The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-8269.htm
MRR
41,3
296
Received 21 February 2017
Revised 6 August 2017
22 October 2017
Accepted 28 October 2017
Management Research Review
Vol. 41 No. 3, 2018
pp. 296-313
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2040-8269
DOI 10.1108/MRR-02-2017-0052
Mechanism between perceived
organizational support and
transfer of training
Explanatory role of self-efficacy and
job satisfaction
Talat Islam
Institute of Business Administration, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan, and
Ishfaq Ahmed
Hailey College of Commerce, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan
Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to investigate the mechanism between perceived organizational support and
transfer of training using self-efficacy and job satisfaction as mediating variables. More specifically, self-
efficacy is examined as a mediator between perceived organizational support and job satisfaction, whereas
job satisfaction is examined as a mediator between perceived organizational support and transfer of training.
Design/methodology/approach – This quantitative study is based on data collected from 409
employees of the banking sector on a random basis.
Findings – Structural equation modeling analysis confirmed the mediating role of job satisfaction between
perceived organizational support and transfer of training. In addition, self-efficacy was found to perform the
mediating role between perceived organizational support and job satisfaction.
Research limitations/implications – The data for this study were collected at one point of time, and it
has implications for organizations and employees.
Originality/value – This study highlights the emerging issue of transfer of training and gives a practical
model to the organizations to strengthen their human resources. This study is perhaps the first attempt to
empirically investigate the mediating role of self-efficacy and job satisfaction.
Keywords Transfer of training, Perceived organizational support, Service industry,
Job satisfaction, Self-efficacy, Banking sector, Developing economy,
Organizational theory and behavior
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Transfer of training is one of the major concerns for the Human Resource Developers (HRD)
of today (Brown et al., 2011; Tian et al., 2016). The process of transfer of training starts at the
completion of the training program and majorly takes place in the workplace (Chauhan et al.,
2016; Zumrah and Byole, 2015; Nikandrou et al., 2009; Zumrah, 2015). Transfer of training
refers to knowledge acquisition with intentions to generalize and share it (Blume et al., 2010).
More specifically, transfer of training focuses on maintenance of knowledge, attitudes and
skills and its generalization. Generalization is related to the acquisition of skills, attitudes
and knowledge through training programs and to apply the same in the workplace, whereas
maintenance is the continuation of the use of those skills, attitudes and acquired knowledge
for a long span of time (Zumrah and Byole, 2015; Blume et al., 2010).
 Transfer of training is considered valuable for the organization, as it creates a Support and
knowledge-based culture offering competitive and a unique position over its rivals (Bates transfer of
and Khasawneh, 2005). However, getting best out of training is a challenge for management,
as Saks and Belcourt (2006) estimated that only 62 per cent of the trainees’ use the acquired
training
knowledge immediately, while this proportion decreases to 44 per cent after six months and
34 per cent after one year. Cromwell and Kolb (2004) commented that training effects reduce
sharply and just after one year, only 15 per cent of the employees are capable of using their
skills. It is, therefore, imperative to study the factors that influence the transfer of training 297
and outcomes associated with training (Prieto and Phipps, 2011; Zumrah and Byole, 2015;
Cromwell and Kolb, 2004). Such studies are more valuable for the organizations in a
contemporary environment, as huge budgets are spent on training and development of
employees (Bunch, 2007; Fieden, 2003).
A profound look at the literature endorse the fact that transfer of training is a function of
both trainee’s characteristics and work environment (Chauhan et al., 2016; Elangovan and
Karakowsky, 1999; Baldwin and Ford, 1988; Yamnill and McLean, 2001; Cheng and
Hampson, 2008). Trainee characteristics may include factors like self-efficacy, motivation to
transfer knowledge, worker’s personality and organizational commitment (Velada et al.,
2007; Devos et al., 2007; Yamkovenko and Holton, 2010; Kontoghiorghes, 2004), while the
environmental factors include management support, co-worker support, supervisor support,
learning culture, job design, job autonomy and training rewards (Islam et al., 2013; Saks and
Belcourt, 2006; Pham et al., 2013; Kupritz and Hillsman, 2011; Martin, 2010). However, the
factors related to work environment and trainee characteristics are well documented in the
literature; but there is still a need to understand that how both the components may predict
transfer of training (Zumrah and Byole, 2015). Moreover, past studies have focused work
environment factors and trainee characteristic’s impact on transfer of training in isolation
(Lim and Morris, 2006); however, Yamkovenko and Holton (2010) commented that
considering both these factors in tandem might provide a better answer to the problems of
training transfer. Sookhai and Budworth (2010) and Lim (1999) also valued investigation of
interacting roles of personal and environmental factors in predicting transfer of training.
Based on these arguments and following the future direction of Nijman and Gelissen (2011),
about examining the role of organizational support in predicting transfer of training, this
study aims to examine the combined effects of the work environment and trainee
characteristics on the transfer of training.
While looking at the role of environment, support provision at the workplace is
considered most important environmental factor. According to Baldwin and Ford (1988),
major sources of support include support from peer, supervisor, subordinate and senior
management. Past studies have witnessed that peer, supervisor and management support
can influence the transfer of training (Chauhan et al., 2016; Ghosh et al., 2015), but how
perceived organizational support (henceforth, POS) influences the transfer of training is not
well documented (Zumrah, 2015). Against this backdrop, this study aims at investigating
the role of POS (from environment factor) in predicting transfer of training, along with the
job satisfaction (JS, to follow) and self-efficacy (from personal factors). According to
Bandura (2012), self-efficacy is an individual’s ability to consider himself/herself capable of
performing a particular task. POS is the employees’ perceptions about the care of their
beliefs and values by their organization (Eisenberger et al., 1986) and JS is the employees’
feelings about their job (Spector, 1997).
Scholars have identified POS, self-efficacy and JS as the predictors of motivation to
transfer which leads to transfer of training in isolation (Chiaburu and Lindsay, 2008; Riggle
et al., 2009; Chiaburu et al., 2010). However, how these variables could influence the transfer
MRR of training needs further attention (Cheng and Hampson, 2008; Nijman and Gelissen, 2011).
41,3 Moreover, the empirical investigation of these variables is limited in the Asian context
especially in Pakistan as most of the time the variables are studied in the western culture
(Simosi, 2012; Jodlbauer et al., 2012) which is different from Pakistani culture (Islam et al.,
2016). Pakistani culture is more respectful to hierarchy, and it is more collectivistic,
cooperative and relationship-oriented. Such cultural attributes positively influence on an
298 organization’s culture and its employees’ characteristics such as JS, self-efficacy and
intention to transfer (Hassi and Storti, 2011; Rogers and Spitzmueller, 2009). These
arguments generate the need to examine these variables in non-Western culture. In addition,
past studies have confirmed JS (Jodlbauer et al., 2012), self-efficacy (Simosi, 2012) and POS’s
(Zumrah, 2015) role toward motivating trainees (Chiaburu et al., 2010, Chiaburu and
Lindsay, 2008) to promote the transfer of training in isolation. However, none of the previous
studies have empirically examined that how self-efficacy explains the relationship between
POS and JS to promote the transfer of training.
Thus, the current study aims to examine the mediating role of JS between POS and
transfer of training, while self-efficacy aims to examine as mediating variable between POS
and JS.

