ARTICLES

Organizational Training and

Signals of Importance: Linking
Pretraining Perceptions to
Intentions to Transfer

Timothy ?: Baldwin, RichardJ. Magpka

The organizational literature has suggested that all management actions

send signals to employees that afect perceptions and inyuence behavior.
This stu+ investigated the efects of three pretraining signals--course
information provided to trainees, accountability to supervisor, and program
status (mandatory or voluntary)-on subsequent intentions to transfer
program learning. Data collected *om 193 trainees in the engineering
group of a manufacturing firm indicated that trainees reported greater
intentions to transjer learning to the workplace when they (1) received
information prior to the training program, (2) recognized that they would
have some accountabitityfor learning with their supervisor, and (3) per-
ceived a program as mandatory.

Considerable evidence in the behavioral sciences literature suggests that

ability and motivation combine multiplicatively to determine performance
(Porter and Lawler, 1968). The notion that “trainability” is a function of an
individual’s ability and motivation to learn is also widely accepted among
researchers and practitioners in education and training (Goldstein, 1986;
Noe, 1986). That is, learning and transfer will only occur when trainees
have both the capability and the desire to acquire new skills and use them
on the job.
Interestingly, most empirical studies of the pretraining antecedents of
training outcomes have focused exclusively on individuals’ability and back-
ground. For example, the six individual characteristics investigated in a
recent comprehensive modeling of military training performance by Mum-
ford, Weeks, Harding, and Fleishman (1988) were cognitive aptitude, read-

Note: The authors would like to thank Michael Zeller and Mark Gavin for their
assistance on this project,

HUMAN m m c DEVE~PMENI
~ WL 2. no. 1. Spring 1991 @ J o s u y - k Inc.. Publishers
QUARTERLY, 25
26 Baldwin, Magjuka

ing level, prior course work, educational level, educational preparation, and
age. Aptitude and background measures were also predominant in reviews
of the predictors of training outcomes conducted by Tyler (1965) and
Ghiselli (1973).
Researchers have focused on background and ability despite a recurring
lament of organizational trainers: Their trainees generally have ample ability
to learn but lack sufficient motivation. Clearly, even if trainees possess the
ability to learn and transfer, performance will still be low if motivation is
low or absent (Maier, 1973; Noe, 1986). Training researchers and practi-
tioners alike therefore have a vested interest in understanding motivation
in training contexts.
Recent authors in the organizational literature have suggested that
employee motivation can be profoundly affected by management actions
that, either intentionally or unintentionally, send salient cues or signals
(Feldman and March, 1981; Pfeffer, 1981). However, little research has
sought to identify or understand the implications of the signals attached to
organizational training initiatives (Hicks and Klimoski, 1987). The under-
lying premise of the present research is that one important antecedent of
trainee motivation, at least in organizational settings, is the expectation
that learning and transfer are organizationally important outcomes. We
suspect that certain management actions prior to training significantly
affect trainees’ perceptions of its importance and, consequently, their moti-
vation to learn and transfer. Figure 1 presents a model of the process by
which managerial actions can influence subsequent trainee motivation and
training outcomes.
Of course, the notion that an organization’s members will expend effort
on what they perceive as important and neglect behaviors deemed unim-
portant is hardly new or provocative. Yet we find it intriguing that such a
parsimonious explanation has rarely been explored in organizational train-
ing contexts. The present research, then, was undertaken to empirically
address three questions: (1) What are the signals of organizational impor-

Management - ~ a i n e PerCePttOnS
e
of Importance
- Motivation
to Learn &Transfer
- ’1saintng
Signals Outcomes

-accountability -learning
-program status -transfer
-pre-hfomtion
-presence
I ~=i& r /
pZ7.y
Environment
Organizational Training and Signals of Importance 27

tance? (2) How are these signals manifested (or not) in training interven-
tions? (3) Are important training signals associated with post-training out-
comes? The first two questions were explored in a descriptive pilot study.
The third question was empirically addressed in a field study of trainees
attending several training programs conducted in the engineering group of
a major midwestem firm.

