The Conceptual Framework

As described above and detailed in Chapter 2, the research framework for this study was constructed from an adaptation of three key HRD models: the LTSI model (Holton et al. 2000); the HRD model (Holton 1996) and the TPB theory (Ajzen 1991). First, the category of variables receiving most attention in the literature on the

54

basis of their ability to influence motivation to transfer training was selected for the framework. These variables explain a major portion of the variance in the concept of motivation to transfer training. Added to this were: two secondary variables (personality characteristics and intervention readiness); and four primary variables (expected utility, transfer climate, ability and transfer design). The variables from the Learning Transfer System Inventory (LTSI) developed by Holton et al. (2000) were also fitted into the research framework. As discussed in Chapter 2 the LTSI model was developed from Holton’s earlier 1996 model and as they pertained to motivation to transfer, they fitted well into the conceptual framework. The LTSI variables comprised: secondary variables (performance-self efficacy and learner readiness); expected utility variables (transfereffort-performance expectations and performance- outcome expectations); transfer climate variables (feedback, peer support, supervisor support, openness to change, personal outcomes-positive, personal outcomes- negative and supervisor sanctions); ability variables (personal capacity for transfer

and opportunity to use); and enabling variables (content validity and transfer design). The definitions for each of these variables is provided in Chapter 1 (see Table 1.1). Finally, the variables from the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen 1991) were included in the framework. As explained in Chapter 2, the TPB describes the elements pertaining to knowledge sharing which is hypothesised here as being linked to motivation to transfer training. Figure 3.1 depicts the conceptual framework developed for this thesis.

55 Figure 3.1 The Conceptual Framework

Feedback Peer support Supervisor support Openness to change Personal outcomes-positive Personal outcomes-negative Supervisor sanctions Motivation to transfer Content validity Transfer design Personal capacity for transfer Opportunity to use Performance- self efficacy Sharing behaviour Intention to share Attitude toward knowledge sharing Subjective norms toward knowledge sharing Perceived behavioural control toward knowledge sharing Transfer effort- performance expectations Performance- outcomes expectations Secondary Influences Motivation Elements Environmental Elements Ability/Enabling Elements Personality characteristic variable Transfer climate variables Expected utility variables Enabling variables Ability variables TPB Variables Learner readiness Intervention readiness variable

56

The contribution of this conceptual framework to the understanding of factors influencing motivation to transfer training is fourfold. First, the conceptual framework is unique in its utilisation of the application of TPB to predict trainees’ sharing behaviour in the workplace. As explained in Chapter 2, the theory of planned behaviour predicts that a trainee’s intention to share his or herknowledge and skills in the workplace will be determined by his or her attitude toward sharing behaviour

together with the operation of subjective norms and perceived behavioural control. The more favourable the attitude and subjective norms and the greater the perceived behavioural control, the stronger should be trainees’ intention to share the learned knowledge and skills in the workplace.

Second, the conceptual framework is unique in its hypothesis that the personality characteristic variable: performance-self efficacy and the intervention readiness variable: learner readiness have a direct influence on motivation to transfer. In contrast, Holton’s (1996) model hypothesised that the personality characteristic and intervention readiness variables influenced motivation to learn. As described in Chapter 2, research has suggested that the personality characteristic variable, self

efficacy (Gist 1989; Gist et al. 1989; Gist et al. 1991; Tannenbaum et al. 1991) and intervention readiness variable, learner readiness (Hicks & Klimoski 1987; Baldwin et al. 1991; Tannenbaum et al. 1991; Ryman & Biersner 1975) are related to two key training outcomes: training and task performance. It is from the work of these researchers that this thesis argues that trainees with high self-efficacy and are ready to participate in training are motivated to transfer training.

Third, the conceptual framework is unique in its hypothesis that the ability variables:

personal capacity for transfer and opportunity to use have a direct influence on

motivation to transfer. In Holton’s (1996) model, the ability variables were hypothesised to influence motivation to transfer indirectly via their relationship with learning. Nevertheless, the ability variable, personal capacity for transfer was described as an important determinant of training transfer (Holton et al. 2000; Holton et al. 2003). The variable, opportunity to use was described as a significant predictor

57

of motivation to transfer (Seyler et al. 1998) and associated positively with training transfer (Awoniyi et al. 2002; Lim & Johnson 2002; Tracey et al. 1995). Therefore, it is argued in this thesis that trainees with high personal capacity for transfer and have the opportunity to use their training are more motivated to transfer that training in the workplace.

Finally, the conceptual framework hypothesises that the enabling variables, content validity and transfer design exert a direct influence on motivation to transfer. In Holton’s (1996) model, transfer design was hypothesised to influence individual performance. Content validity was found to have a significant correlation with

motivation to transfer (Seyler et al. 1998) and was a significant predictor of transfer performance (Bates et al. 2000; Axtell, Maitlis & Yearta 1997). Earlier work on

transfer design had found that using identical elements (for example when training environment was identical to the work environment) (Gagne, Baker & Foster 1950), teaching through general principles (for instance, trainees taught not just applicable skills but also the general rules and theoretical principles that underlie the training content) (Bernstein, Hillix & Marx 1957) and using several examples of a concept to be learned (Shoe & Sechrest 1961) resulted in training transfer. Therefore, given the reported influence of the enabling variables, content validity and transfer design on

motivation to transfer and actual transfer of training, it was hypothesised that content validity and transfer design exert a direct influence of on motivation to transfer. As described in Chapter 2, a number of factors included in the original models used to derive the conceptual framework [the Kirkpatrick (1994) model, the LTSI model (Holton et al. 2000), the HRD model (Holton 1996) and the TPB (Ajzen 1991)] were removed. The resulting conceptual framework removed: reaction, learning, external events, organisational performance and linkage to organisational goals. The reasons for their removal from the conceptual framework is described in Chapter 2 and summarised in Table 3.1:

58 Table 3.1 Factors removed from the original HRD models