Hypotheses development
Perceived organizational support and self-efficacy
The importance of work environment is essential for the employees to perform well.
According to the model of Moos (2008), the work environment is the interaction of personal
factors, organizational system, and work-related outcomes. The organizational system helps
the organization to cultivate desired outcomes, e.g. organizational performance. Whereas,
the important aspect of personal and work-related outcomes is POS (Islam et al., 2017;
García-Chas et al., 2016; Rozkwitalska and Basinska, 2015). POS is the employees’ belief
about their well-being and support of their organization (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002),
and this concept was generated from the organizational support theory (OST) of
Eisenberger et al. (1986).
Literature is clear about the importance of POS, as it influences employees’ attitudes and
behaviors positively (Islam et al., 2017; Rozkwitalska and Basinska, 2015; Islam et al., 2015;
Ahmed et al., 2014; Suazo and Stone-Romero, 2011). Various meta-analyses have also found
that POS influences individual-level outcomes (Ahmed and Nawaz, 2015; Riggle et al., 2009;
Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002), but literature focusing on the relationship of POS and
subjective well-being is scarce (Caesens et al., 2016). In particular, the literature on the
relationship between POS and subjective well-being is not well documented (Rozkwitalska
and Basinska, 2015). According to Diener et al. (2004), subjective well-being includes
employees emotions, moods and evaluations. One of the important aspects of subjective
well-being is self-efficacy (Kurtessis et al., 2015). According to a most recent study published
in Academy of Management, POS may positively influence one’s self-efficacy (Kurtessis
et al., 2015). This could further be explained with social cognitive theory of Bandura (1997),
which states that employees develop their beliefs by their perception, such that when they
perceive a supportive environment will start believing in themselves. Similarly, Caesens and
Stinglhamber (2014) argued that POS reinforce employee self-belief (i.e. self-efficacy).
Therefore, based on the social cognitive theory and conceptual framework of Kurtessis et al.
(2015) this study aims at empirically investigating the hypothesis that:
H1. Perceived organizational support is positively related to self-efficacy.
POS and job satisfaction Support and
Employees develop their work-related attitudes and behaviors by their perceived transfer of
organizational characteristics, and POS is one of those characteristics. Researchers, in
various domains (e.g. Salesforce, nurses, banking) have documented a positive association
training
between POS and JS (García-Chas et al., 2016; Tsachouridi and Nikandrou, 2016; Islam et al.,
2015). In a longitudinal study on managers Armstrong-Stassen (1998) also found that
satisfaction increases as long as the perception of organizational support is positive.
Perception of organizational support is believed to enhance employees’ trust and beliefs 299
in the organization, for the support and care they expect to receive from the organization.
Thus, they have positive feelings toward organization, environment and job (termed as JS).
This could be further explained by OST (Eisenberger et al., 1986); which states that care and
well-being offered by organization makes employees reciprocate positively, as they feel
positive about their job and organization (Gouldner, 1960; Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002).
It is, thus, assumed that POS would predict JS positively:
H2. Perceived organizational support is positively associated with JS.

Self-efficacy and job satisfaction

According to Hiller and Hambrick (2005), self-efficacy is a positive factor of personality and
becomes bases for many other positive personality traits. They further added that humans
evaluate themselves for positive personality (or core self-evaluation) that has four positive
factors, namely: emotional stability, locus of control, self-esteem and self-efficacy (Judge
et al., 2003). Judge et al. (2003) also study how dimensions of core self-evaluation relate to
various job attitudes (e.g. JS) and performance. They found that self-efficacy is the strongest
predictor of job attitudes (i.e. JS).
Therefore, Bandura (1997) terms self-efficacy as the control center of the human life; a
concept driven from social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997), which denotes that individuals’
level of actions, motivation and affective state depends upon on what they believe rather
what happens. In addition, individual’s motivation, belief, feelings and behaviors depend
upon their self-efficacy. Thus, believe in self-efficacy is the prime source of perception and
action (Bandura, 2012). According to Bandura (1997), self-believes remained stable once
established.
At the workplace, it is witnessed that employees with high levels of self-belief (i.e. self-
efficacy) are more likely to keep their commitments, take challenges and perform better
(Bandura, 1997; Moeini et al., 2008). In addition, self-efficacy improves employees’ quality of
decision-making and reduces their depression, stress, anxiety and burnout (Chiesa et al.,
2016; Hiller and Hambrick, 2005; Seggelen-Damen and Dam, 2016; Schwarzer and
Jerusalem,1995). However, the empirical investigation of the relationship between self-
efficacy and JS is limited (Ren and Chadee, 2017; Seggelen-Damen and Dam, 2016). In a
recent study, Seggelen-Damen and Dam (2016) argued that employees strongly believe in
their skills and abilities positively affect their level of JS. Based on these arguments, this
study hypothesized that:
H3. Self-efficacy is positively related to JS.