Signals of Importance in Training Interventions

We began our investigation by asking the question, How might the man-
agement of an organization signal that certain interventions (not restricted
to training) are vitally important? Or, more precisely, what characteristics
of an intervention indicate to employees its relative organizational impor-
tance? To address that question, a study was conducted in which ninety-
eight respondents employed in a variety of organizations were asked to
identify the characteristics of an intervention that would indicate its impor-
tance to their organization. Demographic information gathered from respon-
dents revealed that seventy-three different organizations were represented,
with 46 percent of the respondents white collar/staff, 46 percent profes-
sional/manager, and 8 percent other. The average age of respondents was
27.4 years, and their average full-time work experience was 6.12 years.
Although the respondents generated a wide diversity of anecdotes, illustra-
tions, and examples, we used a Q sort procedure previously described by
Miller (1978) and Peters, OConnor, and Rudolph (1980) to systematically
identify any central themes.
Briefly, our Q sort procedure consisted of four steps. First, respondents
were asked to describe an organizational program or intervention, fairly
wide in scope. Without evaluating the effectiveness of the program, they
were asked to identify managerial actions that sent a signal or message that
the program was important or unimportant to the organization. The respon-
dents generated a total of ninety-nine positive and negative examples.
Second, we attempted to categorize the list of examples into definable
categories. A decision rule requiring mention of an example by at least 20
percent of the respondents was used to establish the number of categories.
Four relevant categories were identified by this process. Third, a group of
graduate students were asked to match the samples with the categories-a
process known as “retranslation” (see Peters, O’Connor, and Rudolph,
1980). Using a decision rule of 80 percent correct placement, sixty-eight of
the items were correctly placed through the retranslation process, with an
average of seventeen related items in each of the four categories. The four
categories that emerged in this procedure are described below.
First, respondents perceived as important those interventions where
some type of accountability was attached, usually manifested in rewards
or sanctions tied to performance. Several respondents succinctly captured
28 Ebldwin, Magjuka

this theme by noting, “If they measure it and reward it, then you know it’s
important.” Second, respondents frequently reported that truly important
interventions were mandatory. If upper management really felt a particular
initiative was central to the achievement of organizational objectives, then
participation was not left to the discretion of employees. Several respon-
dents identified this theme by stating in a straightfomard way, ‘If it is
really important to management, then it is required for all concerned par-
ties.” Third, respondents consistently identified some form of preprogrum
information as a signal of importance. This idea often took the form of
responses like “If management has thought it through and communicates
its rationale for doing it, then it is clearly important.” Finally, management
presence was consistently identified as a signal of organizational importance.
All else constant, if managers devoted their own time to kick off the pro-
gram, attended sessions (maybe even agreed to lead some sessions), and
followed up with participants, the initiative was felt to be important.
Conspicuously absent from the list were proclamations of importance
and resources expended. In fact, several respondents differentiated between
management permission and support (Training for. . . , 1986). That is,
some people noted that management often gives permission to spend
money and take people’s time, but by themselves those concessions are not
necessarily signals that management attaches high importance to a particu-
lar intervention.
In sum, it came as no surprise that in isolating signals of importance
our respondents tended to focus more on what management does than on
what management says or spends. And the elements of interventions that
they felt were most indicative of importance were accountability, man-
dated participation, preplanning and communication, and management
presence.

Organizational Use of Signals of Importance

Given the general signals of importance, we proceeded to overlay existing
evidence and our observations of current training practice to address the
extent to which organizations currently signal the importance of training
initiatives. Organizations today generally pronounce that training is vital to
their mission and future. In fact, it is not uncommon for organizations to
claim that training and development is the paramount human resource
priority. In addition, there can be no question that training expenditures
have risen dramatically in most organizations. The cost of training, taking
into account time loss on the job, travel, lodging, overhead, and the like, is
higher than ever. But given that neither management pronouncements nor
resources expended were among the most salient signals of importance, it
seems plausible that trainees often do not perceive that their learning and
transfer are as important as the pronouncements and resource expenditures
Organizational Training and Signals of Importance 29

