J.1748 8583.2003.tb00082.x

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 13 NO 1, 2003 27

Employee perceptions and their in� u e n c eon training eff e c t i v e n e s s

Amalia Santos, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

Mark Stuart, University of Leeds

Human Resource Management Journal, Vol 13 No 1, 2003, pages 27-45

Studies of the bene® ts of human re s o u rce development (HRD) for organisations have

assumed a direct connection between training strategy and a hierarchy of performance

outcomes: learning, behavioural change and performance improvement. The in¯ uence of

workplace practices and employees’ experiences on training effectiveness has re c e i v e d

little attention. This study investigates evaluation strategies designed to elicit gre a t e r

training effectiveness, and explores the influence of trainees’ p e rceptions and work

e n v i ronment factors on this. Drawing on detailed case study findings, the authors

highlight the importance of management practices, trainees’ p e rceptions of the work

e n v i ronment and systems of reward in explaining behaviour change after training.

C o n t a c t: Amalia Santos, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3AB.

Email: [email protected] or [email protected] (Mark Stuart)

Conventional wisdom suggests that investments in training and development are

associated with a range of individual and organisational benefits. The HR

l i t e r a t u re, for example, posits training as the `vital component’ in org a n i s a t i o n a l

p rocesses of cultural change and an important behavioural device in terms of securing

w o r k f o rce commitment and in realising the latent potential of employees (s e e K e e p ,

1989). Similarly, economic studies identify training and development investments as

key determinants of organisational performance and economic growth (Mason et al,

1996; Prais, 1995; Romer, 1993). The clear assumption is that more is better. In practice,

h o w e v e r, the issue of demonstrating the èffectiveness’ of training has pro v e d

e x t remely complex. While practitioners can draw on a range of prescriptive evaluative

methodologies to guide them in this endeavour, such frameworks are often overly

deterministic, are insensitive to workplace context and typically obscure as much as

they reveal. Pro b l e m a t i c a l l y, the mainstream HR literature has devoted little empirical

attention to the issue of how companies evaluate the effectiveness of training

investments and, in particular, the way in which employee perceptions, attitudes and

experiences might have an impact on training eff e c t i v e n e s s .

Against this backdrop, this article presents evidence from a detailed case study

designed to explore the effectiveness of training at the workplace. The article has two

central empirical objectives. First, it aims to evaluate employees’ experiences of, and

attitudes towards, training activity and the organisation context of training

investments. Secondly, it assesses how these experiences of training shape the

` t r a n s f e r’ of training into the workplace and thus mediate effectiveness. The ® n d i n g s

suggest that by taking into account the actual recipients’ views of training our

understanding of the factors affecting training effectiveness can be enhanced. We

begin with a review of the HR, economics and psychology literature on the evaluation

of training outcomes, revealing the intractable problems organisations face in

evaluating the effectiveness of training investments. The main ® ndings from the case

Employee perceptions and their in�uence on training effectiveness

study are then reported. These suggest that management practices, trainees’

p e rceptions of the work environment and systems of re w a rd are antecedents of

behaviour change after training.

EVALUATING TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS

Levels of outcomes

The HR and training literatures emphasise the organisational bene® ts to be gained

f rom adopting a systematic approach to HRD whereby the ongoing development of

employees’ skills underpins broader business objectives (Keep, 1989). Core elements

of a systematic approach to training often include identifying needs, planning,

delivery and evaluation. The evaluation stage is arguably the most problematic part

of the training process (Reid and Barrington, 1997). Thus, even though the bottom

line for most training and development programmes is an improvement in overall

o rganisational performance, organisations often devote little attention to evaluating

training effectiveness. In 1989, for example, only 3 per cent of UK establishments

undertook any cost-benefit analysis of their training (Deloitte Haskins and Sells,

1989: 46).

W h e re training effectiveness is evaluated, the outcomes of training are usually

assessed hierarc h i c a l l y. The widely used Kirkpatrick (1967) model, for example,

p roposes four levels of training outcomes: trainees’ reactions to the programme content

and training process (reactions), knowledge or skill acquisition at the end of the

p rogramme (learning), behaviour change in the job (behaviour) and improvements in

tangible individual or organisational outcomes such as turnover, accidents or

p roductivity (results). This model has been highly in¯ uential. A c c o rding to a re c e n t

survey by the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD), it is still the

most commonly used evaluation framework among their Benchmarking Foru m

Companies (Bassi and Cheney, 1997).1

The model is also widely accepted in the ® eld of

i n d u s t r i a l / o rganisational psychology (Cascio, 1987) and underpins the UK Investors in

People standard.

Most commentators follow this general framework, albeit with rather diff e re n t

categories. Wa r r et al (1976) suggest the acronym CIRO. This stands for evaluation of

context, input, reaction and outcome. Context evaluation focuses on factors such as the

c o r rect identification of training needs and the setting of objectives in relation to

o rganisation culture and climate. Input evaluation is concerned with the design and

delivery of the training activity. Reaction evaluation looks at gaining and using

information about the quality of trainees’ experiences. Outcome evaluation focuses on

the achievements gained from the activity and is assessed at three levels. Immediate

evaluation attempts to measure changes in knowledge, skills or attitude before a trainee

returns to the job. Intermediate evaluation refers to the impact of training on job

performance and how learning is transferred back into the workplace. Finally, ultimate

evaluation attempts to assess the impact of training on departmental or org a n i s a t i o n a l

performance in terms of overall re s u l t s .

Ty p i c a l l y, the evaluation process is organised in a sequential, linear manner. Thus,

higher level outcomes can only be understood if evaluation has taken place at all lower

levels. Hamblin (1974: 15), for example, argues that the impact of training is linked by a

c a u s e - a n d - e ffect chain, whereby t̀raining leads to reactions, which leads to learning,

which leads to changes in job behaviour, which leads to changes in the org a n i s a t i o n ,

which leads to changes in the achievement of ultimate goals.’ Kirkpatrick (1994) and

28 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 13 NO 1, 2003

Warr et al (1976) recognise, however, that the cause-effect chain is often dif® cult to

demonstrate, especially with re g a rd to ultimate level evaluations.