Job satisfaction and transfer of training

Though many researchers have investigated the role of trainee’s characteristics in
enhancing transfer of training (Cheng et al., 2015; Govindarajulu, 2009; Cheng and Hampson,
MRR 2008). However, the role of their attitudes (e.g. JS) is indistinct (Zumrah and Byole, 2015), as
41,3 only a few studies have empirically investigated this relationship (Jodlbauer et al., 2012).
JS is one of the widely studied topics in management because it is found to influence
other job attitudes and behaviors, like, employee loyalty, pride, organizational commitment,
citizenship behavior and performance (Bai et al., 2006; Glaveli and Karassavidou, 2011;
Suliman, 2007). Particular to this study, trainees with the greater level of JS are more likely
300 to transfer the acquired skills and knowledge in the workplace when compared with less
satisfied trainees (Jodlbauer et al., 2012). Two distinctive reasons may back this argument;
first, satisfied employees have been noted to work toward enhancing their knowledge and
skills through training programs (Velada and Caetano, 2007). The quest to enhance
knowledge and skills through training also enhances intentions to transfer learning of
training (Olsen, 1998). Second, highly satisfied trainees are more likely to use their
knowledge in generating new ideas at the workplace (Kontoghiorghes, 2004), which will
again increase the propensity to create, use and share knowledge. Therefore, this study
argues that employees with the high level of satisfaction attend training programs with the
motive to enhance their knowledge and skills and then share the acquired knowledge with
their colleagues. Thus, it is hypothesized that:
H4. JS is positively associated with the transfer of training.

Mediating role of job satisfaction

The importance of JS is elaborated in the previous sections of this research. Despite its
significance, this study is perhaps the first endeavor to empirically investigate the
mediating role of JS between POS and transfer of training. Researchers in the past have
established a link between organizational practices and employee attitudes through the
mediating role of JS (Islam et al., 2014; Kenny et al., 1998). For example, the perception of
justice improves employees’ satisfaction, which ultimately enhances employees’
performance (Suliman, 2007). Employees’ perceptions of their management’s commitment
toward the services enhance their level of JS, which in turn, positively contribute toward
their service behaviors (Kim et al., 2009). Employee perception of their development by their
organization positively influences their JS; in turn, employees are more likely to be with their
current organization (Koster et al., 2011). Similarly, Islam et al. (2014) noted that the
employees’ perception of supportive and learning environment enhance their satisfaction,
which ultimately increases their emotional attachment toward their organization. The above
discussion demonstrates the mediating role of JS between organizational aspects and
employees’ outcomes. These arguments are in line with the OST of Eisenberger et al. (1986),
which distinct that employees’ perception of support increases their level of satisfaction, in
turn, employees reciprocate with positive behaviors (i.e. transfer of training here). Thus, this
study hypothesized that:
H5. JS mediates the association of Perceived organizational support and transfer of
training.

Mediating role of self-efficacy

As explained earlier, the concept POS is derived from OST, which based on social exchange
theory (Blau, 1964) and norms of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960). Based on these theoretical
premises, POS is employees’ belief that organization values their contribution and takes care
for their well-being (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). POS is thus found to oblige employees
to contribute toward organizational development through positive job-related outcomes
such as emotional attachment, trust, loyalty, citizenship behavior and greater JS (Ahmed Support and
and Nawaz, 2015; Eisenberger et al., 1986; Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002; Eisenberger and transfer of
Stinglhamber, 2011).
According to Caesens and Stinglhamber (2014), perceptions of support from the
training
organization help employees to reinforce their self-belief. As perceptions of support are
backed by the values organization offers to one’s contribution, it may be linked with self-
efficacy. This could also be based on the fact that employees’ perceive their ability to
contribute when they possess skills and abilities to perform their tasks well (Seggelen- 301
Damen and Dam, 2016). It is further noticed that self-efficacy enhances one’s positive
feelings for the organization and job (Klassen and Chiu, 2010). Based on this discussion, this
study argues that perception of organizational support reinforces employee self-efficacy,
which ultimately affects their level of JS. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
H6. Self-efficacy will mediate the relationship between POS and JS.

Methods
Participants, procedure and measures
This study was conducted in the Pakistani banking sector. As per the statistics reported by
the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP), a total of 22 (including public and private) banks are
operating across the country (www.sbp.org.pk), having almost 9,000 branches and around
81,000 permanent employees (Islam, 2014). Since the global financial crises of 2007, the
banking industry of Pakistan has become very competitive as both public and private banks
compete to perform well. Because of this fierce competition, numerous changes have been
taken place in banking products and services and innovation has gone into the process of
HR, necessitating the need for training programs and its transfer (Pirzada and Rehman,
2013). According to the latest press release by SBP, bankers are not focusing on the training
of their employees, and if so, trainees are less likely to transfer the acquired skills and
knowledge in the workplace (Azam, 2016). This press release shows the importance to study
the transfer of training in the banking industry.
Particular to this study, the banks were first personally visited and interviews were
conducted with the branch managers. Then four major banks, who were noted to support its
employees and conduct mandatory training programs on a continuous basis (regarding
elevations and promotions, transfer and rotations, anti-money laundering and physical bank
security) were finalized for data collection. Despite the fact that transfer of training differs in
private and public sector (Chen et al., 2006); this study valued transfer of training in the
banking sector and data were collected from the employees of both the sectors. The main
reason to collect data from both sectors is their need of training transfer (Azam, 2016).
The data were collected using a questionnaire-based survey. The questionnaire was
divided into two parts. The first part covered the personal information of the respondents
such as age, gender, qualification and marital status. The second part of the questionnaire
covered observed variables of the study, i.e. POS, transfer to training, self-efficacy and JS.
The researcher first obtained permission from the branch managers and then questionnaires
were handed to 500 respondents, of which 409 were used in the final analysis. The
respondents were also assured of confidentiality, anonymity and ethical conduct of
the researchers. Majority of the respondents were men (i.e. 65.52 per cent, N = 268) between
the age of 26-30 years (i.e. 43.76 per cent, N = 179) and holding master’s degree (i.e. 76.2 per
cent, N = 312). However, only 23.22 per cent of the respondents were married (N = 95).
All the responses were elicited at five-point Likert scale (1-strongly disagree to 5-strongly
agree). POS was operationalized with a shortened six-item scale of Eisenberger et al. (1986),
MRR covering sample item like “My organization cares about my opinions.” This scale is reported
41,3 useful because of its high internal consistency (i.e. 0.76 > 0.70; Islam et al., 2015). The
present study also found it a reliable measure with 1 value of 0.79. JS was measured using a
three-item scale of Cammann et al. (1979), containing simple items like “In general, I like
working here.” Bagger and Li (2011) used the same scale and reported a high internal
consistency, i.e. 0.88. However, the present study noted 0.82 as internal consistency value.
302 Measure of transfer of training was adopted from Xiao (1996) six-items scale. A sample item
of this scale is “I can accomplish the job tasks better by using new knowledge, skills, and
attitudes acquired from the training course.” This scale has already been used by Scaduto
et al. (2008) and found it internally consistent measure with Cronbach alpha value of 0.76. In
this study also, the said value was found acceptable (i.e. 0.86). Finally, self-efficacy was
measured through a five-item scale of Jones (1986). A sample item of this scale is, “My job is
well within the scope of my abilities.” Using the same scale Simosi (2012) yielded its internal
consistency as 0.84. However, the value of internal consistency of this study was 0.88.

