• No results found

Posttraining Interventions to Enhance Transfer: The Moderating Effects of Work Environments

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Posttraining Interventions to Enhance Transfer: The Moderating Effects of Work Environments"

Copied!
16
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

105

Posttraining Interventions

to Enhance Transfer:

The Moderating Effects

of Work Environments

Wendy L. Richman-Hirsch

The study reported on in this article examined the effectiveness of two posttraining interventions—goal-setting and self-management training— and moderating effects of the work environment on improving training transfer. The findings indicate that training in goal-setting was effective in improving the extent to which trainees applied their skills to the job. Further, both interventions were found to be more effective in supportive work environments. Implications for training research and human resource practices are discussed.

The sine qua non of training is the successful transfer of trained skills to the job. Baldwin and Ford (1988) identified two conditions of transfer: mainte-nance (that is, the length of time that trained skills continue to be used on the job) and generalization (the application of trained skills to tasks or settings beyond the original training context). It has been argued that transfer of train-ing is a function of the traintrain-ing program itself as well as the work environment (for example, Facteau, Dobbins, Russell, Ladd, and Kudisch, 1995; Ford, Quiñones, Sego, and Sorra, 1992; Tracey, Tannenbaum, and Kavanagh, 1995). It is believed that aspects of the posttraining environment can encourage, dis-courage, or even prohibit the application of new skills on the job (Tannenbaum and Yukl, 1992). The present study examined the effectiveness of two posttraining interventions—goal-setting and self-management training—that

HUMANRESOURCEDEVELOPMENTQUARTERLY, vol. 12, no. 2, Summer 2001 Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Note:This research was carried out for my doctoral dissertation at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The study was supported in part by grants from the Center for Human Resource Management (CHRM) and the Office of Human Resource Development, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. I gratefully acknowledge the support and guidance of Charles L. Hulin and Miguel A. Quiñones.

(2)

provide trainees with skills to help them overcome potential obstacles and con-straints in the work environment and ultimately enhance the application of learned material.

Posttraining Interventions

Several researchers have examined the effectiveness of posttraining interven-tions (for example, Frayne and Latham, 1987; Gist, Bavetta, and Stevens, 1990; Gist, Stevens, and Bavetta, 1991; Latham and Frayne, 1989; Wexley and Baldwin, 1986), but few attempts have been made to examine the extent to which contextual variables moderate the effectiveness of posttraining interven-tions in enhancing transfer. Using several sources of data (self, supervisor, and coworkers) collected over time, this study both replicates and extends previous research. This study attempts to replicate the work of Gist, Bavetta, and Stevens (1990); Gist, Stevens, and Bavetta (1991); Gist and Stevens (1998); Stevens and Gist (1997); and Wexley and Baldwin (1986) by examining the differential effectiveness of goal-setting and self-management in improving maintenance and generalization transfer. In addition, this study extends previous research by investigating the moderating effects of work environments; to the authors knowledge, this study is the first to investigate the moderating effects of the transfer work environment on posttraining intervention effectiveness.

Goal-Setting Training. Locke, Latham, and their colleagues have gained considerable support for the assertion that specific, challenging goals lead to higher performance than easy goals, do-your-best goals, or no goals (Locke and Latham, 1990). Goals are believed to lead to higher performance because they direct attention, mobilize effort, and encourage persistence on a task (Locke, Shaw, Saari, and Latham, 1981).

With respect to training efforts, several studies have investigated the moti-vating effects of goal-setting as a posttraining intervention to enhance transfer and have reported positive findings. For example, Wexley and Nemeroff (1975) investigated the effects of introducing goal-setting following a man-agement development training program for hospital supervisors. Their results indicate that trainees with assigned performance goals (that is, to ask subordi-nates’ opinions and ideas and try them whenever possible) were better at applying their trained skills than trainees who had no goals. (See also Wexley and Baldwin, 1986.)

Self-Management Training. In its original form, self-management train-ing developed to aid people who had relapse problems with addictive behav-iors, such as smoking and alcoholism (Kanfer, 1980). It is believed that a set of generalizable coping skills helps individuals avoid or effectively handle prob-lems they encounter after therapy. Self-management techniques have been found to be effective in helping people stop smoking (Kanfer and Phillips, 1970), lose weight (Mahoney, Moura, and Wade, 1973), and improve study habits (Richards, 1976).

