10585472

The Ineffectiveness of Training Transfer

Word Count: 1,716

 Through differentiation, companies can separate themselves from competing companies in a
vertical market by prioritizing internal growth. Training has been shown in studies to improve
individual, team, and organizational-level performance (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). Training is a
systematic approach concerned with positively affecting an employees’ knowledge, skills, and
attitudes (KSAs) in the short-term while development is concerned with improving workers’ KSAs for
the future. Organizations spend more than $125 billion dollars annually on employee training and
development, but these costs outweigh the yields if any, to be gained from training expenditure, thus,
training is not always effective (Blume et al., 2010). Baldwin and Ford (1988) found three categories
that affect the transfer of knowledge: trainee characteristics, work environment, and training design.
By beginning with a micro-level approach, this paper will discuss from the outset why despite what an
organization may do to increase the effectiveness of transferring training, their employees will
inherently hinder this process. Following this, the paper will review interpersonal factors such as peer
support and supervisor support that can change these inherent qualities to an extent as well as how
the effect of these support systems can vary based on a variety of factors. Finally, exploring training
design and the dimensions that facilitate the transfer of training will bring light to how specific types of
skills determine the effectiveness of training transfer. Assessing these three categories will help the
paper build the foundation for why training may not always be effective.
Trainee characteristics and perceptions of training can determine the extent to which trainees
will understand and apply newly gained knowledge in the workplace. A meta-analytic review
considering SS/SMC biases (input/output factors of training that were self-reported at the same time)
found cognitive ability to possess the largest effect size (.37) in relation to the transfer of training using
a sample weighted average correlation analysis (Blume et al., 2010). The meta-analysis referenced
Cohen’s (1988) definition of effect sizes ranging from .10 = small, .30 = moderate, and .50 = large,
provides context to the significance of cognitive ability’s relationship to training. The study sufficiently
accounted for possible biases in studies that inflated self-report scores and eliminated possible
outliers isolating its results from measurement error, thus further supporting cognitive ability’s role as
a predictor of training transfer. Motivation is another predictor that can influence whether or not skills
will transfer. A trainee’s motivation to learn predicts the likelihood to transfer skills post-training, which
according to a literature review leaves us with strong correlation coefficients ranging from .33 and .75
across studies (Gegenfurtner, 2009). Furthermore, Blume et al, (2010) also found an effect size of .23
indicating a moderate relationship with transferring training. In conducting an in-depth case study
using both quantitative and qualitative data while taking a random representative sample of 167
employees Santos & Stuart (2003) were able to accurately assess the perceptions of employees in
consideration of the organizational climate. They found that employee’s perceptions of training will
influence their continued use of the skills they gained and if these skills were seen as determinantal to
their work then trainees would subsequently revert back to their old habits (Santos & Stuart, 2003).
Thus, if employees do not value the training they receive then their motivation to engage and apply
their newly gained KSAs will decline accordingly. Besides inherent trainee qualities, external social
support factors in the work climate can have a significant role in manipulating the likelihood training
will transfer.

