DQ 1-2

Babpha

08_kopp_humanresource.pdf

Home >Human Resource Management homework help >DQ 1-2

8Transfer of Training

Lisa F. Young/iStock/Thinkstock

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

• Explain the framework for training transfer.

• Describe the accountability for transfer of training.

• Summarize the barriers to transfer.

• Understand how the learning organization supports transfer.

While Mark Twain once said, “Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it,” the same could be said about training transfer:

“Everybody talks about training transfer, but nobody does anything about it.” —Anonymous

Introduction Chapter 8

Pretest 1. Supervisors’ support is essential for helping employees transfer what they learned in

training to their job tasks. a. true b. false

2. Trainees who have more responsibility for their own learning are more likely to trans- fer that learning from one situation to another. a. true b. false

3. The trainer is generally considered the party most responsible for whether trainees apply the new learning to their work. a. true b. false

4. Research has found that most barriers to trainees’ application of new skills are caused by the trainees themselves. a. true b. false

5. In a learning organization, team and group learning take precedence over personal mastery. a. true b. false

Answers can be found at the end of the chapter.

Introduction As early as 1957 James Mosél, a professor of psychology at George Washington University and the founding director of the university’s industrial psychology program, observed that training often seemed to make little or no difference in job behavior (Broad, 2005; Mosél, 1957). Since that time, training transfer (Kirkpatrick’s level 3)—the degree to which train- ees demonstrate new behaviors by effectively applying to the job the KSAs gained in a train- ing context—has been what Dennis Coates (2008), the CEO of Performance Support Systems, calls the Holy Grail of workplace training programs. In fact, more than half a century later, two separate longitudinal research studies that aggregated individual studies of training transfer estimated that still as little as 10 to 20% of the knowledge or skills taught in training pro- grams is effectively transferred to the workplace (Arthur, Bennett, Edens, & Bell, 2003; Van Wijk, Jansen, & Lyles, 2008).

As this chapter will discuss, training transfer not only depends on the trainee’s willingness and ability, but also on an organizational climate that encourages transfer—both tactically and strategically. The importance of the organizational climate is seen, for example, in a learn- ing organization (Senge, 1990), an organization that, through sharing and dialogue, promotes

A Framework for Training Transfer Chapter 8

positive training transfer. This chapter will also discuss whether supervisors, trainees, or trainers are responsible for the transfer of training (Broad, 2005; Kopp, 2006).

8.1 A Framework for Training Transfer As Figure 8.1 shows, Baldwin and Ford (1988) first illustrated the process of training trans- fer by showing how, in addition to learning (level 2) from the training, training transfer was linked to three factors or dimensions, namely: trainee characteristics, training design, and work environment. The premise here is that each factor contributes to the success of training transfer and therefore to workplace performance. Let us break down each factor.

Figure 8.1: Training transfer model

There are key dimensions linked to the transfer of training including trainee characteristics, the training design, and the work environment itself.

f08.01_BUS375.ai

Learning PERFORMANCETRANSFER

Trainee characteristics • Ability • Motivation

Training design • Principles of learning • Training content

Work environment • Support • Opportunity to use

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

Trainee Characteristics

Trainee characteristics include how willing and able the trainee is to apply the training. Therefore, although other factors will influence whether the training is transferred, transfer depends in no small part on the states of ability and willingness, as Table 8.1 summarizes.

The desired posttraining state is one in which the trainee is able and willing to apply the new learning to the job. As Chapter 2 discussed, specific leadership styles, per Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership theory, can influence or act upon a follower’s willing- ness and ability (Daft, 2014; Hersey & Blanchard, 1977). For example, with a willing and able (R4) trainee, the transfer is voluntary, and following training, a supervisor might merely monitor the trainee to ensure that workplace barriers are limited.

A Framework for Training Transfer Chapter 8

Table 8.1: Trainee ability and willingness to transfer

Trainee type Ability Willingness Transfer potential

R1 – – None

R2 – + Low; stimulated

R3 + – Low; stimulated

R4 + + High; voluntary

For a trainee who remained not able but willing (R2) following a training, a supervisor might spend more time explaining and clarifying the training to the trainee. Doing so might uncover not only a need for additional training, but also perhaps a learning style or disability issue the employer needs to accommodate. For example, in the United Kingdom, new legisla- tion makes all workplaces dyslexia-friendly workplaces (Dyslexia Action, n.d.).