(3)

Marx (1982) brought these ideas into the workplace by developing a relapse prevention model for managerial training. Self-management training, as it is called now, involves teaching people to assess potential obstacles to per-formance, monitor ways in which the environment facilitates or hinders performance, plan coping responses when faced with those obstacles, and administer rewards upon successfully avoiding or overcoming obstacles (Gist, Bavetta, and Stevens, 1990; Noe, 1986; Wexley and Baldwin, 1986). Research examining self-management training as a posttraining intervention indicates that it is effective in enhancing transfer (for example, Frayne and Latham, 1987; Gist, Bavetta, and Stevens, 1990; Gist, Stevens, and Bavetta, 1991) and may have long-term effects (Latham and Frayne, 1989).

Several researchers have compared the effectiveness of goal-setting and self-management interventions in enhancing transfer (Gist, Bavetta, and Stevens, 1990; Gist, Stevens, and Bavetta, 1991; Stevens and Gist, 1997; Wexley and Baldwin, 1986). These studies have found that goal-setting is essential to the success of self-management training. For example, Wexley and Baldwin found that, for improving time management skills, self-management training (without goal-setting) was inferior to goal-setting training (that is, monitoring achievement toward either assigned or participatively set goals); goal-setting trainees demonstrated greater maintenance of their time manage-ment skills over a two-month period. Gist and associates (Gist, Bavetta, and Stevens, 1990; Gist, Stevens, and Bavetta, 1991) discovered that, following a negotiation skills training program, trainees who were taught goal-setting and self-management principles demonstrated greater transfer than did trainees who were taught only goal-setting principles following training.

Consistent with previous findings, it is expected that goal-setting and self-management training (with goal-setting components) will have different effects on the maintenance and generalization of trained skills. Because self-management techniques involve identifying obstacles to performance and plan-ning coping responses, self-management trainees may acquire the ability to apply learned material to new situations. Gist, Bavetta, and Stevens (1990, p. 506) suggest that “in contrast to training that emphasizes goal-setting alone, self-management training may focus attention on the learning and orchestra-tion processes involved in performing a complex task, as well as the desired outcome.” They found that following a negotiation skills training program, a self-management posttraining intervention resulted in greater generalization than did a goal-setting posttraining intervention. In addition, Gist and Stevens (1998) found that when participants experienced stressful practice conditions, supplemental training in self-management after negotiation training led to improved generalization. This study hypothesizes that self-management trainees will exhibit the greatest generalization transfer.

HYPOTHESIS1. Self-management trainees will exhibit greater generalization than

(4)

Although Gist, Stevens, and Bavetta (1991) concluded that self-management training results in greater maintenance than goal-setting training, their depen-dent measure was a self-report inventory of the self-management and goal-setting techniques that trainees had used since training (reflexive and active mainte-nance activities); the maintemainte-nance measure did not assess the maintemainte-nance (over time) of thenegotiation skillstaught in the negotiation skills training course. In contrast, Gist, Bavetta, and Stevens (1990) used a measure of repetition (the total number of times any negotiation strategy was used divided by the total number of strategies used) that seems to be a better assessment of the extent to which trainees continued to use their negotiation skills following training (that is, maintenance). In that study, Gist and colleagues found that, compared to self-management trainees, goal-setting trainees tended to use their skills more repeatedly on the transfer task.

In the present study, using a maintenance measure of the frequency with which trainees were observed (by their colleagues) engaging in the behaviors taught in training, it is expected that goal-setting training will lead to greater maintenance transfer. Self-management training is expected to help trainees focus on how to apply their training to novel tasks and settings (that is, gen-eralization), whereas goal-setting is expected to enhance effort and persistence toward transfer; this enhanced effort and persistence is expected to result in greater maintenance of trained skills over time.

HYPOTHESIS2. Goal-setting trainees will exhibit greater maintenance than either

self-management trainees or trainees receiving no posttraining intervention.

Work Environment

Current reviews of the training literature, as well as empirical studies on trans-fer, have suggested that work environments are important with regard to transfer of training (for example, Baldwin and Ford, 1988; Facteau, Dobbins, Russell, Ladd, and Kudisch, 1995; Rouiller and Goldstein, 1993; Tracey, Tannenbaum, and Kavanagh, 1995). For example, Ford, Quiñones, Sego, and Sorra (1992) demonstrated that trainees who perform similar jobs may be given different opportunities to perform their trained skills on the job depend-ing on their work environment; the work environment was found to limit trainees’ ability to transfer the learned material to the job. Tracey, Tannenbaum, and Kavanagh (1995) found that behaviors that send a message that learn-ing and the application of learnlearn-ing are important and valued encourage the application of newly trained skills. The present study extended this research by examining the extent to which the work environment moderates the effec-tiveness of posttraining interventions.