would suggest. Although notable exceptions abound, we fear that the most
powerful signals of importance are often lacking in much current training
practice.
For example, with respect to accountability, organizations seem cur-
iously lax in making trainees responsible for their learning. Academic
courses are notoriously preoccupied with tests, grades, and evaluation, but
training in industry is far less so. Although it does seem to be on the
increase, relatively little post-training measurement occurs. To illustrate,
Saari,Johnson, McLaughlin, and Zimmerle (1988) summarized results from
a large-scale survey of 61 1 organizations and concluded that few conduct
comprehensive evaluations of their training programs. Depending on the
type of program, up to half of the organizations conduct no evaluation at
all. Aside from providing no evidence to facilitate training decisions, the
absence of measurement may be perceived by trainees as a signal of the
low importance of the training. We suspect that trainees are often well
aware that they will not face post-training evaluation of their learning nor
any responsibility whatsoever for application of skills. The result is a
decline in trainee moavation.
The dearth of post-training measurement is particularly disappointing
because the limited research we have on training strategies that hold train-
ees accountable is quite encouraging (Marx, 1986; Wexley and Baldwin,
1986). Unfortunately, such accountability is too often the exception rather
than the norm.
A second issue raised by our inquiry into signals of importance concerns
the voluntary/mandatory status of training programs. In the voluminous
literature on training, the issue of voluntariness has rarely been addressed.
Little is known about the consequences of attaching either voluntary or
mandatory status to organizational training programs. Traditional wisdom
has been that motivation to learn is enhanced if trainees attend of their
own volition. Anecdotal horror stories abound of trainees who were forced
to attend courses and subsequently performed poorly or, worse, openly
confronted the trainer or sabotaged training efforts. A well-established
tenet of adult learning is that “people only learn what they want to learn”
(Knowles, 1978).
Of course, it seems possible that trainees may “want to learn,” particu-
larly in organizational settings, largely because learning and transfer are
organizationally important and instrumental to personal rewards. In addi-
tion, results of our pilot study suggest that mandatory status is one of the
most salient signals of organizational importance. Could it be that by label-
ing training initiatives as voluntary we are inadvertently sending signals of
unimportance to our work force? Put another way, does the observation
that “what is important is required carry over into the domain of training?
We also found interesting the nature of those who volunteer. Although
there is little empirical evidence, conventional wisdom seems to suggest
30 Baldwin, Magjuha

that voluntary programs often bring out the “cream of the crop,” the good
citizens and the like. It is often assumed that those most motivated to
participate will self-select under voluntary conditions and, consequently,
facilitate the effectiveness of the program. However, even if this is true
from an organizational perspective, it may not be desirable. It is not uncom-
mon for trainers to lament that those who volunteer for training programs
are often those who need them least.
Finally, communication prior to training is a soft spot in organizational
settings. The limited evidence we have (Hicks and Klimoski, 1987) suggests
that pretraining information can influence trainee expectations. Yet, Saari,
Johnson, McLaughlin, and Zimmerle (1988) found that less than 65 percent
of the 611 organizations in their sample conducted any form of needs
assessment prior to training. Although a needs assessment is not the sole
indicator of pretraining rationale and communication, this finding does
suggest that organizations are often embarking on training without a pro-
cess of data gathering and trainee involvement. Aside from providing no
information with which to tailor training to organizational needs, the failure
to assess needs and inform trainees prior to training may send a negative
signal regarding the importance of the initiative. Unfortunately, only about
a third of our pilot respondents indicated that they typically received
information prior to training via communication with supervisors, upper
management, or the training group.
In summary, it is apparent that organizations vary widely in the extent
to which they attach signals of importance to training interventions. More-
over, there is substantial variation in the extent to which signals of impor-
tance are manifested across training programs within a single organization.
Both recent survey evidence and our own observations suggest that far too
often the implementation of training may inadvertently signal a relative
lack of importance. It seems that we may often be setting up our training
initiatives to fail by not prominently signaling to trainees the importance
of program outcomes.

Method
In the present study we took advantage of an opportunity to collect both
pretraining expectations and post-training intentions from employees
attending a variety of different training programs in the engineering depart-
ment of a major midwestem manufacturing organization. Permission was
granted to survey trainees on their perceptions, prior to entering training,
on three of the signals of importance identified above: accountability, pro-
gram status, and prior information received. As we suspect is often the
case in organizational settings, there was considerable variance in trainees’
perceptions of the signals present before training. We expected that pre-
training information and perceptions of accountability and mandatory sta-
Organizational Training and Signals of lmpoltance 31