Easterby-Smith (1986), by contrast, argues against such causal assumptions. Based

on an extensive review of the literature and re s e a rch, Easterby-Smith puts forward the

CAIPO framework as an alternative: context, administration, inputs, process and

outcomes. Context evaluation focuses on factors outside and beyond the training

p rogramme: for example, the level of support for learners at the workplace.

Administration evaluation is concerned with the mechanisms of nomination, selection

and brie® ng before any training starts, and any follow-up activities e g d e b r i e ® ng by the

line manager or post-course evaluation. Evaluation of inputs examines the content and

methods of training. Process evaluations focus on what actually happens during a

training activity and how the participants experience it. Finally, outcome evaluation is

concerned with establishing the outputs or outcomes of employee training and

development. The focus may be on individuals and changes in their knowledge, skills,

attitudes and behaviour, individual and/or organisation performance or on shifts in

o rganisation culture and climate. Methods used in applying the CAIPO framework

may be similar to those used in others. However, this model provides a series of

choices for evaluation, since the areas considered are more independent and are not

linked by cause-effect relations.

Evaluation issues

The widespread acceptance of conventional evaluation models has much to do with

their simplicity and prescriptive appeal. Positive reactions of trainees, learning,

behaviour change and improvements in job performance are expected from well-

designed and administered training programmes. Pro b l e m a t i c a l l y, there is not much

evidence to support this. In a meta-analysis of previous training evaluation studies,

Alliger and Janak (1989) found only 12 articles in which attempts had been made to

c o r relate the various levels advocated by Kirkpatrick. No relationship was found

between reaction measures and the other three levels of criteria ± i e good reactions did

not predict learning, behaviour or results any better than poor reactions ± and

relatively small correlations were found between learning and behaviour and between

behaviour and organisational results. Likewise, Noe and Schmitt (1986) found limited

support for Kirkpatrick’ s (1967) hierarchical model of training outcomes.

The limited correlational support for the hierarchical model may be due to `noise’

f rom intervening variables such as motivation, context of transfer and trainee attitudes

(Clement, 1982). Nevertheless, the lack of causal connections between diff e rent levels of

training outcomes implies that evaluation should be done at all levels because each

level provides a diff e rent kind of evidence (Bramley, 1996). Unfortunately, while all

levels of evaluation are important, such data are rarely collected. Many training and

development programmes are monitored only at the reactions level (Bramley, 1996)

and articles regularly appear lamenting the lack of evaluation efforts (Goldstein, 1993).

This means that few companies, despite their investment in training, are actually

determining whether the training provided was effective. Why should this be? From an

analytical and managerial perspective, there are major dif® culties in ® nding measure s

of training effectiveness in terms of bottom-line results. Indeed, assessing the rate of

return from training may be an ùnrealisable ideal’ (Green, 1997: 3). Green claims that

companies are not in a position to carry out such an assessment, due to uncertainties

over the bene® ts of training and because of the dif® culty in accounting for its true cost.

Evaluation strategies may, in certain circumstances, even prove self-defeating. A s

Ashton and Green (1996) note:

Amalia Santos and Mark Stuart

29HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 13 NO 1, 2003

...it may not be worthwhile and could be misleading to draw up a balance

of the advantages and disadvantages that can actually be measured. Such

an accounting mentality could itself be the cause of low training, if training

p rogrammes were obliged to demonstrate a suf® cient measurable re t u r n

on investment. Ashton and Green, 1996: 59

Trainee attitudes, motivation and expectations

At the individual level, Keep (1989) argues that training investment constitutes a

powerful signalling device to re a s s u re employees that they are valued by their

employers, which in turn enhances employee motivation and commitment to the

o rganisation. Such propositions receive support from the Employment in Britain

Survey which, drawing from a dataset of 3,855 employed individuals, found that 94

per cent of respondents felt that training received had been beneficial (Gallie and

White, 1993) . This was most commonly quantified in terms of achieving a

q u a l i ® cation, gaining a promotion or a better job, an increase in earnings and other

non-financial benefits such as job satisfaction and commitment. These findings are

informative but the actual means by which investments in training and development

translate into a more competent, better motivated and a more self-reliant workforc e

remains an under-developed area of enquiry. Indeed, the re s e a rch designs discussed

thus far downplay the social and political processes mediating training outcomes. Ye t ,

as a number of commentators note (Green, 1992; Heyes and Stuart, 1994; Heyes, 1998),

training outcomes are best understood as a socially constructed process. In this re g a rd ,

evidence suggests training is more likely to have a positive effect on employee

attitudes (e g motivation and job satisfaction) where employers develop formal,

s t ru c t u red approaches to training which link skill formation to job tenure, care e r

p ro g ression, recognition and re w a rd (Heyes and Stuart, 1996).

Likewise, ethnographic investigations reveal that the impact of training provision on

performance outcomes is dependent on how and in whose interest skills are deployed

at the workplace (Heyes, 1998). The relationship between training and performance

outcomes (e g p roductivity and co-operative employee attitudes) should not, there f o re ,

be treated in a predetermined way, since skill formation is not automatically used by

employees to pursue management goals. As Heyes (1998) suggests, social and political

p rocesses at the level of the workplace shape the distinction between skill acquisition

and skill deployment ± a distinction conventionally re f e r red to as the problem of

t̀ransfer of training’ (Easterby-Smith, 1986: 53). It is widely accepted that learning and

the transfer of learning to the workplace will only occur when trainees have both the

ability and motivation to acquire and apply new skills (Wexley and Latham, 1991; Noe

1986). Yet, as Noe (1986) observed in a seminal intervention, the in¯ uence that trainees’

attributes and attitudes may have on the effectiveness of training has been a re l a t i v e l y

neglected concern.

A wide variety of trainee characteristics likely to affect the transfer of training can be

i d e n t i ® ed. Noe (1986) identi® es personality and motivational factors and develops an

expectancy model that hypothesises the process by which trainees’ attitudes concerning

their jobs and careers and their perception of the work environment in¯ uence training

outcomes. Testing the model, Noe and Schmitt (1986) found that trainees with high job

involvement were more motivated to learn and transfer skills to the work setting. The

e ffectiveness of a training programme can also be in¯ uenced by events prior to training

(Baldwin and Magjuka, 1991) as well as post-training activities (Baldwin and Ford ,

1988). Supervisor and peer support, goal setting, feedback mechanisms, the opportunity



to use new skills and the availability of re s o u rces are all thought to in¯ uence the pro c e s s

of transfer (Noe, 1986). While the logic behind Noe’s model is clear, its applicability and

usefulness remains underdeveloped. Empirical investigations of ability, personality,

motivational and work environment effects on training and transfer outcomes are still

quite limited (Baldwin and Ford, 1988; Orpen, 1999).