2
 In the transfer of training, interpersonal variables outside the structure of the training program
could affect employees’ utilization of skills gained from training. These interpersonal variables include
both peer support and supervisor support, which makeup the organization’s workplace climate that
are conducive to the transfer of KSAs. In reference to Rouillier and Goldstein (1993), these two
groups aid in developing a transfer climate that can provide both situational cues and feedback
consequences that encourage employees’ maintenance of learned skills. A meta-analytic review
determined a positive and significant relationship between peer support and the transfer of training
over time (Blume et al., 2010). Peer support’s close proximity to the trainee allows the trainee to
overcome adverse work environment such as unsupportive supervisors and improves the transfer of
skills (Martin, 2010). Additionally, peer support helps create a community supportive of training
transfer goals and gives employees opportunities to practice their skills while exchanging feedback
with one another especially in self-directed teams (Hawley & Barnard, 2005). In creating a positive
social network in the workplace, it elevates the motivation of employees, a key predictor in
transferring skills gained from training as mentioned earlier in the paper.
Supervisor support has been repeatedly subject to debate as a predictor of KSA transfer
because studies typically divert from one another in terms of its validity, but when reviewing the
methodology of studies that deny its significance, there have been methodological flaws that
misrepresent results. For example, van der Klink, Gielen & Nauta (2001) did not find a significant
relationship between skill transfer and supervisor support, but did not standardize approaches to
action plans across supervisors and failed to isolate the effect of a supervisor from other
organizational effects. Furthermore, the study used a correlational analysis, which can skew results
and only account for a linear relationship between variables but excludes the extent to which other
variables may affect a relationship by not disaggregating the constructs involved in a work
environment. Additionally, Chiaburu’s & Marinova’s (2005) study supported the notion of a
nonsignificant relationship between supervisor support and skill transfer but offer insight that this may
have occurred because supervisor support may be acting as a suppressor variable in a
contextualized environment. Also, an insignificant finding might have occurred due to a SS/SMC bias
since Chiaburu & Marinova (2005) gathered their data from a one-day corporate information program.
Studies that do not find a significant or strong relationship struggle to provide standardized supervisor
support roles across industries and do not account for biases that may be at play. However, a large
portion of studies consider supervisor support a valid predictor of skill transfer. Blume et al. (2010)
found a strong relationship between supervisor support and transfer. Supervisor support finds
grounding under goal-oriented approaches while encouraging trainees to apply their skills to their best
of ability, which was comparable to results found with supervisors setting proximal and distal goals
(Brown, 2005). Relatively, encouragement from supervisors improves pre-training motivation in
individuals, which has been linked to be a significant indicator of transferring training (Santos & Stuart,
2003). These results indicate that supervisors should provide encouragement and goals (long-term
and short-term) to employees to effectively transfer their skills while appealing to them on an
emotional level. Peer support has drawn the most conclusive evidence concerning transferring
training to the workplace, but supervisor support is at times seen as ineffective due to invalid

3
construct validity and biases, which may explain why training may not be effective in some
instances. Overall, interpersonal factors play a role in determining the effectiveness in training
transfer, but organizational training design can also play another significant role in how easily these
KSAs can transfer depending on what the intended outcome of training is.
Training design involving the type of skill a trainee will learn will affect how well this skill will
transfer to the workplace and the need for a thorough needs assessment can undermine the two
dimensions that facilitate this process. The transfer of skills is facilitated by two dimensions referred to
as generalization (applicability of learned skills) and maintenance (maintaining learned skills over a
period of time) (Blume et al., 2010). However, the lack of criterion validity in numerous studies reveals
implications that training input-factors may affect these dimensions because constructs are not
measuring the conditions of transfer (Baldwin & Ford, 1988). Contextualization in determining criteria
is important because Holton et al. (2003) found that different organizations have varied learning
transfer systems. Holton’s study was a nonexperimental survey, but benefitted from 4,562 responses
from fifteen organizations, which helped provide a more accurate illustration of minute differences
existing among selected companies. Thus, identifying the abilities an organization would want
transferred to the workplace, analyzing the tasks affected by these skills, and continually reassessing
these needs can help build an effective training program to address the criterion problem. Evidence
has supported that a comprehensive needs assessment was significantly and positively related to
organizational effectiveness (van Eerde, Tang & Talbot, 2008). A training program must align with
these needs in its role as a mediating factor and should be suited for an organization's specific goals.
These systems vary widely and, for example, could depend on the type of skill being transferred.
Namely, open skills involve interpersonal training where the application of learned knowledge is up to
the trainee to apply them, inherently giving them more choice (Yelon & Ford, 1999). In contrast,
closed skills concerns training that involves adapting/mimicking a learned behavior (Yelon & Ford,
1999). The difference between the two as part of a training design can determine how effective
training could transfer since closed skills can be applied easily on the job whereas open skills are
more difficult to train and require higher level cognitive abilities (Blume et al., 2010). The ease of
transferring a skill may affect trainee’s motivation to apply these skills in a work setting and further
highlights how the type of skill an individual learns will affect other predictors of transfer. Training may
not always be effective because companies fail to conduct a thorough needs assessment and do not
tailor their training design to their organization’s climate.
Therefore, the ineffectiveness of training that has plagued its proportional transition to a
company’s increased cash-flow is due to the predictors discussed in this paper. Training will never
effectively transfer to the workplace because of these variables, but organizations can work to reduce
the extent to which these predictors could affect training negatively. In addressing motivational factors
through interpersonal interventions and teaching trainees the value in training, organizations can
effectively mitigate negative perceptions of training. However, the ease to which training can transfer
will depend on the type of skill needed as highlighted by a thorough needs assessment. Overall,
training is not effective in the workplace because organizations must institute effective changes to its
organizational climate and its training designs to alter predictors of training transfer.