Previous research examining the effectiveness of posttraining interventions on transfer of training have not explored potential moderating effects of work environments. Because trainees’ perceptions of the work environment have

(5)

been found to influence transfer of new behaviors to the job (for example, Ford, Quiñones, Sego, and Sorra, 1992; Rouiller and Goldstein, 1993; Tracey, Tannenbaum, and Kavanagh, 1995; Tziner and Falbe, 1993), one might also expect that trainees’ ability to make use of posttraining interventions depends on the type of work environment in which they work.

In a work environment that supports the application of trained skills and values learning and development activities, for example, goal-setting trainees may be better able to apply their new skills because they have the resources, support, and encouragement needed to translate their goals into effort and per-formance. In addition, self-management trainees may be better able to focus on transfer constraints (personal or organizational) present in their work set-ting when they work in a supportive environment. Goal-setset-ting and self-management training are expected to help trainees overcome barriers to transfer and enhance the application of trained skills, yet the efficacy of the interventions may be hindered in a work environment that is fraught with transfer constraints. Therefore, it is hypothesized that goal-setting and self-management training will be more effective at enhancing the transfer of learned material when trainees work in supportive environments.

HYPOTHESIS3. Posttraining interventions will interact with trainees’ perceptions of

the transfer work environment to affect transfer. Specifically, trainees in the goal-setting and self-management interventions who work in a supportive work envi-ronment will exhibit greater transfer than either trainees in the no posttraining condition who work in a supportive work environment and all trainees who work in unsupportive work environments. No differences in transfer across interventions are expected in unsupportive work environments.

Method

The study method was as follows.

Participants. Data were collected from 267 employees at a large mid-western university. Participants were enrolled in a customer service skills train-ing course offered by the university’s human resource office. Course participation was voluntary; supervisory evaluations were not expected to affect enrollment. The average response rate in training was 74 percent (a total of 360 trainees were enrolled in the course) and the return rate for the follow-up questionnaires was approximately 76 percent for the trainees and 44 per-cent for trainees’ colleagues (138 supervisors and 458 coworkers responded). Approximately two surveys per trainee were received from trainees’ colleagues. (A total of 1,335 surveys were sent to trainees’ colleagues, however, it was anticipated that only three completed surveys per trainee were necessary for analysis—corresponding to a response rate of only 60 percent.)

Design. An experimental design containing three levels of a between-subjects variable was used. The manipulated variable was the posttraining

(6)

intervention to which trainees were randomly assigned (goal-setting versus self-management versus placebo, or no intervention). There were approxi-mately ninety trainees per condition.

Procedure. Following the customer service skills training, participants completed a questionnaire assessing their perceptions of the transfer envi-ronment in their workplace and a declarative knowledge test on the training content. Participants were then randomly assigned to one of the three post-training conditions. (Kanfer and Ackerman, 1989, assert that motivational interventions are more effective during later stages of skill acquisition; there-fore, the training interventions were conducted after training was completed.) The two posttraining interventions consisted of a training session lasting approximately one hour. Following these sessions, participants completed a short manipulation check. Participants in the control condition completed the knowledge test and manipulation check immediately after the initial training was completed and were excused. All questionnaires were returned directly to the researcher.

To diminish the diffusion of treatment effects, trainees were encouraged not to discuss the content of the posttraining intervention with colleagues who may have been in the other posttraining groups. If they did, they were asked to focus only on the techniques taught in their intervention and to avoid attempting the techniques taught in the other groups.

Approximately four to six weeks after training, the trainees’ colleagues were asked to complete two assessments of the trainees’ transfer behaviors: maintenance and generalization. As before, all questionnaires were returned directly to the researcher.

Training Courses. The customer service skills course focused on service skills, teamwork, communication skills, and the prevention of common university student problems. It was a full-day program lasting eight hours. Eight sessions of the course, with approximately forty-five trainees per session, were evaluated.

Goal-Setting Intervention. Modeled after Gist and others (Gist, Bavetta, and Stevens, 1990; Gist, Stevens, and Bavetta, 1991), the training included a discussion of why goal-setting is important (definition of goals), a descrip-tion of the goal-setting process, characteristics of effective goals (for example, challenging and specific), an explanation for the effectiveness of goals, exam-ples of how goal-setting has been used in other organizations, and a discussion of how goal-setting could be effective in one’s own organization or department.

After a discussion and demonstration of how to set difficult, specific goals, each trainee developed a goal-setting plan. Each person received a worksheet to use to personalize his or her goal to meet individual needs and strengths. The trainees were instructed to fill out the worksheet by (1) indicating the interim steps they intended to take to achieve their goal and (2) writing down the date by which they intended to achieve each step. They were given extra

(7)

blank goal-setting sheets to encourage them to use the goal-setting techniques back on the job.

