-oriented, participative and
supportive, will have greater motivation to transfer their acquired knowledge. This argument
can be supported by organizational support theory as the trainees transfer the acquired
knowledge through norms of reciprocation. Thus:
H2. SE will moderate the association between OLC and MTT (Figure 1).

Research methods
Participants of the study
Employees who work in high-tech professions (such as science, accounting, medicine, law,
academics and R&D) are considered as knowledge base employees. Among these, this study
considered academicians of higher education as knowledge base workers. Academicians are
not only required to share new and emerging topics with their students but are also required to
publish research papers. While doing so, they create intangible assets for their universities and
are categorized as knowledge workers (Harrigan and Dalmia, 1991). There are 74 private and
103 public sectors registered universities in Pakistan, with the total number of 34,444 faculty
members i.e. 24,340 in public and 10,104 in the private sector (www.hec.gov.pk).
 Motivation
Self-efficacy to transfer
training
H2

Organizational Motivation to 277

Learning Culture transfer training

H1

Resistance to
change
(learning transfer Figure 1.
climate) Theoretical model

The study used a multi-stage sampling technique to select the sample. In the first stage, the
population was divided into two “stratas,” i.e. public and private universities. In the second
stage, 31 public (with the faculty of 15,525) and 21 private (with the faculty of 4,721)
universities were selected randomly. In the third stage, the formula of Krejcie and Morgan
(1970) was applied to draw a sample of 736 faculty members, where 379 public and 357 private
sector faculty members were selected. In the final stage, respondents were approached on
a simple random basis. Of the total of 736, 426 faculty members responded back and only
412 were used in the data analysis (effective response rate of 55.9 percent).
The respondents were also evaluated on the basis of certain demographical characteristics.
The majority of the respondents were male (i.e. 69 percent), with the average age of 38 years
(i.e. 43 percent) and holding a degree equivalent to 18 years of education as the minimum
requirement for degree is of 18 years by Higher Education Commission of Pakistan.

Measures
This study used adapted scales from the previous studies and respondents were asked
to record their responses on a five-point Likert scale ranging from “1 – strongly disagree to
5 – strongly agree.”

Organizational learning culture

Watkins and Marsick (1997) developed a questionnaire named “the dimensions of learning
organization questionnaire (DLOQ)” and considered as a valid measuring instrument. Yang et al.
(2004) introduced the shortened version of seven-items to study OLC as a unidimensional
construct and reported its factor loading ranging from 0.68 to 0.83. This study used the same
scale and a sample item includes, “In my institution, whenever people state their views, they also
ask what others think.”

Self-efficacy
A five-item scale from the study of Jones (1986) was used to measure the academicians’ level of
SE. Simosi (2012) used the same scale to measure the newly hired employee’s SE and noted its
reliability as 0.84. A sample item includes, “My job is well within the scope of my abilities.”

Motivation to transfer training

An 11-item scale, from the study of Machin and Fogarty (2004) was used to measure
respondents MTT. A sample item includes, “I practice using the skills which I have learned.”
JMD Learning transfer climate
38,4 LTC was measured using the one factor (resistance to change) from the scale of Holton and
Bates (2002). The main reason to use the single factor was that lot of studies have proved the
role of coaching and support in motivation to transfer, however, this study particularly aims
to identify the role of resistance. A sample item includes, “people in my group are open to
changing the way they do things.”
278
Results
Structure equation modeling (SEM) is used in this study to test the hypotheses. This study
applied SEM in two stages as it helps to reduce the interactional effect of structure models
(Byrne, 2010). First, all the pre-tests regarding missing values, outliers, correlation and
normality were conducted (Hair et al., 2006; Islam et al., 2019) as these could affect results
(Islam et al., 2019).
The values in Table III describe standard deviation, mean, Cronbach’s α and correlation
among OLC, MTT, SE and resistance to change factor of climate. OLC (M ¼ 3.62, SD ¼ 0.60)
was found to have a positive association with SE (M ¼ 3.64, SD ¼ 0.78; r ¼ 0.54, p o0.01),
MTT (M ¼ 3.62, SD ¼ 0.52; r ¼ 0.42, p o0.01) and negative association with resistance to
change (M ¼ 3.63, SD ¼ 0.65; r ¼ −0.38, p o0.01). However, resistance to change was found
to have an insignificant association with MTT (r ¼ 0.057, p W0.05). In addition, all
the variables were found to have an internal consistency as the value of α is well above the
standard value of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2006). As the study is based on the data collected from the
same source at one point of time, the issue of common method variance (CMV ) may
be present. In order to cope with the problem of CMV, the study randomizes the question
order, avoid “complex syntax” and “double-barreled” questions to ensure simplicity at the
time of data collection (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In addition, the data were examined through
Harman’s single factor method (Harman, 1960) where the new latent variable (without
rotation) was found to contribute less than 40 percent of the variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003),
which confirms that the problem of CMV was not present.