Results
Preliminary and confirmatory factor analysis
The study applied structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the hypotheses. Before
applying SEM, the data were first evaluated for missing values, outliers, normality and
multicollinearity (Kline, 2005); as data with all such problems may hamper the results
(Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). Following the guidelines of Sekaran (2003), a measure is
considered useful if a specific variable has less than 5 per cent missing values; thus 23
responses were considered redundant and useless. Similarly, data normality was examined
through the Skewness (standard value of 6 1) and Kurtosis (standard value of 6 3); and the
data were found normal (Byrne, 2010). The outliers of the study were examined through
Mahalanobis Distance at p < 0.000 (Kline, 2005), and 34 more responses were excluded from
the final analysis. Finally, the multicollinearity was examined with the values of correlations
among variables where none of the correlation was found to be above 0.90. Thus there was
not an issue of severity of multicollinearity (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007).
Before hypotheses testing, the model fit was assessed using the CFI, RMSEA, SRMR and
x 2/df values as recommended by Williams et al. (2009) and the convergent validity was
examined. Loading estimates should be significant and above 0.50, and the values of
average variance extracted (AVE) should be more than 0.50 (Hair et al., 2010). The model
then examined for the confirmatory factor analysis, as the scale used in this study was
adapted from the previous studies (Byrne, 2010). The loading of the items and the value of
AVE were well above the standardized value of 0.50 (Table I). In addition, the values of the
model fit for CFA were found to be good i.e. x 2/df = 2.85, CFI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.068,
SRMR = 0.049 (Table II).
The values of descriptive statistics and correlation are presented in Table III. The mean
values and standard deviation ranges from 3.64-4.01 and 0.63-0.77, respectively. In addition,
the correlation among all the observed variables was positive and significant and below 0.90
(i.e. no multicollinearity). The values of Table III also show that none of the demographic
variable is found to have significant association with the observed variable, therefore, there
is no need to consider demographical variables as control variables (Hair et al., 2006; Byrne,
2010).

Structural model and hypotheses testing

The values of the fit index regarding hypothesized model in Table II represent a good fit, i.e.
x 2/df = 2.86, CFI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.057 and SRMR = 0.059. In addition, the results of
Items Items Values of factor loading, AVE and Cronbach’s alpha
Support and
transfer of
POS My organization takes pride in my 0.73** AVE = 0.58 training
accomplishment 1 = 0.79
My organization really cares about my 0.84**
well-being
My organizations values contributions to 0.76**
its values 303
My organization strongly considers my 0.81**
goals and values
My organization shows concern for me 0.65**
My organization is willing to help me 0.75**
when I need a special favor
TT Using the new knowledge, skills and 0.72** AVE = 0.59
attitude has helped me improve my work 1 = 0.86
I can accomplish my job tasks faster than 0.81**
before training
I have accomplished my job tasks faster 0.83**
than before training
I can accomplish job tasks better by using 0.84**
new knowledge, skills and attitude
The quality of my work has improved 0.61**
after using new knowledge, skills and
attitude
I make fewer mistakes in production when 0.78**
using new knowledge, skills and attitude
JS All in all, I am satisfied with my job AVE = 0.61 0.76**
In general, I like my job 1 = 0.82 0.85**
In general, I like working here 0.73**
SE My job is well within the scope of my AVE = 0.59 0.75**
abilities 1 = 0.88
I can handle more challenging jobs than 0.78**
the one I am doing
I feel I am overqualified for this job 0.80**
I have all the technical knowledge I need 0.76**
to deal with my job
My skills and abilities equal or exceed 0.74**
those of my colleagues
Table I.
Notes: POS= perceived organizational support, SE= self-efficacy, JS= job satisfaction and TT= transfer of Confirmatory factor
training analysis

Standardized Hypothesized Alternate

Fit index values CFA model model

x 2 ( p-value) 413.435 (0.000) 414.061(0.000) 430.024(0.000)

Degree of freedom (df) 145 145 145
Normed x 2 ( x 2/df) #3 2.85 2.86 2.97 Table II.
Comparative fit index (CFI)  0.90 0.92 0.93 0.92
Fit index values for
Standard root mean residual (SRMR) < 0.10 0.049 0.059 0.063
Root mean square error of CFA, hypothesized
approximation (RMSEA) < 0.08 0.068 0.057 0.070 and alternate model
MRR structural model identify a positive and significant association of POS with self-efficacy (g =
41,3 0.68, r2 = 39.8 per cent, Critical Ratio = 6.15 and P < 0.01) and JS ( g = 0.26, r2 = 31.5 per cent,
Critical Ratio = 10.46 and P < 0.01), thus H1 and H2 were supported. It was also predicted that
self-efficacy would positively predict JS ( g = 0.41, r2 = 24.2 per cent, Critical Ratio = 9.83 and
P < 0.01) and JS would positively predict transfer of training ( g = 0.47, r2 = 43.9 per cent,
Critical Ratio = 6.28, P < 0.01). Thus, these results supported H3 & H4 Figure 1.
304 In addition, self-efficacy was found to perform the role of partial mediator between POS
and JS (Indirect path coefficient = 0.28, P < 0.01, DR2 = 18.8 per cent); and JS was found to
perform the role of partial mediating between POS and transfer of training (Indirect path
coefficient = 0.12, P < 0.01, DR2 = 21.3 per cent,). Thus, mediation hypotheses (H5 & H6) are
also supported (Chand, 2010).
The study also tested an alternate model where an extra path between self-efficacy and
transfer of training was examined, and the path between self-efficacy and JS was removed.
The rationale for this alternative model was that self-efficacy is a direct predictor of transfer
of training as well (Cheng and Hampson, 2008; Nijman and Gelissen, 2011). The values of the
model fit were found to be good, i.e. x 2/df = 2.97, CFI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.070, SRMR =
0.063, however, were not as much fit as found in the suggested model (Table II). In addition,
the association between POS and transfer of training was found to be insignificant ( g =
0.03, P > 0.05). Thus, based on the high values of model fit and statistically significant
associations among observed variables alternate model of the study was rejected Figure 2.