Self-Management Intervention. Self-management training included an overview of Marx’s (1982) relapse prevention (self-management) model, listing of the newly trained skills that trainees wished to apply to the job, examination of potential obstacles to effective transfer of those newly learned skills, development of potential coping responses to handle unfavorable environmental influences, and instruction on how to experience a sense of accomplishment after attempting to use a coping skill in a problematic situation (Marx, 1982; Noe, 1986; Wexley and Baldwin, 1986). Examples of effective self-management programs used in other contexts were provided (Gist, Bavetta, and Stevens, 1990; Gist, Stevens, and Bavetta, 1991). Trainees were also reminded that temporary difficulties and slips were to be expected and that they should revise and add new coping strategies as they encoun-tered new situations that caused additional difficulties on the job (Wexley and Baldwin, 1986).

Consistent with the goal-setting intervention, all of the self-management trainees received a self-management plan worksheet to help them personal-ize the self-management process according to their individual needs and strengths. They were instructed to fill out the worksheet by (1) focusing on the specific skills taught in training that they wanted to apply to their job, (2) listing potential obstacles that might hinder their ability to apply their newly learned skills to the job, (3) describing specifically how they would cope with or avoid each of those obstacles, (4) determining how they would monitor their performance toward avoiding or overcoming each obsta-cle, and (5) deciding how they would reward themselves for successfully avoiding or overcoming each obstacle. They were given extra blank self-management worksheets to encourage them to use the self-self-management tech-niques back on the job.

Measures. The measures were as follows.

Work Environment. A twenty-five-item scale was used to assess the transfer work environment. The content of the items was adapted from Tracey, Tannenbaum, and Kavanagh (1995) and Tracey (1998). To determine the extent to which the environment reinforced or blocked transfer behaviors, each item assessed a contingency between performing transfer behaviors on the job and organizational responses. Trainees were asked to indicate their beliefs about the likelihood of organizational reactions when supervisors and coworkers facilitate (or fail to facilitate) transfer of training, and when they support (or fail to support) knowledge, skill, and behavior acquisition and application. (For example, “Do you think it would be noticed if a newly trained employee in your department was not performing his or her job as taught in training?”) (See Exhibit 1 for additional examples.) Each question used a four-point Likert response scale, with higher scores indicating perceptions of a supportive transfer of training climate.

(8)

Exhibit 1. Sample Survey Items

Work Environment

1. Do you think it would be noticed if a newly trained employee in your department was not performing his or her job as taught in training?

2. Do you think a newly trained employee would be praised for using his or her new skills on the job?

3. How likely is it that a supervisor would give recognition and credit to those who apply new knowledge and skills to their work?

Maintenance Transfer

1. Remained attentive and focused on a customer while talking with him or her. 2. Asked fact-finding questions to clarify a customer’s needs and to check for

understanding of his or her problem.

3. Assured a customer that he or she heard and understood the customer’s concern. Generalization Transfer

1. Remained attentive and focused on a coworker while talking with him or her. 2. Asked fact-finding questions to clarify a team member’s or colleague’s needs and to

check for understanding.

3. Assured his or her supervisor, boss, or coworker that he or she heard and understood the concern that was voiced.

Manipulation Check Self-Management Activities

1. Identified obstacles to successful performance 2. Engaged in coping strategies to overcome obstacles 3. Monitored progress in the use or review of strategies Goal-Setting Activities

1. Thought about how to achieve the goal 2. Monitored progress toward goal attainment

3. Thought about how to maintain persistence toward goal attainment

Performance in Training. Following training, a declarative knowledge test was used to assess the extent to which trainees learned the content of training. The test items were multiple choice questions derived from a content analysis of the training course and all relevant training materials. The total number of correct items was used to generate an overall performance measure. Individual performance scores across training sessions were linked by converting performance scores to standardized z-scores within session.

Transfer. Transfer maintenance and generalization were assessed approx-imately four to six weeks after training completion using measures from two sources: the trainees’ supervisor and two to three of their coworkers. To assess maintenance behaviors, respondents were asked to indicate how often the trainee engaged in specific behaviors taught in the training course. To assess generalization behaviors, respondents were asked to indicate how often the trainee engaged in behaviors that were not directly taught in training but that represented extensions of behaviors taught in the course. For example, trainees

(9)

were taught communication skills such as how to remain attentive and focused on a customer while talking to him or her; a generalization item, therefore, was how often the trainee remained attentive and focused on a coworkerwhen talk-ing with him or her. (See Exhibit 1 for additional examples.) For both main-tenance (twenty-one items) and generalization (ten items) transfer measures, respondents used a six-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 6 (several times a day).