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)

Prior to test the hypotheses, the study used principal component analysis to conduct EFA
using orthogonal varimax rotation (Munro, 2000) and found variables confirming
criterion validity (see Table I). First, the seven-item scale of OLC was found to explain
63.05 percent of the variance with eigenvalue of greater than 1.0 (i.e. 5.78) and factor loading
of more than 0.50 (i.e. ranges between 0.71 and 0.85). The values of Bartlett’s test of
sphericity (1,076.645) and Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (0.913) were found to be acceptable. Second,
a five-item scale of SE was found to explain 57.49 percent of the variance with eigenvalue of
greater than 1.0 (i.e. 6.24) and factor loading of more than 0.50 (i.e. ranges between 0.69 and
0.87). Further, the values of Bartlett’s test of sphericity (1,979.776) and Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin
(0.909) were found to be acceptable. Third, an 11-item scale of MTT was found to explain
47.98 percent of the variance with eigenvalue of greater than 1.0 (i.e. 4.88) and factor loading
of more than 0.50 (i.e. ranges between 0.68 and 0.91). In addition, the values of Bartlett’s test
of sphericity (1,137.257) and Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (0.882) were found to be acceptable.
Finally, a four-item scale of RTC was found to explain 61.78 percent of the variance with
eigenvalue of greater than 1.0 (i.e. 3.79) and factor loading of more than 0.50 (i.e. ranges
between 0.82 and 0.85). Moreover, the values of Bartlett’s test of sphericity (1,489.238)
and Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (0.876) were found to be acceptable. These results regarding
EFA demonstrate a high loading clear factor structure. In addition, the value of
Cronbach’s α was also found between 0.78 and 0.88, which is acceptable for further analysis
(Nunnally, 1967) (Tables I–III).
 Exploratory factor analysis Confirmatory factor analysis
Motivation
Variance Construct to transfer
Items Loading Eigen % Reliability Loading AVE reliability training
Organizational learning culture
In my organization, people are
rewarded for learning 0.85 5.78 63.05 0.78 0.83 0.58 0.77
In my organization, people spend 279
time building trust with each other 0.82 0.79
In my organization, teams/groups
revise their thinking as a result of
group discussions or information
collected 0.81 0.76
My organization makes its lessons
learned available to all employees 0.81 0.76
My organization recognizes people
for taking initiative 0.80 0.77
My organization works together with
the outside community to meet
mutual needs 0.71 0.76
In my organization, leaders continually
look for opportunities to learn 0.73 0.62
Self-efficacy
My job is well within the scope of my
abilities 0.87 6.24 57.49 0.86 0.85 0.61 0.85
I can handle more challenging jobs
than the one I am doing 0.82 0.71
I feel I am overqualified for this job 0.71 0.80
I have all the technical knowledge
I need to deal with my job 0.69 0.68
My skills and abilities equal or exceed
those of my colleagues 0.73 0.72
Motivation to transfer
I discuss with my supervisor ways to
develop the skills that I have learned 0.91 4.88 47.98 0.88 0.85 0.60 0.84
I discuss with my co-workers ways to
develop the skills that I have learned 0.86 0.83
I spend time thinking about how to
use the skills that I have learned 0.83 0.83
I evaluate how successfully I can use
the skills that I have learned 0.84 0.81
I look for opportunities to use the
skills that I have learned 0.84 0.79
I review course materials in order to
develop the skills that I have learned 0.79 0.73
I practice using the skills that I have
learned 0.68 0.73
I set specific goals for maintaining the
skills that I have learned 0.75 0.81
I seek expert help/advice in order to
maintain the skills that I have learned 0.78 0.76
I examine my work environment for
potential barriers to using the skills
that I have learned 0.69 0.68 Table I.
Exploratory and
confirmatory
(continued ) factor analysis
JMD Exploratory factor analysis Confirmatory factor analysis
38,4 Variance Construct
Items Loading Eigen % Reliability Loading AVE reliability