Trainees who are able but not willing (R3) to apply the new learning to the workplace may need an attitudinal intervention; in these cases the supervisor intervenes with the trainee to address aspects of self-efficacy, commitment, or interpersonal skills (James, 1890; Noe, 2012). The goal of these interventions with R2 and R3 trainees is for the supervisor to stimu- late the transfer that does not happen voluntarily (Broad, 2000; Broad, 2005).

Did You Know? Transfer of Learning Versus Transfer of Training

Semantically, although some assert that the terms transfer of learning and transfer of training are synonymous (Cormier & Hagman, 1987), sometimes distinctions are made. One distinction is when the focus is on cognition and knowledge acquisition—underscoring that not all that is learned is observable. For example, when a new customer service agent tries out the newly memorized sales script on a caller, the term transfer of learning may be more appropriate. When there is a focus on the transfer of particular motor skills and outcome- based behavior, such as when an employee from a cable company is trying for the first time to hook up a DVR to a television, then transfer of training would be used.

Finally, if trainees routinely leave the training programs unable and unwilling (R1) to apply the new learning, this outcome suggests a systemic problem; perhaps management should review recruiting practices with the human resources department (Alagaraja, 2012; Blanchard & Thacker, 2010).

A Framework for Training Transfer Chapter 8

Training Design

Training design is the dimension of the transfer framework that refers to factors built into the training program to increase the chances that transfer of training will occur (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Ford, 2014; Noe, 2012; Werner & DeSimone, 2011). Two particular theories of transfer have implications for training design: theory of identical elements and cognitive theory, first proposed by Edward Thorndike in 1928.

Theory of Identical Elements The theory of identical elements uses the idea that the amount of transfer between the famil- iar situation and the unfamiliar one is determined by the number of elements that the two situations have in common (Thorndike & Woodworth, 1901). That is, transfer of training is enhanced when what trainees learn in the training session matches what they will be doing on the job (Orata, 2013; Thorndike & Woodworth, 1901). In his experiment to underscore the importance of identical elements, Thorndike had participants judge the area of rectangles, and then he tested participants on the related task of estimating the areas of circles and tri- angles. Transfer was assessed by the degree to which learning skill A (estimating the area of squares) influenced skill B (estimating the area of circles or triangles). Thorndike found little evidence of transfer and, from this finding, concluded that “transfer of a skill was directly related to the similarity between two situations” (Thorndike & Woodworth, 1901, p. 15).

As a result, transfer is based on making the training environment similar to the job environ- ment; this is known as near transfer—metaphorically, the transfer distance between the training environment and the application to the job environment (Ford, 2014; Holton & Bald- win, 2003; Wan, 2013). An example of near transfer would be a training for a department store cashier in which new employees train on a cash register that matches the registers the department actually uses.

An extension of the theory of identical elements is the concept of stimulus generalization, which emphasizes the transfer of general principles and maintenance of skills. This concept is known as far transfer, the application of learned behavior, content knowledge, concepts, or skills in a situation that is dissimilar to the original learning context (Ford, 2014; Holton & Baldwin, 2003). Suppose that a trainee had learned from a workshop to use conflict-handling skills not only at work, but also at home with his spouse; this situation would be an example of far transfer. Table 8.2 gives some everyday examples of near and far transfer.

Table 8.2: Examples of near and far transfer

Near Far

Transfer from using one type of coffee mug to another type of mug

Transfer from drinking hot coffee using a mug to drinking hot coffee using a thermos (rule: do not burn yourself )

Transfer from using one shuttle bus to another Transfer from reading the shuttle bus schedule to reading an airline schedule

Transfer from using a knife and fork to using a differ- ent size knife and fork

Transfer from using a knife and fork to using chopsticks

Source: Adapted from Svinicki, M. D. (2004). Learning and motivation in the postsecondary classroom. New York: Wiley.

A Framework for Training Transfer Chapter 8

If we consider near and far transfers as transfer outcomes, then the processes of transfer linked to near and far are known as low-road transfer and high-road transfer (Doyle, McDonald, & Leberman, 2012; Perkins & Salomon, 1988; Salomon & Perkins, 1989). Specifically, low-road transfer, which facilitates near transfer, occurs when the context is so familiar or perceptually similar (Ford, 2014; Svinicki, 2004) to what the trainee already knows that a reflexive or auto- matic triggering of transfer occurs without conscious contemplation; this unconscious com- petence is known as automaticity (Bargh, 2013). For example, a trainee hired as a stockroom forklift operator who has experience driving Caterpillar™ forklifts would most likely have a low-road near transfer, even though the hiring company uses Komatsu™ brand forklifts.