Trainees’ colleagues were asked to complete the questionnaire only if they felt they had adequate contact with the trainee to observe the transfer behav-iors. If not, they were asked to return the questionnaire blank with a note indi-cating lack of contact. Maintenance and generalization measures were computed by (1) finding the mean response for each item by averaging the responses obtained from trainees’ colleagues, and (2) taking the mean of the item means computed in the first step. The average reliability across all behaviors for trainees’ colleagues was found to be.80 and .77 for maintenance and gen-eralization behaviors, respectively, and the average correlation between any pair of raters was .73 and .68 for maintenance and generalization, respectively.

Manipulation Check. To ensure that appropriate content was covered in the interventions, trainees were asked what was taught in the posttraining interventions. They indicated the activities taught by using a checklist of self-management and goal-setting activities. They completed this checklist imme-diately after completion of the posttraining session. (See Exhibit 1 for examples of self-management and goal-setting activities included on the checklist.)

Results

The results were as follows.

Descriptive Statistics. Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, scale reliabilities, and intercorrelations of the study variables. As the table shows, coefficient for each of the scales ranged from .80 to .92. Scores on the knowledge test were positively correlated with colleagues’ reports of trainees’ maintenance behaviors (r .14, p .05); this indicates that trainees who learned more during training exhibited the trained behaviors more fre-quently on the job. The work environment was marginally related to reports of trainees’ generalization behaviors (r .12, p .10) suggesting that gener-alization transfer was somewhat greater in supportive work environments.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations of Study Variables

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 1. Work environment 64.35 11.51 .91 — 2. Knowledge test 0.00 1.00 .80 .00 — 3. Maintenance 4.11 .58 .92 .10 .14** — 4. Generalization 3.62 .71 .84 .12* .08 .48** — Note: *p .10.; **p .05.; ***p .01.

(10)

Tests of Posttraining Intervention Hypotheses. There were several tests of the hypotheses.

Manipulation Checks. Goal-setting trainees reported that significantly more goal-setting activities were taught in the posttraining session (M5.48) than did either the self-management trainees (M 3.26) or trainees in the control group (M1.55),F(2,261)121.92,p.01,R2.48. In addition, self-management trainees indicated that significantly more self-management activities were taught in the posttraining intervention (M 5.80) than did either the goal-setting trainees (M 2.77) or trainees in the control group (M1.36),F(2,261)179.76,p.01,R2.58. These results indicate that the appropriate content was covered in the two posttraining interventions and that the content of each of the interventions was viewed as different.

Postraining Intervention Analyses. Hypotheses 1 and 2 predicted that goal-setting and self-management training would have different effects on the training transfer; self-management was expected to lead to greater gener-alization while goal-setting was expected to lead to greater maintenance. Two contrast variables were created to examine the overall effect of posttraining intervention on transfer of training; the contrast variables were created to be consistent with the predictions in Hypotheses 1 and 2. One dummy variable was created comparing goal-setting trainees with all other trainees (Hypothesis 1) and a second dummy variable was created comparing self-management trainees with all other trainees (Hypothesis 2). The two dummy variables were used to predict the two transfer measures.

As seen in Table 2, goal-setting trainees were rated by their colleagues as exhibiting more generalization behaviors (M 3.73) than self-management and control group trainees (pooled M 3.55; b .18, p .05). No differ-ences were found between self-management trainees and all other trainees for either measure of transfer. Although these results do not support Hypotheses 1 and 2 predicting differential posttraining effects for different transfer mea-sures, the findings do suggest that goal-setting was more effective in enahanc-ing transfer.

Interactions Between Work Environments and Posttraining Interven-tions.Hypothesis 3 predicted an interaction between type of posttraining

Table 2. Standardized Regression Coefficients for the Effect of Posttraining Intervention on Transfer of Training

Independent Variables

Goal-Setting versus Self-Management versus Dependent Self-Management, and Goal-Setting and

Variables R2 Control Group Control Group

Maintenance .01 .12 .01

Generalization .01 .18** .01

(11)

intervention and the work environment. To predict the two transfer measures, three variables were entered into the regression equation: a dummy variable coding for posttraining intervention, work environment, and the interaction between the dummy variable and work environment. (Note that in order to maintain the variance in the work environment measure, it was entered as a continuous variable.) Examination of the significant interactions shown graphically in Figures 1 and 2 demonstrates that the goal-setting intervention was more effective in enhancing transfer when trainees worked in a supportive environment. More specifically, the interaction between posttraining intervention (comparing goal-setting with the control group) and the work environment was in the right direction in predicting generalization (b 1.09, p .10). The interaction between posttraining intervention (comparing goal-setting with self-management) was significant in predict-ing maintenance (b .68, p .01) and was in the right direction in pre-dicting generalization (b .86, p .10).