I monitor my success at using the

skills that I have learned 0.72 0.69

280 Learning transfer climate

People in my organization generally
prefer to use existing methods,
rather than try new methods learned
in training 0.85 3.79 61.78 0.83 0.82 0.69 0.81
Experienced employees in my
organization ridicule others when they
use techniques they learn in training 0.83 0.85
People in my organization are not
willing to put in the effort to change
the way things are done 0.83 0.84
My organization is reluctant to try
Table I. new ways of doing things 0.82 0.83

Goodness of fit Standard CFA CFA Structural

indices Full name value (Initial) (Modified) model

χ2/df Chi-Square ⩽3 2.84 2.10 1.95

CFI Comparative fit index ⩾ 0.90 0.85 0.91 0.94
GFI Goodness of fit index ⩾ 0.90 0.84 0.89 0.90
AGFI Adjusted goodness of fit index ⩾ 0.90 0.81 0.90 0.91
Table II. NFI Normed fit index ⩾ 0.90 0.78 0.88 0.89
Goodness of fit indices RMSEA Root mean square error of approximation ⩽0.08 0.068 0.052 0.048

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4

1. OLC 3.62 0.60 –

2. SE 3.64 0.78 0.54** –
Table III. 3. RTC 3.63 0.65 −0.38** 0.47** –
Correlations, mean, 4. MTT 3.62 0.52 0.42** 0.53** 0.057 –
standard deviation Notes: OLC, organizational learning culture; SE, self-efficacy; RTC, resistance to change; MTT, motivation to
and reliability values transfer training. **p o0.01

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

The study than conducted CFA to verify the discriminant and convergent validity. Initially,
the values of the model fitness were not suitable according to the cut-off values given by Hair
et al. (2010), i.e. χ2/df ¼ 2.84, CFI ¼ 0.85, GFI ¼ 0.84, AGFI ¼ 0.81, NFI ¼ 0.78, RMSEA ¼ 0.068.
However, some modifications were made to improve the values of the goodness of fit, i.e.
χ2/df ¼ 2.10, CFI ¼ 0.91, GFI ¼ 0.89, AGFI ¼ 0.90, NFI ¼ 0.88, RMSEA ¼ 0.052 (see Table II).
In the second stage, structure model was examined and the values of the model fit were found
to be well within the standard values, i.e. χ2/df ¼ 1.95, CFI ¼ 0.94, GFI ¼ 0.90, AGFI ¼ 0.91,
NFI ¼ 0.89, RMSEA ¼ 0.048. In addition, discriminant and convergent validity were examined
using covariance structure analysis (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The values of the factor
loading of all the items used in the study were found to be significant with the factor loading Motivation
of more than 0.50, and the values of average variance extracted of more than 0.50 (Fornell and to transfer
Larcker, 1981) confirm the convergent validity (see Table I). Discriminant validity was training
examined computing the constructs’ shared variances between constructs, which is the
squared correlation between two constructs. The data confirmed the discriminant validity.
The moderating role of SE and resistance to change was examined through hierarchical
regression (see Table IV ). For this, the data, first, were standardized regarding OLC, MTT, 281
SE and resistance to change and then two interactional terms were generated (i.e. OLC×SE
and OLC×RTC) to avoid the multicollinearity ( Judd et al., 2001).
First, all the demographical variables (i.e. age, gender and qualification) were entered
as control variables with the dependent variable (i.e. MTT), where age and gender were
found to have a non-significant, while qualification was found to have a significant
association with MTT with the total variance of 5 percent. Second, SE, resistance to
change and OLC were entered as independent variables, where OLC (β ¼ 0.12, p o 0.01),
SE (β ¼ 0.26, p o 0.01) and resistance to change (β ¼ 0.39, P o 0.01) were found to have a
positive association with MTT with the total variance of 16 percent. Finally, two
interactional terms, i.e. OLC×SE and OLC×RTC were entered. The result indicates that
the main effect of OLC on MTT becomes insignificant (i.e. t o 1.96) while the effect of SE
on MTT was still significant and the β coefficient value of the interactional term OLC×SE
(β ¼ 0.33, p o 0.01) was significant. This indicated that greater the self-confidence, greater
the impact of OLC on MTT. Similarly, resistance to change was found to have a significant
association with MTT (t ¼ 1.98) and the β coefficient value of the interactional term of
OLC×RTC (β ¼ −0.17, p o 0.01) was noted as negative. This indicates that greater
the resistance in implementing innovative ideas lessen the impact of OLC on MTT. This
model was found to explain 23 percent variance. These results support both the
hypotheses, i.e. H1 and H2.
In order to further examine the moderating effect, plots were established. The graph
in Figure 2 represents the moderating role of self-efficacy on the relationship between OLC
and MTT. The lines show that the relationship between OLC and MTT becomes stronger