Discussion on findings
This study aims at investigating the associations among POS, self-efficacy, JS and transfer
of training among the employees working in the Pakistani banking sector. The study

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Gender – – 1
Age – – 0.32** 1
Qualification – – 0.27** 0.16* 1
Marital Status – – 0.17* 0.23** 0.15* 1
POS 3.69 0.63 0.07 0.02 0.05 0.04 (0.79)
JS 4.01 0.68 0.03 0.11 0.02 0.06 0.47** (0.82)
SE 3.64 0.77 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.64** 0.60** (0.88)
TT 3.78 0.75 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.53** 0.57** 0.48** (0.86)
Table III.
Descriptive statistics Notes: POS= perceived organizational support, SE= self-efficacy, JS= job satisfaction and TT= transfer of
and correlation training; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01

Self-efficacy

0.41**
0.68**

POS Job Transfer of

0.26** 0.47** Training
Figure 1. Sasfacon

Hypothesized model 0.34**

assumed and found a positive association between POS and transfer of training, both Support and
directly and indirectly through mediation of self-efficacy and JS. transfer of
This study had six basic hypotheses linking the variable of the study. Findings of the
study proved that there is a positive and significant association between POS and self-
training
efficacy, which support H1. These findings are in line with the Social Cognitive Theory
(Bandura, 2003) and Work Environment Framework (Moos, 2008), individuals should have
a reciprocal effect of organizational support. However, the quality of such reciprocal effects
depends upon the level of trust, which takes time to develop (Blau, 1964). Thus, employees 305
when perceive a supportive environment by their organizations (POS), develop high self-
efficacy. This finding is consistent with the findings of Caesens and Stinglhamber (2014)
who found that organizational support increases self-efficacy among employees, which
makes employees perform their work with more dedication. The study also identifies a
positive association between POS and JS, which support the second hypothesis of the study.
This result suggests that employee perception of being taken care from organization
increases their JS. Past studies have also witnessed the positive association between POS
and JS (Ahmed and Nawaz, 2015; Islam et al., 2013; Cropanzano et al., 1997; Filipova, 2011;
Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002; Riggle et al., 2009; Stamper and Johlke, 2003).
The study hypothesized that a positive association exists between self-efficacy and JS
and the results also proved the same, thus supporting H3. These findings could be explained
by the social cognitive theory, which predicts that self-efficacy helps individuals identify
that how they could meet their tasks and challenges and thus makes them feel satisfied
(Bandura, 2003). This finding is also consistent with the opinion of Klassen et al. (2010) who
witnessed that employees with the strong belief in their skills and abilities are more likely to
depict the higher level of satisfaction with their jobs; though, there is a dearth of empirical
literature. In addition, the results of the study reveal a positive association between JS and
transfer of training, which support the fourth suggested hypothesis. According to Jodlbauer
et al. (2012), satisfied individuals are less likely to share their skills and knowledge. Thus,
the presence of JS is important to transfer the acquired knowledge. These findings of the
study also provide empirical evidence to the existing literature on POS that it not only effect
JS and transfer of training in the western countries but also in Pakistani public and the
private sector.
Having established the direct associations in first four hypotheses, this study established
moves further with the indirect association between POS and transfer of training, through
the explanatory role of self-efficacy and JS. The study argued that the association between
POS and transfer of training may be mediated by JS (H5). The results of this hypothesis (i.e.
H5) suggest that POS increase the employees’ level of JS which ultimately increases the
transfer of training. It is, perhaps, the first empirical investigation of the mediating effect of
JS between POS and transfer of training. In some recent studies, Jodlbauer et al. (2012) noted
a direct association between JS and transfer of training and Simosi (2012) identify a direct
association between POS and transfer of training. However, this study extends the previous
studies by identifying the mediating role of JS. Koster et al. (2011) argued that organizational

Self-efficacy

0.71* 0.45*

POS 0.03 Transfer of

Training
0.67* 0.35* Figure 2.
Job
Sasfacon
Alternate model
MRR supportive practices and environment may become an encouraging factor and
41,3 reinforcement for desired positive behaviors and JS may elucidate this association. Keeping
in view the JS role assumed by Koster et al. (2011), this study assumed that JS would develop
explanatory mechanism between POS and transfer of training (H5); which is proved by the
results of the study. This study thus proves that when the organization provides support to
its employees, they have positive feelings about the job which pays off in shape of their
306 involvement in acquisition and transfer of knowledge.
The study also argued that self-efficacy may mediate the association between POS and
JS (H6). Most of the literature on self-efficacy has linked it to training effectiveness
(Kirkpatrick, 1996; Bandura, 1977), while few of them have noted self-efficacy as a mediating
variable between POS and employees’ job-related outcomes, i.e. work engagement (Caesens
and Stinglhamber, 2014). However, the empirical investigation of the mediating role of self-
efficacy between POS and JS is lacking. According to Eisenberger and Stinglhamber (2011),
POS reinforce self-efficacy and employees show more involvement in performing tasks. In
addition, job resource (POS) and personal resource (self-efficacy) foster employees job-
related attitudes (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008). Therefore, the results of this study suggest
that employee perception of organizational support reinforces their self-efficacy, in turn,
employees show a high level of satisfaction with their jobs. The findings of this study are
limited to the Pakistani banking sectors, but the results still clarify the importance of self-
efficacy and JS between the relationship of POS and transfer of training.