To illustrate the nature of the significant interactions, the work environ-ment measure was dichotomized into a supportive work environenviron-ment group (one standard deviation above the mean) and an unsupportive work environment group (one standard deviation below the mean) and then crossed with the dummy variable coding for posttraining intervention. Trainees in the goal-setting intervention who worked in a supportive envi-ronment were rated by their colleagues as enacting more generalization

Figure 1. Posttraining by Work Environment Interaction on Generalization Transfer 4 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 3 Supportive Work Environment Unsupportive Work Environment Generalization 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2 Goal-Setting Self-Management Control

(12)

behaviors (M 3.75) than goal-setting trainees who did not work in such an environment (M 2.90; Figure 1); no differences were found between self-management trainees or between control group trainees who work in either environment. Trainees in the goal-setting intervention who worked in a supportive environment were also rated by their colleagues as enacting more maintenance behaviors (M 4.42) than goal-setting trainees who did not work in such an environment (M 3.92; Figure 2); again, no differences were found between self-management trainees who worked in either envi-ronment. Together, these results lend preliminary support for Hypothesis 3. Trainees’ perceptions of the supportiveness of the work environment moder-ated the effectiveness of the goal-setting intervention; goal-setting was more effective in a supportive work environment.

Discussion

This research examined the effectiveness of two posttraining interventions, goal-setting and self-management training, on improving transfer of training and explored the potential moderating effects of work environments.

Posttraining Interventions. The results indicate that goal-setting trainees were rated by their colleagues as enacting more generalization behaviors than self-management and control group trainees. No such advantage, however, was found for self-management trainees. There are two likely explanations for why the goal-setting intervention, in comparison to the self-management

Figure 2. Posttraining by Work Environment Interaction on Maintenance Transfer 5 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.2 4 Supportive Work Environment Unsupportive Work Environment Maintenance 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 3 Goal-Setting Self-Management Control

(13)

intervention, may have resulted in improved transfer over the control group; one relates to training philosophies of organizations today and the second relates to the operationalization of the posttraining interventions.

First, the goal-setting intervention, compared to the self-management intervention, may have resulted in improved transfer over the control group because the use of goal-setting terminology is common in organizations today. Employees are somewhat familiar with the general notion of goal-setting (although not necessarily with all its facets). In contrast, the self-management principles were relatively new. The self-management principles may have been fairly complex for both the trainers and the trainees, and therefore may have affected the face validity of the intervention. Just as face-validity perceptions of selection tests can influence the effectiveness of selection procedures (for exam-ple, Arvey, Strickland, Drauden, and Martin, 1990; Chan, Schmitt, DeShon, Caluse, and Delbridge, 1997), the face validity of the self-management intervention may have affected the strength of the manipulation and its subse-quent effectiveness on transfer of training.

Second, it is well established that goal-setting is an essential element of self-management training (for example, Gist, Bavetta, and Stevens, 1990; Gist, Stevens, and Bavetta, 1991; Locke and Latham, 1990; Wexley and Baldwin, 1986). Goal-setting helps trainees direct attention and mobilize efforts toward translating self-management principles into behaviors. In this study, although the self-management intervention contained some goal-setting components, a full explanation of the goal-setting process was limited because of time con-straints. Therefore, the manipulation in this study may not have been an ade-quate operationalization of self-management training. If such is the case, this study provides further evidence to support the claim that although self-management training adds something more than goal-setting alone, it is not effective without additional explanation of the goal-setting process (Gist, Bavetta, and Stevens, 1990).

Moderating Effects of Work Environments. Perceptions of the work envi-ronment moderated the effectiveness of posttraining interventions on transfer of training. Interactions between the work environment and posttraining inter-ventions illustrate that the goal-setting intervention resulted in greater trans-fer when trainees worked in an environment that supports skill acquisition and transfer. The lack of significant differences between self-management trainees in supportive and unsupportive environments may not be surprising. Self-management training may attenuate the differences in transfer between work environments that vary in their degree of supportiveness. For self-management trainees, it may be that the supportiveness of the work environment does not make a difference because management trainees are prepared to self-manage transfer; they have been trained to recognize the potential inadequa-cies of the work environment and are prepared to cope with them. The work environment may make a significant difference for goal-setting trainees because they are focused on an outcome goal and the means to achieve it; they are not prepared to identify and cope with potential obstacles to transfer. In sum, the