Variable β SE t

Step 1: control variables

Age 0.04 0.06 0.73
Gender 0.02 0.105 0.16
Qualification 0.30** 0.073 4.13
R2 0.05
Step2: independent and moderating variables
OLC 0.12** 0.046 2.66
SE 0.26** 0.048 5.32
RTC 0.39** 0.043 8.96
R2 0.21
ΔR2 0.16
Step 3: interactional term
OLC × SE 0.33** 0.062 5.68
OLC × RTC −0.17** 0.048 3.48
2
R 0.44 Table IV.
ΔR2 0.23 Hierarchical
Notes: OLC, organizational learning culture; SE, self-efficacy; RTC, resistance to change. Motivation to regression results
transfer training as the dependent variable. **p o0.01 for moderation
JMD 5

38,4 Low Resistance to Change

4.5
High Resistance to Change

Motivation to transfer training

4

3.5

282 3

2.5

2
Figure 2.
Moderating effect of 1.5
self-efficacy on the
relationship between 1
OLC and MTT Low Organizational learning High Organizational learning
culture culture

in the presence of high SE. Similarly, the moderating effect of resistance to change is
presented in Figure 3. The lines identify that in the presence of less resistance to change
OLC strongly predict MTT.

Discussion
This study is aimed at investigating the moderating role of SE and resistance to change
(a factor of learning climate) on the association between OLC and MTT in academics, as so
much has not been explored in this regard. The results of the study observed that in the
presence of a learning culture, employees of an organization become ready to share their
knowledge and skills with the other faculty members. This is, perhaps, the return on the
training costs by the employer that the faculty member shares their knowledge to develop
resources for their institutions (Banerajee et al., 2017). Therefore, this study inferred that
higher education institutes should promote a learning culture so that they could develop
skills and transfer knowledge among their students for their development.

5
Low Self-efficacy
4.5
High Self-efficacy
Motivation to transfer training

3.5

2.5

2
Figure 3.
Moderating effect of
1.5
resistance to change
on the relationship
between OLC 1
and MTT Low Organizational High Organizational
learning culture learning culture
Regarding H1, resistance to change (a factor of LTC) the study found its moderating role on the Motivation
relationship between OLC and MTT. This indicates that in the presence of a learning culture to transfer
employees come up with unique and innovative ideas. However, it is not necessary that training
the employees necessarily share such ideas and new skills with their colleagues, especially when
they perceive that top management resists new ideas. This study found that employees share
their new ideas and skills only when they perceive less resistance to change as this may
motivate them to transfer their acquired skills and new ideas (Holton and Bates, 2002). 283
The findings of the study, regarding the second hypothesis, suggest a moderating role of
SE on the relationship between OLC and MTT. The result of this study is in line with the
arguments of Simosi (2012) that achievement-oriented culture (i.e. OLC) or SE alone is not
enough to enhance employees MTT. This study noted that when employees feel confidence
in themselves, they learn to add value and feel motivated to share their learning with others.
SE gives additional advantage to the employees as they perceive their culture as supportive
and this further encourages them to transfer their skills.