Implications of the study

By focusing on training and transfer of its benefits to all levels, this study adds value in
terms of both theoretical and practical usefulness. Theoretically, this study adds value in
existing literature by focusing on investigating the mechanism explaining the relationship
of organizational support and employees’ propensity to transfer training. Training covers a
huge amount of investment of banking institutions, as they have to keep their business
abreast with the contemporary business environment. It is, therefore, desired that the
training offer benefits to the whole organization, which is largely dependent upon the
transfer of acquired skills to all levels. This study offers a mechanism to ensure the transfer
of such skills to all. The mechanism covers the role of organization and trainees in
predicting the propensity of transfer of training.
The findings reveal that organizational support (POS, here) works as a stimulator of
one’s self-belief, as the support itself is the care and wellbeing organization offers for the
contribution made by employees. Thus, POS predicts that one is capable of doing things.
Moreover, it further broadens the model by finding that such self-efficacy expands to JS.
Individuals with perceptions of support and high self-efficacy show a high level of
satisfaction with the job. Past researchers have not attended such relation. The model also
bridges POS with the transfer of training by considering the mediating role of JS. Findings
of the study prove that JS works as a partial mediator. Thus, both self-efficacy and JS
explain the mechanism between POS and transfer of training.
These findings are useful for managers and organizations, as these explain the ways that
could help in reaping the benefits of training programs. The study suggests that cultivating
the benefit of training, organizations should foster a supportive environment. More
specifically, organizations should implement such management practices (i.e. POS) that may
improve the transfer of training among employees. POS can be fostered through better
working conditions, fair treatment and adopting some practices such as open
communication and providing employees training regarding the required recourses
(Eisenberger and Stinglhamber, 2011).
 Employees when perceiving that their organization supports them by valuing their Support and
contributions and care their well-being, boost their self-confidence to accomplish transfer of
challenging tasks and increase their level of satisfaction with their job. Increased level of
training
self-confidence (i.e. self-efficacy) and JS increase the likelihood to apply the learned
knowledge through the training program. Therefore, organizations should always
encourage and support its employees. Organizations may support their employees by
concentrating their individual-level goals, valuing their thoughts and ideas, forgiving their 307
unintentional mistakes and providing assistance for their personal matters (Eisenberger
et al., 1986).
The results of this study identify JS as a strong antecedent of transfer of training.
However, the importance of POS cannot be ignored, as it also motivates employees to use
and apply the acquired knowledge through training. Thus, by fostering a positive and
supportive work environment, organizations may improve sharing, creativity and
performance among its employees.

Limitations and future direction

Despite having an empirical contribution to the existing literature, the study is not free from
limitations. First, the data for this study were collected at a single point of time. Though this
one spot study did not have issues like common method variance, it is suggested to the
future researchers to validate the results using a longitudinal study. A longitudinal study is
more likely to establish better causal inferences comparing cross-sectional study (Chiaburu
et al., 2010). Second, this study collected data from the trainees through a questionnaire-
based survey. Future studies should collect data through interviews, as well as
questionnaire, to understand the mechanism between POS and transfer of training in more
detail.
Third, this study was conducted on the employees working in the Pakistani banking
sector, which could limitize the generalizability of the study. Therefore, it is suggested to the
future researcher to replicate the study in various sectors and cultural context, as employees’
perceptions vary in different cultures. Finally, the study collected data from both private
and public banks as per the need (Azam, 2016), despite the fact that training transfer differs
in public and private sectors (Chen et al.2006). It is, therefore, suggested to the researchers to
conduct separate studies.