tus would be associated with positive post-training intentions across the

different programs.
Sample and Procedure. Prior to each of ten regularly scheduled training
courses for engineers at this firm, a ten-minute survey was administered.
We asked trainees to respond to questions concerning the following: ex-
pected accountability when the training concluded, program status (that is,
whether they perceived the program as mandatory or voluntary), and pre-
training information they received. Programs ranged in length from one to
four days and included topics such as “good manufacturing practices” and
“conducting effective meetings.” Following the training, trainees were given
a second ten-minute survey asking them to evaluate the program, specifi-
cally with respect to their intentions of using program learning on the job.
In an effort to capture “business as usual” and create little fanfare, all data
collection was done in conjunction with regularly scheduled training pro-
grams over a three-month period, and the surveys were administered by
course instructors. In all, data were collected from 193 trainees, although
missing data dropped the sample size slightly (N = 180) for the mean
comparison of voluntary and mandatory program participants. Trainees
ranged widely in experience and included manufacturing, chemical, and
civil engineers.
Measures. Three pretraining employee perceptions were assessed prein-
formation, accountability,and program status. Specifics on how these three
signals of importance were measured are presented below. The post-train-
ing measure, labeled intentions to transfer, is also described below.
Preinformation. Preinformation was assessed by asking trainees to iden-
tify the source of communication (if any) that they received prior to train-
ing. Trainees were given a multiple-choice question with options including
peers, supervisor, training department, and/or instructor. It is interesting
to speculate about the relative or additive effects of different sources, but
our interest at this exploratory stage was in a more basic question: Were
there any differences in post-training outcomes associated with a trainee
getting some preinformation versus getting none at all? Therefore, the mea-
sure of preinformation was coded dichotomously; 135 trainees reported
receiving some information, and 58 reported receiving no pretraining infor-
mation. Nearly all of those receiving information indicated that it was from
either the training department or the instructor.
Accountability. Accountability was operationalized as the nature of any
follow-up activity or assessment the trainee expected would follow training.
Trainees were asked a multiple-choice question, with options including
preparing a report or summary of the training, meeting with the supervisor,
attending a follow-up assessment, or no post-training behaviors at all.
Again, as with preinformation, the primary question in the present study
concerned whether the presence of any perceived accountability versus
none would be associated with post-training outcomes. In this study, 128
32 Baldwin, Magjuku

trainees expected some follow-up accountability and 65 did not. The major-
ity of those who expected some follow-up identified a meeting with the
supervisor as the form of that accountability.
Program Status. We contend that program status (voluntary/mandatory)
is rarely an objective reality, whereby a program is designated and uni-
versally accepted by concerned parties as either mandatory or voluntary.
Rather, it is the trainee’s subjective perception of program status, aside from
any formal designation, that most significantly affects motivation to learn
and transfer. Of course, the point of our previous discussion of signals is
that the formal designation of a program often has a significant effect on
trainee perceptions, but the formal designation is not always an accurate
indicator. For example, it is hardly controversial to suggest that some pro-
grams labeled voluntary are often perceived by trainees as implicitly man-
datory. Similarly, programs formally tagged as required are often dismissed
by employees as “not really required for us.” Therefore, we judged program
status to be most appropriately assessed by the trainees themselves. More
specifically, program status was measured by asking this question: “For
someone in your current position, would you say this program is mandatory
or voluntary?” A total of sixty trainees in our sample (approximately 30
percent) reported their program as mandatory. Most perceptions were
consistent with the formal designation on the training roster, although
there was some variance that supported the use of individual perceptions
as the measure of program status. Sample size for the analysis of program
status effects dropped to 180, because thirteen trainees did not provide
usable data on this variable.
Intentions to Transjir. Intentions to transfer was our post-training measure.
We asked trainees, at the conclusion of their training, to respond to four
items concerning their evaluation of the program and the likelihood that they
would use the content of the training on the job (for example, “I will use the
skills learned in this course to improve my professional competence on the
job”). The reliability (Cronbachs alpha) for this measure was .80.