Implications and conclusion

This study has both theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, this study
contributes by considering SE as a moderating variable between OLC and MTT. This is
perhaps the first attempt to empirically investigate this link between faculty members of
higher education. This study is in line with the social cognitive theory that individuals
generate their behaviors by their experiences and work environment. Employees process
such experiences and environments to develop their own perceptions. However, this study
is limited as it includes only learning culture, whereas humanistic-oriented culture should
also be considered to examine the moderating role of SE in MTT. The study also contributed
to signaling theory by incorporating LTC as a moderating variable and argued that,
learning culture signal to the employees that their management encourages sharing and
innovative ideas. However, when employees perceive that they are being discouraged or
criticized, they are less likely to be motivated to transfer their learning. In this regard, the
study has limited itself by taking only a single aspect from LTC, i.e. resistance to change
and suggests future researchers consider both aspects in further studies.
Practically, the findings of the current study are beneficial for both managers and
policymakers in academia. First, the study suggests managers and policymakers promote such
a healthy culture where employees feel free to share and enhance their skills and this can only
be possible when employees are provided a place of continuous learning. In addition, a climate
of training transfer without resistance may further help employees to transfer their knowledge.
In this regard, the concerned management of the organization should conduct meetings with
their employees. Such meetings positively signal to the employees that, their organization
encourages sharing and new ideas. When employees start believing that their organizations
have provided them with a learning culture with an LTC, they are more likely to be motivated to
share their acquired skills and ideas with others (i.e. colleagues and students in academics).
Regarding the employees who remained unable to get the accurate signals, management should
conduct verbal meetings with encouragement and this can be done at the department level on
an individual basis. Particularly in academia, if some of the employees came with new ideas and
intention to share, the management should encourage them by organizing seminars and the
seminars should be followed by healthy feedback. Feedback is very essential to motivate the
speaker as well as the listeners, as this helps members to perceive the presence of the LTC. If, on
the other hand, the speaker is criticized by colleagues, management or listeners, this will halt
creative ideas and the motivation to transfer the acquired knowledge.
The study also noted that SE is an impressionable variable in contributing toward MTT,
though it is influenced by new experiences (Gist et al., 1991). In this regard, management
should first conduct some training programs (i.e. behavioral modeling or vicarious learning) to
JMD build up confidence among members, because employees with high SE learn better through
38,4 training and are more motivated to transfer compared to employees with low SE (Saks, 1995).
Another way to build the employee’s SE is an encouraging and supportive work environment
and if this environment includes an LTC then employees reciprocate with MTT. Regarding
the moderating role of SE, the study suggests to managers that, organizing training programs
for confident employees ends up with greater motivation to apply the acquired knowledge at
284 the workplace and transfer.