(14)

results of this study illustrate that researchers must consider contextual factors when examining the effectiveness of posttraining interventions on transfer of training; to the authors knowledge, this study is the first to investigate the moderating effects of the work environment on posttraining intervention effectiveness.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research. Some limitations of this study should be noted. First, additional manipulation checks would have helped rule out several rival hypotheses. The manipulation checks used in this study indicated that the appropriate content was covered in the two post-training interventions. However, a measure of postpost-training activities used on the job and a measure of the degree of contact between trainees was not avail-able. Such assessments would have helped to determine (1) if trainees in the interventions were engaging in different cognitive activities than were control group trainees and (2) if there were spillover effects from the different interventions (for example, if trainees talked to one another about the inter-vention techniques). Although trainees were strongly encouraged not to dis-cuss the techniques with their colleagues, such behavior could not be controlled by the researcher.

In addition, it would have been useful to assess trainees’ cognitions related to goal orientation or self-regulatory activities during the four to six weeks after training; such an investigation might have helped to determine the exact nature of the causal relationship between posttraining intervention and transfer. For example, exploring the extent to which posttraining interventions orient trainees toward either performance or mastery goals (see Gist and Stevens, 1998; Stevens and Gist, 1997) might have helped explain why significant increases in transfer were found for the goal-setting intervention and not for the self-management intervention.

Another limitation of this study relates to the potentially weak posttrain-ing manipulations. The time available to implement fully the posttrainposttrain-ing inter-ventions was limited. Trainers were often rushed to finish in exactly an hour. Longer and more thorough interventions should be investigated.

Future research should also consider gathering objective measures of the transfer work environment. For example, an organization’s reward policy regarding training (pay for performance, pay for knowledge, and so on) might prove useful in predicting transfer behaviors on the job. Such information was not available for this research.

An advantage of the present study was the collection of transfer measures from trainees’ supervisor and coworkers. The findings illustrated that the data in this study were not contaminated by the common method variance prob-lem; measures from one source (trainees) significantly predicted measures from an independent source (trainees’ colleagues). Despite this advantage, objective measures of maintenance and generalization were not available in this study. Future research should attempt to gather objective behavioral assessments of maintenance and generalization.

(15)

Implications for Practice. From an applied perspective, the results have implications for current human resource practices as well as organizational policies and procedures. First, the findings suggest ways in which organiza-tions can alter the work environment to enhance training efforts and prepare people for future training endeavors. Human resource professionals might con-sider making attempts to reinforce the contingencies associated with trainees’ enactment, or failure to enact, certain types of behavior on the job. For exam-ple, organizations should consider reinforcing or rewarding all behaviors that reflect skill acquisition and job-related personal development. Professional development programs that incorporate practices such as skill-based pay, pay for knowledge, and so on, are a few such examples that reward skill acquisi-tion and self-development in organizaacquisi-tionally meaningful ways. If trainees fail to apply their training to the job, organizations should identify any orga-nizational barriers that block their ability and motivation to do so. Surveys and interviews with employees in conjunction with training courses are a good way to determine the extent of such barriers. By assessing the existence and impact of these barriers and mitigating them where they do exist, the organization will make it easier for trainees to transfer their new skills and send a message to all employees that training transfer and skill acquisition are valued by the orga-nization. These efforts may have multiplier effects on any skills training that is done and generate information that can be incorporated into future add-on training, as was evaluated in this study.

This study also demonstrated that a short posttraining intervention on goal-setting may lead to enhanced transfer of training. This effect, however, was moderated by characteristics of the work environment. Goal-setting reaped the greatest benefits in transfer when trainees worked in a supportive environment. Organizations, therefore, need to consider employees’ perceptions of the work environment when implementing methods to enhance transfer; before spend-ing the added investment on innovative posttrainspend-ing interventions, it is imper-ative that human resource professionals first assess and improve employees’ perceptions of the supportiveness of the work environment.

References

Arvey, R. D., Strickland, W., Drauden, G., & Martin, C. (1990). Motivational components of test taking. Personnel Psychology, 43,695–716.

Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41,63–105.

Chan, D., Schmitt, N., DeShon, R. P., Clause, C., & Delbridge, K. (1997). Reactions to cognitive ability tests: The relationship between race, test performance, face validity perceptions, and test-taking motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,300–310.

Facteau, J. D., Dobbins, G. H., Russell, J. E., Ladd, R. T., & Kudisch, J. D. (1995). The influence of general perceptions of the training environment on pretraining motivation and perceived training transfer. Journal of Management, 21,1–25.