Results
Intercorrelations of all variables are presented in Table 1. Table 2 presents
the means and standard deviations for the intentions to transfer measure,
both overall and across the three dichotomized groups (accountability/no
accountability, preinformation/no preinformation, mandatory/voluntary).
It should be noted that the program status variable was coded as
1 = mandatory and 2 = voluntary. The significant negative correlation (-.22)
between program status and intentions to transfer suggests that mandatory
status was associated with higher intentions to transfer. Small but significant
correlations with intentions to transfer were also found for preinformation
and accountability.
Organizational Training and Signals of Importance 33

Table 1. Intercorrelations for All Variables

Variable 1 2 3 4
status -
Accountability -.lo -
Preinformation .13a .07 -
Intentions to transfer -.22b .15’ .12’ -
Note: N = 193
< .05
bp < .01

Table 2. Mean Comparisons for Pretraining Variables

on Post-Training Intentions to Transfer
Variable T-VQIUC T-SignificQnce
Accountability No Accountability
N = 128 N = 65
3.98 3.75 3.30 ,001
C73) (.67)
F’reinformation No F’reinformation
N = 135 N = 58
3.91 3.89 .20 ns
(.69) C78)
Mandatory Voluntary
N = 60 N = 120
4.13 3.78 -2.15 .03
C65) (.72)
Note: Standard deviations are in parentheses.

Regression analysis was used to examine the relative influence of prein-

formation, accountability, and program status on trainee intentions to
transfer. The regression results are presented in Table 3. The regression
equation for intentions to transfer was statistically significant, F(3,
186) = 5.95, p < .001, accounting for a small amount of variance (R = .09).
The beta weights for program status and prior information were statistically
significant at the .01 level, and that for accountability was marginally sig-
nificant at .07.

Discussion
The results of this study are consistent with other recent work (Hicks and
Klimoski, 1987), which suggests that certain pretraining conditions may
indeed be related to the overall success of training interventions. More
specifically, the results of this study indicate that trainees reported greater
intentions to transfer learning to the workplace when they received infor-
34 Baldwin, Mugjuha

Table 3. Multiple Regression Results for

Post-Training Intentions to Transfer
Variable Beta R R R Change
~~ ~

Program status -.23 .22 .05 .05a

Accountabilicy .12 .26 .07 .O2b
Prior information .15 30 .09 .02c
a p < .01
p C .07
'p < .05

mation prior to the training program, recognized that they would be ac-
countable to their supervisor, and perceived a program as mandatory.
Perhaps the most provocative issue is raised by the finding that man-
datory status was associated with positive post-training intentions. As dis-
cussed earlier, little is known about the consequences of program status on
the effectiveness of organizational training programs. These results may
seem to challenge the traditional assumption that motivation to learn is
enhanced if trainees attend of their o m volition. However, one important
moderating condition in this study was that the general attitudes toward
training in this firm were very favorable. In fact, over 80 percent of the
trainees reported that their previous experience with training programs in
this organization had been either favorable or very favorable. We suspect
that, in organizations where the training climate is less favorable, making
training mandatory might yield more of the demotivating and dysfunctional
consequences documented in previous research. On the other hand, again
consistent with our earlier discussion, making training voluntary may inad-
vertently convey a signal of relative unimportance to trainees already faced
with a myriad of other organizational mandates.
Although this discrepancy may appear to create a dilemma for training
administrators, a good resolution may be one already used by several orga-
nizations. In these organizations, a certain amount of training (for example,
forty hours a year for managers) is mandated. However, employees are
allowed discretion, within prescribed limits, in choosing the nature and
timing of that training. In view of the present findings, such a practice
may serve to signal the importance of training without sacrificing some of
the motivational potential of voluntary participation.
Perhaps the most compelling reason for interest in the relationship
between pretraining perceptions and training outcomes is the potential for
influencing such perceptions through management or trainer action. Unlike
trainee ability and background, perceptions are subject to change. For
example, ensuring that trainees are provided information prior to training
or that some mechanism for accountability is in place should not be par-
ticularly difficult steps to accomplish, although it seems they are often ne-
Orgunizutional Training and Signals of Importance 35