References
Ahmad, R. and Islam, T. (2019), “Does work and family imbalance impact the satisfaction of
police force employees? A ‘net or a web’ model”, Policing: An International Journal of Police
Strategies & Management (in press), available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-05-2018-0061
Ahmad, R., Islam, T. and Saleem, S. (2019), “How commitment and satisfaction explain leave intention
in police force?”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 42
No. 2, pp. 195-208.
Argyris, C. and Schön, D.A. (1978), Organizational Learning, Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.
Axtell, C., Maitlis, S. and Yearta, S. (1997), “Predicting immediate and longer-term transfer of training”,
Personnel Review, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 201-213.
Bandura, A. (1997), Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, Freeman, New York, NY.
Banerajee, P., Gupta, R. and Bates, R. (2017), “Influence of organizational learning culture on knowledge
worker’s motivation to transfer training: testing moderating effects of learning transfer climate”,
Current Psychology, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 606-617.
Bates, R. and Khasawneh, S. (2005), “Organizational learning culture, learning transfer climate and perceived
innovation in Jordanian organizations”, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 9
No. 2, pp. 96-109.
Bunch, K.J. (2007), “Training failure as a consequence of organizational culture”, Human Resource
Development Review, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 142-163.
Byrne, B.M. (2010), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and
Programming, 2nd ed., Routledge, New York, NY.
Clark, C.S., Dobbins, G.H. and Ladd, R.T. (1993), “Exploratory field study of training motivation:
influence of involvement, credibility, and transfer climate”, Group & Organization Management,
Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 292-307.
Clarke, N. (2004), “HRD and the challenges of assessing learning in the workplace”, International
Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 140-156.
Cromwell, S.E. and Kolb, J.A. (2004), “An examination of work environment support factors affecting
transfer of supervisory skills training to the workplace”, Human Resource Development
Quarterly, Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 449-471.
Drucker, P. (1993), Post-Capitalist Society, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford.
Egan, T.M., Bartlett, K.R. and Yang, B. (2004), “The effects of organizational learning culture and job
satisfaction on motivation to transfer learning and turnover intention”, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 279-301.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S. and Sowa, D. (1986), “Perceived organizational
support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 500-507.
Feiden, D. (2003), “Bizarre postal bonding”, New York Daily News, March 9, available at: www.
nydailynews.com/news/story/65683p-61201c.html (accessed December 21, 2017).
Fiol, C.M. (1991), “Managing culture as a competitive resource: an identity-based view of sustainable
competitive advantage”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 191-211.
Ford, J., Quiñones, M., Sego, D. and Sorra, J. (1992), “Factors affecting the opportunity to perform Motivation
trained skills on the job”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 511-527. to transfer
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable training
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Garvin, D.A. (1993), “Building a learning organization”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71 No. 4,
pp. 78-91.
Gist, M., Stevens, C. and Bavetta, A. (1991), “Effects of self-efficacy and post-training intervention on 285
the acquisition and maintenance of complex interpersonal skills”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44
No. 4, pp. 837-861.
Hagenson, L. and Castle, D. (2003), “The integration of technology into teaching by university college of
education faculty”, in Crawford, C., Willis, D.A., Carlsen, R., Gibson, I., McFerrin, K., Price, J. and
Weber, R. (Eds), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education
International Conference, Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, Chesapeake,
MD, pp. 947-952.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.,
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis,
6th ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Harman, H.H. (1960), Modern Factor Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Harrigan, K.R. and Dalmia, G. (1991), “Knowledge workers: the last bastion of competitive advantage”,
Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 4-9.
Holton, E.F. and Bates, R.A. (2002), “The learning transfer systems inventory”, Louisiana State
University: Office of HRD Research.
Huczynski, A.A. and Lewis, J.W. (1980), “An empirical study into the learning transfer process in
management training”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 227-239.
Islam, T. and Ahmed, I. (2018), “Mechanism between perceived organizational support and transfer of
training: explanatory role of self-efficacy and job satisfaction”, Management Research Review,
Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 296-313.
Islam, T. and Tariq, J. (2018), “Learning organizational environment and extra-role behaviors: the
mediating role of employee engagement”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 37 No. 3,
pp. 258-270.
Islam, T., Ahmed, A. and Ahmad, U.N.U. (2015), “The influence of organizational learning culture and
perceived organizational support on employees’ affective commitment and turnover intention”,
Nankai Business Review International, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 417-443.
Islam, T., Ahmed, I. and Ali, G. (2019), “Effects of ethical leadership on bullying and voice behavior
among nurses: mediating role of organizational identification, poor working condition and
workload”, Leadership in Health Services, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 2-17.
Islam, T., Khan, M.M. and Bukhari, F.H. (2016), “The role of organizational learning culture and
psychological empowerment in reducing turnover intention and enhancing citizenship
behavior”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 23 Nos 2/3, pp. 156-169.
Islam, T., Tariq, J. and Usman, B. (2018), “Transformational leadership and four-dimensional
commitment: mediating role of job characteristics and moderating role of participative and
directive leadership styles”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 37 Nos 9/10, pp. 666-683.
Islam, T., Ahmad, R., Ahmed, I. and Ahmer, Z. (2019), “Police work-family nexus, work engagement
and turnover intention: moderating role of person-job-fit”, Policing: An International Journal,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-09-2018-0138
Islam, T., Khan, S.R., Ahmad, U.N.U. and Ahmed, I. (2013), “Organizational learning culture and leader