4
References
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 451-474.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163505
Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of Training: A Review and Directions for Future
Research. Personnel Psychology, 41(1), 63–105. https://doi-
org.manchester.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00632.x
Blume, B. D., Ford, J. K., Baldwin, T. T., & Huang, J. L. (2010). Transfer of training: A meta-analytic
review. Journal of Management, 36(4), 1065-1105.
Brown, T. C. (2005). Effectiveness of distal and proximal goals as transfer‐of‐training interventions: A
field experiment. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(3), 369-387.
doi:10.1002/hrdq.1144
Chiaburu, D. S., & Marinova, S. V. (2005). What predicts skill transfer? an exploratory study of
goal orientation, training self‐efficacy and organizational supports. International Journal of
Training and Development, 9(2), 110-123. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2419.2005.00225.x
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, N.J: L.
Erlbaum Associates.
Gegenfurtner, A., Veermans, K., Festner, D., & Gruber, H. (2009). Integrative literature review:
Motivation to transfer training: An integrative literature review. Human Resource Development
Review, 8(3), 403-423.
Hawley, J. D., & Barnard, J. K. (2005). Work environment characteristics and implications for training
transfer: A case study of the nuclear power industry. Human resource development
international, 8(1), 65-80.
Holton, E. F., Chen, H., & Naquin, S. S. (2003). An examination of learning transfer system
characteristics across organizational settings. Human Resource Development Quarterly,
14(4), 459-482. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1079
Homklin, T., Takahashi, Y. & Techakanont, K. (2014). The influence of social and organizational
support on transfer of training: evidence from Thailand. International Journal of Training and
Development, 18, 116-131
Martin, H. J. (2010). Workplace climate and peer support as determinants of training transfer. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 21(1), 87-104. doi:10.1002/hrdq.20038
Rouiller, J. Z., & Goldstein, I. L. (1993). The Relationship between Organizational Transfer Climate
and Positive Transfer of Training. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 4(4), 377-390.
Santos, M., & Stuart, M. (2003). Employee perceptions and their influence on training effectiveness.
Human Resource Management Journal, 13(1), 27-45. doi:10.1111/j.1748-
8583.2003.tb00082.x
van der Klink, M., Gielen, E., & Nauta, C. (2001). Supervisory support as a major condition to
enhance transfer. International Journal of Training & Development, 5(1), 52. https://doi-
org.manchester.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/1468-2419.00121
van Eerde, W., Tang, K. C. S., & Talbot, G. (2008). The mediating role of training utility in the

5
 relationship between training needs assessment and organizational effectiveness.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(1), 63-73
Yelon, S. L., & Ford, J. K. (1999). Pursuing a multidimensional view of transfer. Performance
Improvement Quarterly, 12(3), 58-78. doi:10.1111/j.1937-8327.1999.tb00138.x