Ford, J. K., Quiñones, M. A., Sego, D. J., & Sorra, J. S. (1992). Factors affecting the opportunity to perform trained skills on the job. Personnel Psychology, 45,511–527.

(16)

Frayne, C., & Latham, G. P. (1987). Application of social learning theory to employee self-management of attendance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72,387–392.

Gist, M. E., & Stevens, C. K. (1998). Effects of practice conditions and supplemental training on cognitive learning and interpersonal skill generalization. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 142–169.

Gist, M. E., Bavetta, A. G., & Stevens, C. K. (1990). Transfer training method: Its influence on skill generalization, skill repetition, and performance level. Personnel Psychology, 43,501–523. Gist, M. E., Stevens, C. K., & Bavetta, A. G. (1991). Effects of self-efficacy and post-training inter-vention on the acquisition and maintenance of complex interpersonal skills. Personnel Psy-chology, 44, 837–862.

Kanfer, F. H. (1980). Self-management methods. In F. H. Kanfer (Ed.), Helping people change.New York: Wiley.

Kanfer, F. H., & Phillips, J. S. (1970). Learning foundations of behavior therapy.New York: Wiley. Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An

integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,657–690. Latham, G. P, & Frayne, C. (1989). Self-management training for increasing job attendance:

A follow-up and a replication.Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,411–416.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal-setting and task performance.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal-setting and task perfor-mance: 1969–1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90,125–152.

Mahoney, M. J., Moura, N. G., & Wade, T. C. (1973). The relative efficacy of reward, self-punishment, and self-monitoring techniques for weight loss. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40, 404–407.

Marx, R. D. (1982). Relapse prevention for managerial training: A model for maintenance of behavior change. Academy of Management Review, 7,433–441.

Noe, R. A. (1986). Trainee attributes and attitudes: Neglected influences of training effectiveness. Academy of Management Review, 11,736–749.

Richards, C. S. (1976). When self-control fails: Selective bibliography on the maintenance prob-lems in self-control treatment programs. JSAS: Catalog of Selective Documents in Psychology, 8, 67–68.

Rouiller, J. Z., & Goldstein, I. L. (1993). The relationship between organizational transfer climate and positive transfer of training. Human Resources Development Quarterly, 4,377–390. Stevens, C. K., & Gist, M. E. (1997). Effects of self-efficacy and goal-orientation training on

nego-tiation skill maintenance: What are the mechanisms? Personnel Psychology, 50, 955–978. Tannenbaum, S. I., & Yukl, G. (1992). Training and development in work organizations. Annual

Review of Psychology, 43, 399–441.

Tracey, J. B. (1998, Apr). A three-dimensional model of the transfer of training climate. In W. E. Lehman & M. Cavanaugh (Chairs), Recent trends in the study of transfer climate: Research, theory, and consultation. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Dallas.

Tracey, J. B., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Kavanagh, M. J. (1995). Applying trained skills on the job: The importance of the work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80,239–252. Tziner, A., & Falbe, C. M. (1993). Training-related variables, gender and training outcomes:

A field investigation. International Journal of Psychology, 28,203–221.

Wexley, K. N., & Baldwin, T. T. (1986). Post-training strategies for facilitating positive transfer: An empirical exploration. Academy of Management Journal, 29,508–520.

Wexley, K. N., & Nemeroff, W. (1975). Effectiveness of positive reinforcement and goal-setting as methods of management development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60,446–450.

References

Related documents

“HUBUNGAN PENGETAHUAN DENGAN PERILAKU ORANG TUA DALAM PEMBERIAN DIET SEHAT CASEIN FREE GLUTEN FREE (CFGF) ANAK BERKEBUTUHAN KHUSUS ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER

In the present report from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services project, we examined whether psychiatric outpatients without bipolar disorder

Answer was 'YES, and I am WILLING to participate' at question '1 [eligibility]' (To complete this survey, you must be licensed and located as a naturopathic physician in the state

AIDS model has been estimated with static models, ignoring the statistical properties of the data or the dynamic specification arising from time series analysis.. A

Data set V ariables used Output co v erage and resolution Dependencies, error estimates where av ailable GLEAM v3.1a LH 1980-2016, daily mean, 0.25 ◦ global land Uses a

The aim of the survey was to describe how Initial Professional Education and Training student teachers are currently being trained to teach reading literacy to South African

Baer NM steel frame, NM slide and NM barrel with stainless bushing • Baer 6" slide fitted to frame • Double serrated slide • Low mount LBC adjustable sight with hidden rear leaf

Developing Leading Indicators for Security Threats and