member exchange: the way to enhance organizational commitment and reduce turnover
intentions”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 20 Nos 4/5, pp. 322-337.
JMD Jones, G. (1986), “Socialization tactics, self-efficacy and newcomers’ adjustments to organizations”,
38,4 Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 262-279.
Joo, B. (2010), “Organizational commitment for knowledge workers: the roles of perceived
organizational learning culture, leader-member exchange quality and turnover intentions”,
Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 69-85.
Judd, C.M., Kenny, D.A. and McClelland, G.H. (2001), “Estimating and testing mediation and
286 moderation in within-participant designs”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 115-134.
Kim, K.-J. and Bonk, C.J. (2006), “The future of online teaching and learning in higher education: the
survey says”, Educause Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 22-30.
Kolb, D.A. (1984), Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development,
Prentice-Hall, NJ.
Kong, H. (1999), “A study on the university professors’ intention of knowledge-sharing”, unpublished
master’s thesis, JunNam University, Gwangju.
Krejcie, R.V. and Morgan, D.W. (1970), “Determining sample size for research activities”, Educational
and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 607-610.
Lightner, R., Benander, R. and Kramer, E.F. (2008), “Faculty and student attitudes about transfer of
learning”, InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, Vol. 3, pp. 58-66.
Locke, E.A., Fitzpatrick, W. and White, F.M. (1983), “Job satisfaction and role clarity among university
and college faculty”, The Review of Higher Education, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 343-365.
Machin, M.A. and Fogarty, G.J. (2004), “Assessing the antecedents of transfer intentions in a training
context”, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 222-236.
Munro, B.H. (2000), Statistical Methods for Health Care Research, Lippincott, Philadelphia, PA.
Noe, R.A. and Schmitt, N. (1986), “Trainee’s attributes and attitudes: neglected influences on training
effectiveness”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 736-749.
Nunnally, J.C. (1967), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
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.
Saks, A. (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.
Saks, A.M. and Belcourt, M. (2006), “An investigation of training activities and transfer of training in
organizations”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 629-648.
Salas, E. and Kosarzycki, M.P. (2003), “Why don’t organizations pay attention to (and use) findings
from the science of training?”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 4,
pp. 487-491.
Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S.I., Kraiger, K. and Smith-Jentsch, K.A. (2012), “The science of training and
development in organizations: what matters in practice”, Psychological Science in Public Interest,
Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 74-101.
Senge, P.M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Doubleday,
New York, NY.
Silverman, R.E. (2012), “So much training, so little to show for it”, report of the Wall Street Journal on
the Leadership in Human Resource, available at: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142
4052970204425904578072950518558328 (accessed December 25, 2017).
Simosi, M. (2012), “The moderating role of self-efficacy in the organizational culture–training transfer
relationship”, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 92-106.
Song, J.H., Joo, B.-K. and Chermack, T.J. (2009), “The dimensions of learning organization questionnaire
(DLOQ): a validation study in a Korean context”, Human Resource Development Quarterly,
Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 43-64.
Sookhai, F. and Budworth, M. (2010), “The trainee in context: examining the relationship between Motivation
self-efficacy and transfer climate for transfer of training”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, to transfer
Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 257-272.
Spence, M. (1973), “Job market signalling”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 87 No. 3,
training
pp. 355-374.
Spence, M. (2002), “Signaling in retrospect and the informational structure of markets”, American
Economic Review, Vol. 92 No. 3, pp. 434-459.
287
Switzer, K., Nagy, M. and Mullins, M. (2005), “The influence of training reputation, managerial support and
self-efficacy on pre-training motivation and perceived training transfer”, Applied Human Resource
Management Research, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 21-34.
Watkins, K.E. (2005), “What would be different if higher education institutions were learning
organizations?”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 414-421.
Watkins, K.E. and Marsick, V.J. (1997), Dimensions of the Learning Organization, Partners for the
Learning Organization, Warwick, RI.
Yang, B. (2003), “Identifying valid and reliable measures for dimensions of a learning culture”,
Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 152-162.
Yang, B., Watkins, K.E. and Marsick, V.J. (2004), “The construct of the learning organization: dimensions,
measurement, and validation”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 31-55.
Zumrah, A.R. and Byole, S. (2015), “The effects of perceived organizational support and job satisfaction
on transfer of training”, Personnel Review, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 236-254.

Further reading
Caffarella, R.S. (2002), Planning Programs for Adult Learners: A Practical Guide for Educators,
Trainers, and Staff Developers, 2nd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Cervero, R.M. (1988), Effective Continuing Education for Professionals, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Chen, C., Sok, P. and Sok, K. (2006), “Exploring potential factors leading to effective training”,
Journal of Management Development, Vol. 26 No. 9, pp. 843-856.
Elliott, E. and Dweck, C. (1988), “Goals: an approach to motivation and achievement”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 5-12.
Gist, M. and Mitchell, T. (1992), “Self-efficacy: a theoretical analysis of its determinants and
malleability”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 183-211.
Quiñones, M. (1995), “Pretraining context effects: training assignment as feedback”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 226-238.
Taylor, M.C. (2000), “Transfer of learning in workplace literacy programs”, Adult Basic Education,
Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 3-20.
Wood, R. and Bandura, A. (1989), “Social cognitive theory of organizational management”, Academy of
Management Review Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 361-384.

Corresponding author
Talat Islam can be contacted at: talatislam@yahoo.com

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