The re s e a rch evidence discussed so far suggests that determining training

e ffectiveness is a complex process. The effect of training on performance outcomes

appears, there f o re, to be unresolved. Signi® c a n t l y, if training and development are not

always applied to pursue management objectives, this raises questions about whether

and how organisations are seeking to assess the effectiveness of their training and

development interventions. In other words, what steps, if any, are being taken to

determine whether these objectives are being achieved? Secondly, what factors are

likely to in¯ uence the effectiveness of training? Finding answers to these questions

will be important if we are to understand how, and whether, performance

i m p rovements will result from training interventions. Further re s e a rch is needed in

this area to identify what trainee attitudes and work environment factors in¯ uence the

transfer and effectiveness of training. A c c o rd i n g l y, the remainder of the article focuses

on the issue of assessing training effectiveness, which seems to depend not only on the

quality of the training process but also on the interaction of trainee attitudes and

management practice.

METHODOLOGY

The article is based on a case study conducted between June and September 1999. The

setting for the study was a single case, a ® nancial services organisation, based in the north

of England, which we refer to as FinanceCo. The company was at the frontier of good

practice in HRD, moving towards implementing many of the people management

p rocesses that Tyson and Doherty (1999) describe as `best practice’. A key component of

this was an increased emphasis on training and development activities. The org a n i s a t i o n

t h e re f o re provides an ideal case for examining the issue of training eff e c t i v e n e s s .

The re s e a rch utilised a multi-method approach combining qualitative and

quantitative methods. At a qualitative level, 10 lengthy semi-stru c t u red interviews

w e re carried out at FinanceCo’ s head office in Yo r k s h i re to investigate the formal

s t ru c t u res, processes and general background of the organisation and the training and

development function in particular. Interviewees had an average service of 11 years,

comprised ® ve women and ® ve men and re p resented a cross-section of functions fro m

within management and supervisory grades. To actually uncover training outcomes in

terms of the adoption of new and diff e rent attitudes and practices ± i e training transfer

± it was necessary to analyse training provision from the stance of the intended

recipients ± both managers and employees. Thus, a questionnaire was designed to

gather extensive data on three broad issues: employees’ experiences of training and

development, employees’ perceptions with re g a rd to training outcomes, and work

e n v i ronment factors affecting training transfer. The target population was limited to the

4,055 employees working in the core ® nancial services business. The population was

s t r a t i ® ed by dividing respondents into head of® ce (45 per cent) and branches (55 per

cent) and by dividing the branch network into geographical regions. A re p re s e n t a t i v e

sample of 350 employees was randomly selected from the company’s computer

system. Questionnaires were posted directly to individuals through the company’s

internal mail system and a pre-paid envelope was enclosed, addressed to the

re s e a rcher to guarantee anonymity and confidentiality of responses. A total of 167



usable replies were received ± an overall response rate of 47.7 per cent (comprising 66

per cent female and 34 per cent male).

TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT AT FINANCECO

Background

FinanceCo operates within the confines of a highly and increasingly competitive

market ± consumer ® nancial services. In the 1980s the UK government’ s liberalisation

policies and commitment to free markets led to banks and other ® nancial org a n i s a t i o n s

o ffering mortgages ± once the privilege of building societies ± to their clients.

Encouraged by market opportunities FinanceCo expanded and diversified. In May

1997, for example, a specialist business-to-business mortgage operation with no branch

network was acquired, followed by a 370-branch network in April 1998. FinanceCo

now covers the country, with nearly 1,000 branches and agency outlets. In 1998 the

g roup’s post-tax pro ® ts grew by 33 per cent to £84 million and the customer base gre w

to more than 4 million. The organisation employs more than 7,900 staff, embracing a

diverse set of skilled, white-collar employees.

The appointment of a new chief executive in 1996 had major change implications for

management and staff. As a manager explained:

The change of senior executives led to a quick and immediate change of

c u l t u re, reflected, for example, in more open communication with

employees. Pre v i o u s l y, senior managers had been working for FinanceCo

for all their lives... The majority has been replaced with people with a more

diverse commercial experience in big multinationals... and they will

p robably not stay with FinanceCo fore v e r... This has made a huge

d i ff e rence to the organisational culture.

This process of cultural change witnessed the reshaping of the business around a

strategic customer focus. The increased customer focus re q u i red new ways of working

such as telephone banking and teamworking, with all the attendant challenges of

cultural reconciliation and implications for training and development. Management

was hoping to strengthen ¯ exibility and adaptability of employees to change, as well as

their ability to become multi-skilled. A c c o rding to a training manager:

In today’s working environment, if they [employees] want to stay with the

o rganisation they would move among roles... We cannot do anything

about change but we can help people be better pre p a red to cope with

change, to have a ¯ exible workforc e .

HR strategy

HRM took on a considerable role in supporting and nurturing organisational change. In

o rder to transform its personnel function into an active business partner, HR

p rofessionals were organised between group HR ± a centralised function, where

policies and pro c e d u res were defined ± and line HR ± geographically dispersed

personnel specialists within each core business area delivering day-to-day services to

line managers. Many pro c e d u res formerly attached to the personnel role were handed

over to line management, a process that was facilitated by a major management

development programme. Furthermore, in recognition of the fact that a customer

orientation strategy was vulnerable to the threat of withdrawal of co-operation by



employees, management began to place an increasing emphasis on notions of

employee involvement and empowerment.

A competency framework was also introduced to support FinanceCo’s strategic

objectives by de® ning the skills, knowledge and behaviour that were important for

success within each particular role and level. Competencies were formally linked into

the main HR policy areas ± i e re c ruitment, performance appraisal, training,

development and promotion ± in an attempt to produce a coherent and cohesive HR

system. This was enshrined within a broader performance management system which

was based on goal setting and put as much emphasis on performance goals and

deliverables as it did on the competencies needed to achieve those goals.