References
Ahmed, I. and Nawaz, M.M. (2015), “Antecedents and outcomes of perceived organizational support: a
literature survey approach”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 867-880.
Ahmed, I., Ismail, W.K.W., Amin, S.M. and Islam, T. (2014), “Role of perceived organizational support
in faculty’s responsiveness and students outcomes”, International Journal of Educational
Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 246-256.
Armstrong-Stassen, M. (1998), “Downsizing the federal government: a longitudinal study of managers’
reactions”, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 310-321.
Azam, M. (2016), SBP Guidelines on Bankers Training, available at: www.dawn.com/news/1289176
Bagger, J. and Li, A. (2011), “How does supervisory family support influence employee’ attitudes and
behaviors? A social exchange perspective”, Journal of Management, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 1-28.
Bai, B., Brewer, K.P., Sammons, G. and Swerdlow, S. (2006), “Job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and internal service quality: a case study of Las Vegas hotel/casino industry”,
Journal of Human Resource in Hospitality & Tourism, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 37-54.
MRR Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2008), “Towards a model of work engagement”, Career Development
International, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 209-223.
41,3
Baldwin, T.T. and Ford, J.K. (1988), “Transfer of training: a review and directions for futureresearch”,
Journal of Personnel Psychology, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 63-105.
Bandura, A. (1997), Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies, Cambridge Univer-sity Press, New York, NY.
Bandura, A. (2003), Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, Freeman, New York, NY.
308 Bandura, A. (2012), “On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 9-44.
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.
Blau, M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.
Blume, B., Ford, J., Baldwin, T. and Huang, J. (2010), “Transfer of training: a Meta-analytic review”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 1065-1105.
Brown, T., McCracken, M. and O’Kane, P. (2011), “Don’t forget to write: how reflective learning journals
can help to facilitate, assess and evaluate training transfer”, Journal of Human Resource
Development International, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 465-481.
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.
Caesens, G. and Stinglhamber, F. (2014), “The relationship between perceived organizational support
and work engagement: the role of self-efficacy and its outcomes”, European Review of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 5, pp. 259-267.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D. and Klesh, J. (1979), “The Michigan organizational assessment
questionnaire”, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Chand, M. (2010), “The impact of HRM practices on service quality, customer satisfaction and
performance in the Indian hotel industry”, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 551-566.
Chauhan, R., Ghosh, P., Rai, A. and Shukla, D. (2016), “The impact of support at the workplace on
transfer of training: a study of an Indian manufacturing unit”, International Journal of Training
and Development, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 200-213.
Chen, H.-C., Holton, E.F. and Bates, R.A. (2006), “Situational and demographic influences on transfer
system characteristics in organizations”, Journal of Performance Improvement Quarterly, Vol. 19
No. 3, pp. 7-26.
Cheng, E. and Hampson, I. (2008), “Transfer of training: a review and new insights”, International
Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 327-341.
Cheng, E.W.L., Sanders, K. and Hampson, I. (2015), “An intention-based model of transfer of training”,
Management Research Review, Vol. 38 No. 8, pp. 908-928.
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 No. 2,
pp. 199-206.
Chiaburu, D.S., Dam, K.V. and Hutchins, H.M. (2010), “Social support in the workplace and training
transfer: a longitudinal analysis”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 18
No. 2, pp. 187-200.
Chiesa, R., Toderi, S., Dordoni, P., Henkens, K., Fiabane, E.M. and Setti, I. (2016), “Older workers:
stereotypes and occupational self-efficacy”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 7,
pp. 1152-1166.
Cromwell, S.E. and Kolb, J.A. (2004), “An examination of work environment support factors affecting Support and
transfer of supervisory skills training in the workplace”, Human Resource Development
Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 449-471. transfer of
Cropanzano, R., Howes, J.C., Grandey, A.A. and Toth, P. (1997), “The relationship of organizational training
politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes and stress”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 159-180.
Devos, C., Dumay, X., Bonami, M., Bates, R. and Holton, E. (2007), “The learning transfer system
inventory (LTSI) translated into French: internal structure and predictive validity”, International 309
Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 181-199.
Diener, E., Scollon, C.N. and Lucas, R.E. (2004), “The evolving concept of subjective well-being: the
multifaceted nature of happiness”, in Costa, P.T. and Siegler, I.C. (Eds), Advances in Cell Aging
and Gerontology, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Vol. 15, pp. 187-220.
Eisenberger, R. and Stinglhamber, F. (2011), Perceived Organizational Support: Fostering Enthusiastic
and Productive Employees, American Psychological Association, WA, DC.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986), “Does pay for performance increase
or decrease perceived self-determination and intrinsic motivation?”, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 1026-1040.
Elangovan, A. and Karakowsky, L. (1999), “The role of trainee and environmental factors in transfer of
training: an exploratory framework”, Journal of Leadership & Organization Development, Vol. 20
No. 5, pp. 268-276.
Filipova, A.A. (2011), “Relationships among ethical climates, perceived organizational support, and
intent-to-leave for licensed nurses in skilled nursing facilities”, Journal of Applied Gerontology,
Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 44-66.
García-Chas, R., Neira-Fontela, E. and Varela-Neira, C. (2016), “High-performance work systems and job
satisfaction: a multilevel model”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 451-466.
Ghosh, P., Chauhan, R. and Rai, A. (2015), “Supervisor support in transfer of training: looking back at
past research”, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 201-207.
Glaveli, N. and Karassavidou, E. (2011), “Exploring a possible route through which training affects
organizational performance: the case of a Greek bank”, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 22 No. 14, pp. 2892-2923.
Gouldner, A.W. (1960), “The norm of reciprocity”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 161-178.
Govindarajulu, N. (2009), “Transfer climate in end-user computing: the influence of trainee
characteristics and supervisory support”, Journal of Advances in Management Research, Vol. 6
No. 1, pp. 87-98.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global
Perspective, 7th ed., Pearson, Boston, MA.
Hassi, A. and Storti, G. (2011), “Organizational training across cultures: variations in practices and
attitudes”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 45-70.
Hiller, N.J. and Hambrick, D.C. (2005), “Conceptualizing executive hubris: the role of (hyper) core self-
evaluations in strategic decision making”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 297-319.
Islam, T. (2014), “Organizational learning culture and perceived organizational support as antecedents
of employees’ job related outcomes”, A PhD thesis submitted to Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
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., 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.
MRR 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
41,3 intentions”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 20 Nos 4/5, pp. 322-337.
Islam, T., Khan, M.M., Khawaja, F.N. and Ahmad, Z. (2017), “Nurses’ reciprocation of perceived
organizational support: the moderating role of psychological contract breach”, International
Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 123-131.
Islam, T., Khan, S.R., Ahmad, U.N.U., Ali, G. and Ahmed, I. (2014), “Organizational learning culture and
310 psychological empowerment as antecedents of employees’ Job related attitudes: a mediation
model”, Journal of Asia Business Studies, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 249-263.
Jodlbauer, S., Selenko, E., Batinic, B. and Stiglbauer, B. (2012), “The relationship between job
dissatisfaction and training transfer”, International Journal of Training and Development,
Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 39-53.
Jones, G. (1986), “Socialization tactics, self-efficacy and newcomers’ adjustments to organizations”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 262-279.
Judge, T.A., Erez, A., Bono, J.E. and Thoresen, C.J. (2003), “The core self-evaluations scale: development
of a measure”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 303-331.
Kenny, D.A., Kashy, D.A. and Bolger, N. (1998), “Data analysis in social psychology”, in Gilbert, D.,
Fiske, S.T. and Lindzey, G. (Eds), Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY, pp. 233-265.
Kim, H.J., Tavitiyaman, P. and Kim, W.G. (2009), “The effect of management commitment to service on
employee service behaviors: the mediating role of job satisfaction”, Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Research, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 369-390.
Kirkpatrick, D. (1996), “Revisiting Kirkpatrick’s four-level-model”, Training & Development, Vol. 1,
pp. 54-57.
Klassen, R.M. and Chiu, M.M. (2010), “Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy and jobsatisfaction: teacher