glected (Saari,Johnson, McLaughlin, and Zimmerle, 1988). Moreover, while

the amount of variance in transfer intentions explained in this study was
modest, it should be noted that the variances in pretraining conditions
were also minimal. That is, the focus here was on an either/or context (for
example, accountabilityho accountability), with no consideration for the
type or even degree of those variables. We suspect that, as the degree of
accountability or the quality of information increases, the effect on post-
training intentions may increase as well.
Of course, the results of this research are preliminary and await replica-
tion in other settings. Future researchers should concern themselves with
extending this type of research to other pretraining variables. One particu-
lar variable of interest is management presence, which was identified by
our pilot group as a signal of importance but could not be explored in the
present organizational sample. In addition, work that explores the interac-
tive effect of different management actions on pretraining perceptions
would be well directed. Perceptions of importance could also stem from a
variety of sources beyond a trainee’s managerial group, including peers at
work, the trainer, or even sources outside the organization (such as reading
about the importance of lifelong learning in one’s field). In this vein, several
of our pilot study respondents described “mixed signals of importance, in
which some management actions conveyed importance while other actions
suggested just the opposite. Finally, one limitation of the present study is
that we were only able to collect data on post-training attitudes. Future
work that collects data on actual on-the-job behaviors is sorely needed.
One of the persistent criticisms of training and development practice
is that it is too often based on trainer intuition and too infrequendy sup-
ported by empirical results (Campbell, 1971). And although some authors
have suggested pretraining strategies to facilitate effective training outcomes
(Broad, 1982; Newstrom, 1986), not much empirical research has examined
the process of entering training programs from the participants’ perspec-
tive. The relationships found here between pretraining perceptions and
post-training intentions suggest that it would be worthwhile to promote
positive pretraining perceptions of importance. The major recommendation
is that future researchers and training practitioners pay close attention to
the conditions surrounding participants’entry into training programs (Bald-
win and Ford, 1988). Although the suggestion is not new, we hope that
these empirical findings will help encourage both practitioners and
researchers to pay it more serious attention.

References
Baldwin, T. T., Q Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions
for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41, 63-105.
Broad, M. L (1982). Management actions to support transfer of training. Training
and Development Journal, 36(5), 124-130.
36 Bnldwin, Magjuka

Campbell, J. P. (1971). Personnel training and development. Annual Review of Psy-

chology, 22, 565-602.
Feldman, M., Q March, J. G. (1981). Information in organizations as signal and
symbol. Administrative Science Qunrterb, 26, 171- 186.
Ghiselli, E. E. (1973). The validity of aptitude tests in personnel selection. Personnel
Psychology, 26, 461-477.
Goldstein, 1. L. Training in work organizations: Needs assessment, development, and
evaluation. Pacific Grove, CA: BrookdCole.
Hicks, W. D., Q Klimoski, R. J. (1987). Entry into training programs and its effect
on training outcomes: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 30,
542-552.
Knowles, M. S. (1978). The adult learner: A neglected species (2nd ed.). Houston, TX:
Gulf Publishing.
Maier, N.R.F. (1973). Psychology in industrial organizations. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Marx, R. (1986). Improving management development through relapse prevention
strategies. Journal of Management Development, 5(2), 27-40.
Miller, D. (1978). The role of multivariate Q-techniques in the study of organiza-
tions. Academy of Management Review, 3, 515-531.
Mumford, M. D., Weeks, J. I,Harding, F. D., & Fleishman, E. A. (1988). Relations
between student characteristics, course content, and training outcomes: An inte-
grative modeling effort. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 443-456.
Newstrom, J. (1986). Leveraging management development through the manage-
ment of transfer. Journal of Management Development, 5(5), 33-45.
Noe, R. A. (1986). Trainees’ attributes and attitudes: Neglected influences on train-
ing effectiveness. Academy of Management Review, 11, 736-749.
Peters, L. H., OConnor, C. J., Q Rudolph, C. J. (1980). The behavioral and affective
consequences of performance relevant situational variables. Organization Behavior
and Human Pelformance, 25, 79-96.
Pfeffer,J. (1981). Management as symbolic action: The creation and maintenance
of organizational paradigms. In B. Staw Q L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in
organizational behavior (pp. 1-52). Greenwich, C T JAI Press.
Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and pe$ormance. Home-
wood, IL: Irwin.
Saari, L. M., Johnson, T. R., McLaughlin, 5. D., Q Zimmerle, D. M. (1988). A survey
of management training and education practices in U.S. companies. Personnel
Psychology, 41, 731-743.
Training for organizational excellence. (1986). Cupertino, CA: Zenger-Miller, Inc.
Tyler, L. E. (1965). The psychology of human dgerences. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Wexley, K. N., Q Baldwin, T. T. (1986). Post-training strategies for facilitating pos-
itive transfer: An empirical exploration. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 503-
520.

Timothy I: Baldwin is assistant projessor in the Department of Management,

School of Business, Indiana University, Bloornington.

Richard J. Magjuka is assistant professor in the Department of Management,

Sc hoof of Business, Indiana University, Greenwood.