All employees were covered by a formal appraisal scheme which was linked into

the re w a rd system through performance-related pay, salary increments and bonuses.

Training needs were identi® ed by the individual and his/her line manager within

the appraisal process, although the acquisition and application of new skills and

competencies were not directly recognised or re w a rded ® n a n c i a l l y. The ability and

willingness of employees to achieve competencies was to be assessed through the

performance appraisal process, but the link was under-utilised in practice, due

primarily to the past and continuous focus on financial results. As an HR

p rofessional explained:

It takes some time [for appraisers] to accept that things such as teamwork,

internal quality of work e t c a re part of the performance criteria of a person

since it is difficult to assess and measure objectively. The use of the

competency framework in the performance management process has to be

constantly re i n f o rced.

Training and development strategy

H i s t o r i c a l l y, FinanceCo had a large training and development department that was

described by one of its members as `paternalistic’ and t̀raditional, with an emphasis on

in-house training and development, and no evaluation of training effectiveness beyond

the happy sheet’ . At the time of the study, most training was provided by outside

consultants. Technical, operational and sales training responsibility resided within line

HR, with support from the central organisation development (OD) function for the

m o re professional and ideological dimensions of training.

Management was increasingly concerned to use training to aid the change

management process. In management’s view, FinanceCo was fully committed to the

vision of a learning organisation and, as such, recognised that development rested with

the individual. As a training manager noted:

FinanceCo very much supports continuous learning and development of

employees. We are trying to encourage a culture of self-development. That

is part of the strategy.

The organisation provided the re s o u rces and support but it was up to the individual

to explore their needs and make informed choices about personal development. This

was supported by the establishment of a distance learning library comprising a range

of books, videos, audio, computer-based training, CD-ROMs and other materials,

which was free for all staff to use at their own convenience.

As a line manager noted, training provision had increased in recent years:

I have had more training in the last 12 months than in the last ® ve years!

FinanceCo has woken up to investing in its future, at last.



The survey results reveal that the majority of staff (99 per cent) had experienced

training at some time since joining the company. Forty-one per cent stated that they had

received training within the past 12 months and 47 per cent within the last three months.

C u r rent participation in training activity was relatively lower at 24 per cent. Tr a d i t i o n a l

training methods such as learning through the job, courses, workshops or lectures were

the most frequently used and were considered the most effective by trainees.

Training evaluation

In an environment of increased training investment, management was concerned to

monitor the costs and determine the effectiveness of such investment. In the past, the

evaluation of training courses was limited to an immediate post-course questionnaire ,

with the purpose of improving the efficiency of content and delivery. It was thus

assumed that if needs were carefully analysed and the interventions designed

a p p ropriately effective training would follow. By contrast, at the time of this study the

renewed purpose of training evaluation was threefold: to generate feedback for quality

c o n t rol of the design and delivery of training activities, to ensure that investment

i m p roved individual performance and to redefine the responsibility for learning

between trainers, trainees and managers. The design of the new training evaluation

p rocess re ̄ ected that purpose and, to some extent, resolved the evaluation dilemma by

adopting a pragmatic approach; evaluation was individually focused and a decision

was made not to evaluate at departmental and organisational levels.

Within this process, evaluation started before the training event with both the

participant and the line manager documenting the intended, mutual bene® ts. Tr a i n i n g

specialists then assessed the documentation forms as part of the nomination pro c e d u re. A

course evaluation form was to be completed by the trainee immediately after. Six months

after the end of the programme the agreed bene® ts of the event were followed up. This

took the form of a stru c t u red self-report, completed by participants but strangely without

line manager involvement, which focused on the achievement of the stated bene® ts and

assessed the transfer of learning from the classroom back to the workplace.

Training evaluation was thus made the responsibility of the delegate and the line

m a n a g e r, aiming to encourage individuals to take ownership of their own

development, as well as management ownership for staff development. Overall, the

new evaluation process was more cost-focused, re p resenting a switch from an

assessment of the actual training event to broader organisational effectiveness. The

delayed evaluation approach overcame the problem of a possible action gap between

the euphoria at the end of training and what happened when participants returned to

the workplace (Currie, 1994). Experimental pro c e d u res and control groups were

eschewed. Nor was quantitative evaluation of learning and transfer to the workplace

conducted before and after the programme. A qualitative approach was used which

relied on individuals’ self-assessment and judgement in order to measure the bene® t s

of training. In the absence of quantitative measures such as financial performance,

training benefits were articulated in terms of ìmproved customer service’ , `better

interpersonal relationships’ and so forth. However, it was impossible to say what

p roportion of the improvements were attributable to the training given and what

p roportions to other factors such as better performance management, feedback on

customer complaints or improved planning. This seemed unavoidable, as a training

manager eloquently explained:

Could you actually say that the improvement in performance of a unit or a

branch is directly attributable to any development that [staff] had



u n d e rgone or is it attributable to other concurrent factors? It is not

something that we do not want to do. But I think if we are going to spend

any time and money on it, we want to be fairly safe that the evidence we

can draw from that could be substantiated.

The evaluation pro c e d u re adopted was also politically motivated. Conducting

evaluation studies to overcome the methodological dif® culties outlined above would

be highly re s o u rce-intensive. The central OD function lacked such re s o u rces and

t h e re f o re devolved responsibili ty to the line and ultimately the individual.

F u r t h e r m o re, given that FinanceCo had an operational emphasis, where customer care

and financial results took priority, a method for gathering information re g a rd i n g

training effectiveness would only be successful if it was seen as not con¯ icting with

operational objectives. It made sense, in these circumstances, to minimise time spent by

participants and line managers on training evaluation.

EMPLOYEES’ PERCEPTIONS

The training environment

A c c o rding to management, training at FinanceCo was integrated within a strategic,

long-term approach to the development of human re s o u rces. Most managers

interviewed determined employees’ development needs v i a the appraisal process and

planned what training was re q u i red. The survey revealed that 72 per cent of staff had

discussed a personal development plan and 81 per cent currently had personal

development goals. Of those employees with the latter, however, only 51 per cent had

received any training to help them achieve their development needs. This seems to be

the result of inconsistency of approach. The criteria for selecting and supporting

participants on training courses varied widely across diff e rent departments of the

company and it was described as `not suf® ciently tailored and focused on the needs of

the individual’. It was suggested that often the availability of a course triggered the

nomination of an employee to attend, rather than being built in as part of that

person’s development.