gender, years of experience, and job stress”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 102 No. 3,
pp. 741-756.
Kline, R.B. (2005), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed., The Guilford Press,
New York, NY.
Kontoghiorghes, C. (2004), “Reconceptualizing the learning transfer conceptual framework: empirical
validation of a new systemic model”, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 8
No. 3, pp. 210-221.
Koster, F., De Grip, A. and Fouarge, D. (2011), “Does perceived support in employee development affect
personnel turnover?”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 22 No. 11,
pp. 2403-2418.
Kupritz, V.W. and Hillsman, T. (2011), “The impact of the physical environment on supervisory
communication skills transfer”, Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 148-185.
Kurtessis, J.N., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M.T., Buffardi, L.C., Stewart, K.A. and Adis, C.S. (2015),
“Perceived organizational support: a meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 1854-1884.
Lim, D. (1999), “Organizational and cultural factors affecting international transfer of training”, Journal
of Performance Improvement, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 30-36.
Lim, D. and Morris, M. (2006), “Influence of trainee characteristics, instructional satisfaction, and
organizational climate on perceived learning and training transfer”, Journal of Human Resource
Development Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 85-115.
Martin, H.J. (2010), “Workplace climate and peer support as determinants of training transfer”, Journal
of Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 87-104.
Moeini, B., Shafii, F., Hidarnia, A., Babaii, G., Birashk, B. and Allahverdipour, H. (2008), “Perceived Support and
stress, self-efficacy and its relations to psychological well-being status in Iranian male high
school students”, Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 257-266.
transfer of
Moos, R.H. (2008), Work Environment Scale Manual, 4th ed., Consulting Psychologist Press, Palo Alto,
training
CA.
Nijman, D.J. and Gelissen, J. (2011), “Direct and indirect effects of supervisor support on transfer of
training”, in Poell, R.F. and Woerkom, M. (Eds), Supporting Workplace Learning, Vol. 5,
pp. 89-106. 311
Nikandrou, I., Brinia, V. and Bereri, E. (2009), “Trainee perceptions of training transfer: an empirical
analysis”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 255-270.
Olsen, J.H. (1998), “The evaluation and enhancement of training transfer”, International Journal of
Training and Development, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 61-75.
Pham, N.T.P., Segers, S.R. and Gijselaers, W.H. (2013), “Effects of work environment on transfer of
training: empirical evidence from master of business administration programs in Vietnam”,
International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 17 No. 1.
Pirzada, K. and Rehman, N. (2013), “Problems in ongoing training to employees in state bank of
Pakistan”, Journal of Business and Administrative Sciences Research, Vol. 2 No. 11, pp. 310-318.
Prieto, L.C. and Phipps, S.T.A. (2011), “Self-monitoring and organizational identification as moderators
of the effects of proactive personality on the transfer of learning in the workplace: a theoretical
inquiry”, International Journal of Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 509-518.
Ren, S. and Chadee, D. (2017), “Ethical leadership, self-efficacy and job satisfaction in China: the
moderating role of Guanxi”, Personnel Review, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 371-388.
Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002), “Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 698-714.
Riggle, R.J., Edmondson, D.R. and Hansen, J.D. (2009), “A Meta-analysis of the relationship between
perceived organizational support and job outcomes: 20 years of research”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 62 No. 10, pp. 1027-1030.
Rogers, A. and Spitzmueller, C. (2009), “Individualism-collectivism and the role of goal orientation in
organizational training”, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 185-201.
Rozkwitalska, M. and Basinska, B.A. (2015), “Job satisfaction in the multicultural environment of
multinational corporations: using the positive approach to empower organizational success”,
Baltic Journal of Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 366-387.
Saks, A.M. and Belcourt, M. (2006), “An investigation of training activities and transfer of training in
organizations”, Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 629-648.
Scaduto, A., Lindsay, D. and Chiaburu, D. (2008), “Leader influences on training effectiveness:
motivation and outcome expectation processes”, International Journal of Training and
Development, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 158-170.
Schwarzer, R. and Jerusalem, M. (1995), “Optimistic self-believes as a resource factor in coping with
stress”, Extreme Stress and Communities: Impact and Intervention, pp. 157-177.
Seggelen-Damen, I.V. and Dam, K.V. (2016), “Self-reflection as a mediator between selfefficacy and well-
being”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 18-33.
Sekaran, U. (2003), Research Methods for Business, 4th ed., John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
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.
Sookhai, F. and Budworth, M.H. (2010), “The trainee in context: examining the relationship between
self-efficacy and transfer climate for transfer of training”, Journal of Human Resource
Development Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 257-272.
MRR Spector, P. (1997), Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes and Consequences, Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
41,3
Stamper, C.L. and Johlke, M.C. (2003), “The impact of perceived organizational support on the
relationship between boundary spanner role stress and work outcomes”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 569-588.
Suazo, M.M. and Stone-Romero, E.F. (2011), “Implications of psychological contract breach: a perceived
organizational support perspective”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 5,
312 pp. 366-382.
Suliman, A.M.T. (2007), “Links between justice, satisfaction and performance in the workplace: a
survey in the UAE and Arabic context”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 26 No. 4,
pp. 294-311.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2007), Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th ed., Pearson, Boston, MA.
Tian, A.W., Cordey, J. and Gamble, J. (2016), “Returning the favor: positive employee responses to
supervisor and peer support for training transfer”, International Journal of Training and
Development, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Tsachouridi, I. and Nikandrou, I. (2016), “Breach and willingness to support the organization: an
attribution and social exchange perspective”, Management Research Review, Vol. 39 No. 10,
pp. 1336-1351.
Velada, R. and Caetano, A. (2007), “Training transfer: the mediating role of perception of learning”,
Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 283-296.
Velada, R., Caetano, A., Michel, J., Lyons, B. and Kavanagh, M. (2007), “The effects of training design,
individual characteristics and work environment on transfer of training”, International Journal
of Training and Development, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 282-294.
Williams, L.J., Vandenberg, R.J. and Edwards, J.R. (2009), “Structural equation modeling in
management research: a guide for improved analysis”, The Academy of Management Annals,
Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 543-604.
Xiao, J. (1996), “The relationship between organizational factors and the transfer of training in the
electronics industry in Shenzhen, China”, Journal of Human Resource Development, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 55-73.
Yamkovenko, B. and Holton, E. (2010), “Toward theoretical model of dispositional influences on
transfer of learning: a test of a structural model”, Journal of Human Resource Development
Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 381-410.
Yamnill, S. and McLean, G.N. (2001), “Theories supporting transfer of training”, Journal of Human
Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 195-208.
Zumrah, A.R. (2015), “Examining the relationship between perceived organizational support, transfer
of training and service quality in the Malaysian public sector”, European Journal of Training
and Development, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 143-160.
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
Chang, S., Witteloostuijn, A. and Eden, L. (2010), “From the editors: common method variance in
international business research”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 41,
pp. 178-184.
Craighead, C., Ketchen, D., Dunn, K. and Hult, G. (2011), “Addressing common method variance:
guidelines for survey research on information technology, operations, and supply chain
management”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 578-588.
Feiden, D. (2003), “Bizarre postal bonding”, New York Daily News, available at: www.nydailynews.
com
Harman, H.H. (1960), Modern Factor Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Support and
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in transfer of
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903. training
Rouiller, J.Z. and Goldstein, I.L. (1993), “The relationship between organizational transfer climate and
positive transfer of training”, Journal of Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 4 No. 4,
pp. 377-390.
Thayer, P.W. and Teachout, M.S. (1995), A Climate for Transfer Model, Brooks Air Force Base, Ann
313
Arbor, MI.
Vermeulen, R. and Admiraal, W. (2009), “Transfer as a two-way process: testing a model”, Journal of
European Industrial Training, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 52-68.

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