T h e re are also instances when practice fell far short of the espoused policy. Many

respondents, for example, felt that line managers did not see personal development as

a priority. On average, as Table 1 (o v e r l e a f) shows, they perceived a moderate-to-low

level of line management involvement in discussing training needs, setting and

reviewing development goals and providing coaching and guidance.

Poor relationships with management can negatively affect development. Those

respondents encouraged by management were more likely to be receiving training.

Of those who stated that their line managers encouraged them to train, 58 per cent

w e re currently receiving training, as compared to 24 per cent of those who claimed

no or little management encouragement. Eighty-nine per cent of those re c e i v i n g

high management support for HRD also had a personal development plan; those

without one were signi® cantly more likely to perceive a low level of management

support for personal development. This suggests that employees’ perceptions of

FinanceCo’ s commitment to HRD may be positively associated with the existence of

formal pro c e d u res to monitor and focus training. Such pro c e d u res were, statistically,

far more likely to influence respondents ’ perceptions of the degree of line

management support for HRD than broader contextual or contractual factors. Thus,

no correlation was found between the various aspects of line management support



and gender, contractual status (full time, part time or temporary) or pro f e s s i o n a l

level within the company.

Perceived outcomes

In an effort to clarify what trainees believed were the re w a rds of training, participants

w e re asked whether their involvement had contributed to certain outcomes. The

findings suggest that individuals at FinanceCo benefited from training thro u g h

i m p roved knowledge and skills and also through improved con® dence, self-ef® c a c y,

less need for supervision and general enjoyment. Managers also stressed the link

between individual advantage and organisation gain. As a training manager explained:

If people feel they have been invested in, automatically their trust in the

o rganisation increases and that has an indirect bene® t for their work and

ultimately for performance-related issues.

Table 2 summarises employees’ perceptions on the likely individual benefits of

training. The ® ndings reveal a general split between intrinsic and extrinsic re w a rd s .

Most respondents saw training as having a positive impact on their job satisfaction,

motivation at work, ability to do their jobs and personal growth. Employees were less

l i k e l y, however, to see training as leading to higher pay, better promotion prospects or

c a reer pro g ression. This re ̄ ects the fact that, as noted earlier, competency and skill

acquisition were not consistently recognised and re w a rded per se.

Further analysis reveals little correlation between the perceived bene® ts of training and

the sex, contractual status or position within the ® rm of respondents. The sole exception

was with re g a rd to pay. Women were signi® cantly less likely to report that training would

make an appreciable diff e rence to their pay than men. The perceived bene® ts were far

m o re likely to be influenced by the incidence of training, the existence of personal

development plans and the degree of line management support. Where respondents were

c u r rently receiving or had received training during the last three months, they were far

m o re likely to associate it with higher job satisfaction, better promotion prospects and the

d e g ree to which they felt valued by the company. Personal development planning was



TABLE 1 Line management support for HRD (% of sample)

To a To a To a

great moderate l i m i t e d

e x t e n t e x t e n t e x t e n t

My manager encourages and supports me to take 4 2 2 9 2 9

advantage of training and development opportunities*

My manager regularly discusses my training 2 3 3 6 4 1

and development needs with me*

My manager jointly sets tasks and development 3 5 2 8 3 7

goals with me**

My manager jointly reviews pro g ress on tasks 3 8 2 8 3 4

and development goals at timely intervals**

My manager coaches and guides me eff e c t i v e l y * * * 2 5 3 3 4 2

* N = 165, ** N = 164, *** N = 166

also positively correlated with respondents’ attitudes towards the impact of training on

job satisfaction and the degree to which they felt valued by the company.

Those respondents who had received active encouragement and support for

personal development from line managers were more likely to think that their

p romotion prospects would improve as a result of training. The propensity of staff to

feel valued by the company and identify job satisfaction, motivation and personal

g rowth as potential bene® ts arising from training was also related to line management

support for HRD. However, employees’ views concerning the potential impact of

training on job performance or pay appeared to be unrelated to the extent to which

they had been supported by line management in their development.

Employees’ motivation and commitment towards their own personal development

was found to be signi® cantly associated with the perceived impact of training on non-

monetary re w a rds. Those who associated training with better promotion prospects and

c a reer pro g ress were far more likely to engage themselves in proactive behaviour

t o w a rds personal development such as continuous improvement, requesting feedback

on performance or career exploration. Likewise, the perceived impact of training on job

satisfaction, motivation, personal growth and job performance was signi® cantly re l a t e d

to the individual’s commitment to personal development.

Transfer of training

The re s e a rch found that training had many bene® ts. For most individuals, training

i n c reased con® dence and self-ef® c a c y, it improved competencies and skills and people

recognised that they had been invested in. Yet some interviewees found it dif® cult to

translate these cognitive insights into behavioural changes:

During a training course, everything makes sense. But after training, you

go back to the office and realise that it is difficult to apply what you

learned to the real job.

T h e re was also a concern about the extent to which trainees were suff i c i e n t l y

motivated, con® dent or able to apply what they learnt back on the job. As a business

manger noted:



TABLE 2 P e rceived bene® ts of training (% of sample)

A g r e e N e u t r a l D i s a g r e e

Training leads to higher pay 2 0 3 2 4 8

Training leads to higher job satisfaction* 7 9 1 4 7

After training, I feel more motivated at work 7 8 1 7 5

Training helps me to do my job better 9 0 7 3

Training improves my promotion pro s p e c t s 4 2 3 2 2 6

After training, I feel valued by the company** 3 7 4 0 2 3

Training enables career pro g ress 5 4 2 7 1 9

Training helps me to grow as a person 8 0 1 6 4

* N = 164, missing = 3; ** N = 166, missing = 1



Training is not always transferable to the job, mainly due to two pro b l e m s .

Trainees do not make enough efforts to change the way they do things;

they are not pre p a red to adopt change. And, sometimes, trainers are

detached from the workplace, are not aware of how things work, so the

training is not designed to be applied.

Table 3 presents a more systematic assessment of the perceived importance of, and

satisfaction with, pre and post-training activities on the transfer of training. The majority of

respondents considered the pre-training environment important in helping them apply the

learning to the job. On average, activities such as analysis of training needs, involvement in

deciding about training content and methods and setting objectives for performance

i m p rovement were the most highly rated. This ® nding suggests that training interventions

focused on individual needs and, embedded in a purposeful performance impro v e m e n t

framework, may encourage training transfer. Post-training activities were, however,

c o n s i d e red more in¯ uential with re g a rd to the transfer of training. Not surprisingly, the

vast majority of respondents stated that having the opportunity to use new skills and

having the necessary re s o u rces were important for effective training transfer.

Coaching and feedback from line managers were also important factors in helping

employees apply the learning to their jobs. A supportive environment is key to training

e ffectiveness and it was clear that, as a group, the respondents both valued and needed

coaching and feedback on an ongoing basis. Yet the survey revealed that more than a

quarter of respondents were not receiving coaching and feedback to the extent that

they wished. It was noted that when employees returned to work after training the

most common experience was to be asked, `How did it go?’ or `Have you had a good

time?’ by their line managers, during a brief ® ve-minute chat.

A d i ff e rence also emerged with re g a rd to respondents’ degree of satisfaction with

p re and post-training activities. In general, post-training activities revealed higher

levels of satisfaction than pre-training ones, although a satisfaction score of above 50

per cent was re c o rded in only one case. Thus, 62 per cent of respondents reported that

they were satis® ed with the opportunity to use any new knowledge of skills, compare d

with just 18 per cent who were unsatisfied. In terms of post-training activities,

respondents were least satis® ed with line management follow-up and the levels of

re s o u rce supports needed to effectively transfer training. At the pre-training level, low

levels of satisfaction were most marked with re g a rd to the opportunities available to

decide about the content and methods of training and the amount of release time to

p re p a re for a training course. As we shall demonstrate, the degree of satisfaction with

p re-training activities has a signi® cant impact on transfer.

To further explore the issue of transfer, participants were asked whether they had

ever reverted back to the old ways of doing things òn the job’ after training and for

what reason. Forty-seven per cent reported not having applied new knowledge or

skills at some point. No signi® cant relationship was found between actual transfer of

training to the workplace and the age, gender or employment status of participants.

The immediate application of skills was, however, less likely among managerial than

non-managerial staff. Sixty-four per cent of managers reported having reverted back to

the old ways after training, as compared to 39 per cent of non-managerial staff .

Immediate application was less likely on `soft’ skill programmes and interventions that

include development activities aimed at changing organisational culture and

b e h a v i o u r, such as management development.

The primary reasons cited by managers for not applying training content to the

workplace were lack of time to practise new behaviour, habit ± it was easier to stick



with old ways of doing things ± and content not being suf® ciently tailored to their

practical demands. For non-managerial employees training transfer was more likely to

be inhibited by the need to produce results, insuf® cient re s o u rces (e g IT or staff) and a

lack of management support. Changing behaviour and ways of working re q u i re d

ongoing practice but, with the pre s s u re to deliver services, there was often insuf® c i e n t

time for changes to be achieved. These ® ndings suggest that training activities might

not be having the desired results because work environment factors hindere d

participants’ ability to implement learning.

The relationship between the transfer of training and the degree of satisfaction with

p re and post-training activities is examined in Table 4.2

The ® ndings reveal a signi® c a n t

association between employees’ satisfaction with the pre-training environment and the

extent to which they returned to the old ways of doing things on the job after training.

Those managers and employees who felt dissatis® ed with the pre-training activities

detailed above were signi® cantly more likely to revert back to old working practices

and job behaviour. Likewise, individuals who were dissatis® ed with the post-training

activities reported lower levels of behavioural change after training. However, the

relationship was only statistically signif icant with re g a rd to the provision of

opportunities to use new skills. This ® nding con® rms interviewees’ views, since many



TABLE 4 Training transfer by satisfaction with pre-training and post-training activities (%)

Ever failed to Satisfaction with Satisfaction with

transfer training? pre-training activities* post-training activities#

L o w M o d e r a t e H i g h L o w M o d e r a t e H i g h

Ye s 4 7 6 1 2 8 6 0 4 7 3 9

N o 5 4 4 0 7 3 4 0 5 3 4 1

* Chi-square = 11.48; sig = .003# Chi-square = 3.38; sig = .185

TABLE 5 P e rceived impact of training by training transfer (%)

Ever failed to transfer training?

Does training have an impact on: Ye s N o

PAY * S t rongly disagre e 6 9 3 1

D i s a g re e 5 1 4 9

N e u t r a l 4 5 5 5

A g re e 4 0 6 0

S t rongly agre e 0 1 0 0

P R O M O T I O N # S t rongly disagre e 8 6 1 4

D i s a g re e 5 4 4 6

N e u t r a l 5 1 4 9

A g re e 3 5 6 5

S t rongly agre e 4 0 6 0

* Chi-square = 9.28; sig = .05

# Chi-square = 8.25; sig = .08

of them mentioned a lack of opportunity to use skills as the primary reason aff e c t i n g

training transfer. As one supervisor noted:

I think the worth of training all depends on what opportunities you have

to actually use those skills when you get back to your desk.

The survey also revealed that training activities might not be having the desire d

results because those who went through them did not feel they were being

adequately re w a rded and so had no motivation to apply new skills and knowledge.

Thus, those who perceived training as leading to higher pay or better pro m o t i o n

p rospects were more likely to transfer training (s e e Table 5). No relationship was

found between the perceived intrinsic benefits of training ± such as incre a s e d

o rganisational commitment or motivation ± and the likelihood of transfer. This

indicates the importance of re w a rd systems, whether ® nancial or career development,

to improvements in training effectiveness.

DISCUSSION

Our case study has presented a detailed examination of the complex issue of training

transfer and effectiveness. It clearly demonstrates the way that employees ’

experiences of training, and attitudes towards broader situational factors, mediate the

t r a n s f e r, and hence effectiveness, of training investments. At FinanceCo, management

was sensit ive to the difficulties of quantifying the benefits of org a n i s a t i o n a l

development, and thus developed an evaluation pro c e d u re that focused on

individual behaviour and the transfer of training rather than on achieving ùltimate

goals’ . This was in part a pragmatic response to the complexities of evaluating

training effectiveness but the approach was also politically motivated as the amount

of time and re s o u rces managers could devote to the process was circumscribed by

operational imperatives.

At the level of the individual, previous experiences of training and situational

conditions mediated its effectiveness and transfer. The exposure to and attitudes

t o w a rds training were generally held to be positive, but there was a concern among

respondents that line management demonstrated inconsistency with re g a rd to

developmental issues. At one level this is to be expected, given the pragmatic nature of

the evaluation strategy and the primacy of operational imperatives, but management

behaviour was found to influence access to training, perceptions of its benefits,

p roactive behaviour towards personal development and, most signi® cantly of all, the

transfer of training. A c c o rd i n g l y, where line managers were highly involved in

discussing training needs, setting development goals and reviewing pro g ress and

p roviding coaching and guidance, training was more likely to have a favourable

impact on employees’ motivation, job satisfaction and personal growth.

The perceived importance attached by respondents to pre and post-training

activities off e red some support for FinanceCo’s strategy of evaluating investments

both before and after training, yet it was also clear that employees were far fro m

s a t i s ® ed with the process. Thus, those respondents who were dissatis® ed with such

p re and post-training activities were more likely to revert back to established

practices and behaviour after experiencing training. This was most signi® cant with

re g a rd to pre-training activities, a finding that is perhaps unsurprising given the

emphasis FinanceCo put on line management involvement at this stage.

Dissatisfaction was most pronounced over the degree of involvement employees had

in deciding training content and methods and the utility of the pre-course brie® n g



with managers. This suggests that companies embarking on widespread investments

in training activities and pro c e d u res should ensure that any training provided is

p e rceived to be of worth to both the individual and organisation. This should be

central to any evaluation pro c e d u re, since from the individual perspective evaluation

is important in revealing attitudes towards training and also the perceived value that

is attributed to any investment in it. Sending employees on training courses just

because they are available is not likely to be effective in the longer term. While the

impact of post-training activities on effective transfer was less marked, transfer was

nonetheless found to be conditional on the opportunities and re s o u rces available to

use new knowledge and skills.

At a much broader level, respondents who perceived training as leading to higher

pay or better promotion prospects were signi® cantly more likely to transfer training to

the workplace. This is an important ® nding as it suggests that the establishment of

evaluative pro c e d u res pre and post-training will not be enough in themselves to ensure

e ffective transfer to the workplace. Rather, such activities need to be enmeshed within a

wider set of enabling supports. Well-developed systems of appraisal and personal

development planning have a particularly important role to play here, not only in

terms of identifying the most relevant forms of development (pre-training) and

re i n f o rcing training experiences (post-training) but also in terms of establishing more

explicit links between personal development and career pro g ression and re w a rd. This

can also contribute towards a more grounded and mutually bene® cial psychological

contract around training investments. The inconsistency of approach among

FinanceCo’s line managers towards appraisal and personal development planning was

clearly problematic in this respect. While no definitive reasons were identified to

explain this inconsistency, the potential impact of such activities on line managers’

workloads would clearly be a contributory factor (s e e Sisson and Store y, 2000: 20). The

d e g ree of support from central and line HR to line managers also played a role. As one

line manager noted:

The problem is that each department runs so diff e re n t l y, with no

systematic approach. Some units don’t ... have someone specifically

looking at training.

R e i n f o rcing the value of training and staff development to line managers is thus of

c rucial importance. To this end, the fact that the appraisal system covered re w a rd and

the identi® cation of training needs, but with no direct recognition or re w a rd for the

acquisition and application of new skills, was also potentially pro b l e m a t i c .

Returning to the extant literature on the evaluation of training effectiveness, our case

o ffers little support for the widely used Kirkpatrick model which is focused solely on

post-course evaluation and traces a prescriptive cause-and-effect chain from training to

o rganisational performance. Following Easterby-Smith (1986), our analysis suggests

that any evaluation of training effectiveness must take into account both pre and post-

training activities. Most important, however, is a recognition of the social and political

f o rces that shape organisational training practice and investment and the re s u l t a n t

training experiences of employees. Thus, the extent to which employees are able, and

willing, to transfer training into the workplace will be mediated by a wide range of

situational factors such as line management commitment and involvement,

o rganisational re s o u rces and opportunities and re w a rds. In this respect our study

p rovides strong empirical support for Noe’s (1986) contention that trainees apply new

knowledge and skills on the job depending on the instrumentality of training to

p rovide re w a rds.



The results of this study have several possible implications for increasing the

application of trained ski lls to the workplace. Enrolling employees to attend

p rogrammes in a non-supportive working environment may waste training funds.

Training provision will be more effective if attention is given to ensuring that the work

climate and management practices encourage personal development, since

behavioural change ± a proxy measure of performance improvement ± after training

seems more likely to occur where management encourage and re w a rd trainees for

using new skills.

C l e a r l y, we must be wary about the potential to generalise from a single case study,

but we would argue that our ® ndings have signi® cant analytical importance. As we

noted in the introduction, the mainstream HR literature has devoted little empirical

attention to date to the complex issue of training transfer and effectiveness, focusing

instead on the nature of employer strategy and practice towards training. This neglect

is somewhat surprising, given the significance commentators often attach to the

performance-enhancing benefits of training. A g reater consideration of the actual

recipients of training offers much in this respect. Certainly, our study has helped to

re i n f o rce the ® ndings of previous studies that have utilised the individual as the unit of

analysis (s e e Antonacopoulou, 1999, 2001), particularly Heyes and Stuart’s (1996)

analysis of the positive impact that formal stru c t u res of training provision can have on

employee attitudes. Most signi® c a n t l y, though, our analysis of the perceptions and

experiences of employees towards training activities has helped to develop our

understanding of the range of factors that mediate and impact on the effectiveness of

training. Further re s e a rch is clearly needed on the complex question of training transfer

and effectiveness, particularly in terms of the in¯ uence of the wider HR enviro n m e n t

and the dynamics by which enterprise training translates into positive outcomes for

British organisations. Such re s e a rch would need to examine the financial and

p roductivity bene® ts (Green, 1997), as well as the long-term bene® ts for the company

and the workforce in terms of cultural and behavioural change.

Notes

1 The ASTD Benchmarking Forum is made up of 55 large, multinational companies

such as American Express, AT & T, Ford Motor Company and IBM. The latest survey

revealed that 67 per cent of organisations that conduct evaluations use the

Kirkpatrick Model.

2 The means of individual items were summed to give an overall score for

p re and post-training activities and then ord e red into low, moderate and

high levels of satisfaction.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to three anonymous re f e rees for their helpful and constructive comments.

REFERENCES

A l l i g e r, G. M. and Janak, E. A. (1989). `Kirkpatrick’s levels of training criteria: thirty

years later’ . Personnel Psychology, 42: 2, 331-342.

Antonacopoulou, E. P. (1999). `Training does not imply learning: the individual’s

perspective’. International Journal of Training and Development, 3: 1, 14-33.

Antonacopoulou, E. P. (2001). `Reconciling individual and org a n i s a t i o n a l

development: issues in the retail banking sector’ in Training in the Workplace: Critical

Perspectives on Learning at Wo r k. H. Rainbird (ed). Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.



Ashton, D. and Green, F. (1996). Education, Training and the Global Economy,

Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Baldwin, T. T. and Ford J. K. (1988). `Transfer of training: a review and directions for

f u t u re re s e a rch’. Personnel Psychology, 41: 1, 63-105.

Baldwin, T. T. and Magjuka, R. J. (1991). Òrganisational training and signals of

importance: effects of pre-training perceptions on intentions to transfer ’. H u m a n

R e s o u rce Development, 2: 1, 25-36.

Bassi, L. J. and Cheney, S. (1997). `Benchmarking the best’. Training & Development,

N o v e m b e r, 60-64.

B r a m l e y, P. (1996). Evaluating Training Effectiveness (second edition), London:

McGraw-Hill.

Cascio W. F. (1987). Applied Psychology in Personnel Management ( t h i rd edition),

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Clement, R. W. (1982). `Testing the hierarchy theory of training evaluation: an

expanded role for trainee reactions’ . Public Personnel Management Journal, 11: 2,

176-184.

Currie, G. (1994). Èvaluation of management development: a case study’. Journal of

Management Development, 13: 3, 22-26.

Deloitte Haskins and Sells (1989). Training in Britain: A study of Funding, Activity and

Attitudes ± Employer’s Activities ( A report pre p a red by Deloitte Haskins and Sells in

conjunction with IFF Research Ltd), London: HMSO.

Easterby-Smith, M. (1986). Evaluation of Management Education, Training and

D e v e l o p m e n t, Aldershot: Gower.

Gallie, D. and White, M. (1993). Employee Commitment and the Skills Revolution,

London: PSI Publishing.

Goldstein, I. L. (1993). Training In Organizations: Needs Assessment, Development and

E v a l u a t i o n ( t h i rd edition), Paci® c Grove, CA: Bro o k s / C o l e .

G reen, F. (1992). ̀ On the political economy of skill in the advanced industrial nations’.

Review of Political Economy, 4: 4, 413-435.

G reen, F. (1997). Review of Information on the Bene® ts of Training for Employers, R e s e a rc h

Report No. 7. S h e f® eld: DfEE.

Hamblin, A. C. (1974). Evaluation and Control of Tr a i n i n g, London: McGraw-Hill.

Heyes, J. (1998). `Training and development at an agrochemicals plant’ in

Experiencing Human Resource Management. C. Mabey, D. Skinner and T. Clark (eds).

London: Sage.

Heyes, J. and Stuart, M. (1994). ̀ Placing symbols before reality? Re-evaluating the low

skills equilibrium’. Personnel Review, 23: 5, 34-47.

Heyes, J. and Stuart, M. (1996). `Does training matter? Employee experiences and

attitudes’. Human Resource Management Journal, 6: 3, 7-21.

Keep, E. (1989). `Corporate training: the vital component?’ in New Perspectives on

Human Resource Management. J. Storey (ed). London: Routledge.

Kirkpatrick, D. (1967). Èvaluation of training’ in Training Evaluation Handbook. R .

Craig and L. Bittel (eds). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kirkpatrick, D. (1994). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels, San Francisco:

B e r rett-Koehler Publishers.

Mason, G., Van Ark, B. and Wa g n e r, K. (1996). `Wo r k f o rce skills, product quality and

economic perform ance’ in Acquiring Skills. A. Book and D. Snower (eds).

Cambridge University Press.

Noe, R. A. (1986). `Trainees’ attributes and attitudes: neglected in¯ uences on training

e ffectiveness’ . Academy of Management Review, 11: 4, 736-749.



Noe, R. A. and Schmitt, N. (1986). `The influence of trainee attitudes on training

e ffectiveness: test of a model’ . Personnel Psychology, 39: 3, 497-523.

Orpen, C. (1999). `The in¯ uence of the trainee environment on trainee motivation and

p e rceived training quality’. International Journal of Training and Development, 3: 1,

34-43.

Prais, S. J. (1995). P ro d u c t i v i t y, Education and Training: An International Perspective,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Pre s s .

Reid, M. A. and Barrington, H. (1997). Training Interventions: Managing Employee

Development ( ® fth edition), London: Institute of Personnel and Development (IPD).

R o m e r, P. (1993). Ìdea gaps and object gaps in economic development’. Journal of

Monetary Economics, 32: 3, 543-73.

Sisson, K. and Store y, J. (2000). The Realities of Human Resource Management: Managing

the Employment Relationship, Buckingham: Open University Press.

Tyson, S. and Doherty, N. (1999). Human Resource Excellence Report, Benchmarking Best

Practice in Human Resource Management, Cran® eld University, London: Financial

Times Management.

Wa r r, P., Bird, M. and Rackham, N. (1976). Evaluation of Management Tr a i n i n g, London:

Gower Press.

We x l e y, K. N. and Latham, G. P. (1991). Developing and Training Human Resources in

O rg a n i s a t i o n s (second edition), New York: Harper-Collins.



J.1748 8583.2003.tb00082.x

Documents

ef ca cy

suf ciently

royal botanic

mainstream

human resource

cambridge

perceived

evaluation