In high-road transfer, linked to far transfer, the trainee must consciously draw on previous knowledge, skills, or attitudes. The trainee now applies conscious competence of previous KSAs to perceptually different, but conceptually similar, contexts (Ford, 2014; Perkins & Salo- mon, 1988; Svinicki, 2004). An example of high-road far transfer is a new marketing depart- ment employee drawing on the concepts of game theory learned in college to analyze the competition and the interactions between manufacturers and retailers (Chatterjee & Samu- elson, 2013).

HRD in Practice: High-Road, Far Transfer

Justin Moore is the CEO of Axcient, a rapidly growing cloud services provider. Moore, now 31, is also a former star of the youth chess circuit. Moore does not play much competitively anymore, but even so, the kinds of thinking learned from his days as a chess prodigy have deeply informed the way he runs a successful start-up. In a sense, Moore does still play chess every day—by running Axcient.

“Of course, it’s a business commonplace to recommend forethought. But, in chess, the metaphor is literalized. You’re constantly looking two, three, four moves ahead,” explains Moore. “If you do this move, what’s the countermove? What are all the countermoves? And then, for all of those, what are all of my potential countermoves? Chess is constantly teaching you to think about what comes next, and what comes after that, and what the repercussions could be.” In a chess game your mind is constantly running permutations of decision trees. In a business your mind should be doing the same.

A chess match is a war of attrition. If a soccer match is egregiously lopsided at halftime, the game still progresses. But, if White accidentally loses his queen a few moves into the game, it is likely he will resign. A properly matched chess game is often fought to the point that only a few pawns, pieces, and the opposing kings remain—a bare-board state known as endgame. The entirety of a chess game is all a prelude to endgame.

“Chess is about getting to endgame,” says Moore. “What happens between the start and then doesn’t necessarily matter. You could lose more pieces or a more valuable piece, and at the end of the day, if you capture the opponent’s king, you win the game.”

Pattern recognition. Playing chess teaches you to recognize patterns: the tempting bishop sacrifice that actually led you into a trap, the queen swap that looked favorable but prevented you from castling. You play; you learn. Moore tells a story about how pattern recognition helped his business. In 2011 Moore and his team were trying to improve customer satisfaction. They worked from the assumption that one metric in particular—case

(continued)

A Framework for Training Transfer Chapter 8

backlog—was the best predictor of customer satisfaction. It seemed reasonable to assume that if you had low or zero backlog, your customers would be happy. “It turned out we were wrong,” says Moore. After 3 months of wandering through the weeds, Moore’s team realized that a better predictor of customer satisfaction was the time it took to respond to a customer request, combined with frequency of updates.

A great chess player has a deep awareness of each piece’s role on the board. A bishop has different abilities than a knight has, and its powers are expanded or limited by a board’s pawn structure. In some ways chess is a laboratory for human resources problems. “You have to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the team, of your employees,” says Moore. “You have to understand that the pawn has its role, and it’s a very important one, just as important as the queen, rook, or bishop. Every piece is critical, and the only way to win is to leverage all those pieces’ skill sets together.”

Source: Zax, D. (2013, February 19). Six strategy lessons from a former chess prodigy who’s now a CEO. Fast Company. Retrieved from http://www. fastcompany.com/3005989/innovation-agents/6-strategy-lessons-former-chess-prodigy-whos-now-ceo

Consider This 1. How did Moore draw on the pattern recognition in chess to solve his customer

service issue? 2. In what ways did the game of chess condition Moore to be proactive versus reactive? 3. What was the significance of Moore’s example of differentiating between soccer and chess?

Cognitive Theory of Transfer The cognitive theory of transfer is based on trainees’ ability to retrieve, manage, and deploy learned capabilities. For training design, the richer the connections between the skill and real-world knowledge, the better the chance of retrieval, and therefore, the better the likeli- hood of transfer (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Noe, 2012; Stolovitch & Keeps, 2011). Specifically, transfer is more probable if the trainees can see the potential applications of the training con- tent to their jobs; this idea is consistent with adult-learning principles set forth by Malcolm Knowles (Hafler, 2011; Knowles, 1973):

• Adults bring life experiences and knowledge to learning experiences. • Adults are goal oriented. • Adults are relevancy oriented. • Adults are practical.

As it relates to the cognitive methods of knowledge recall, the late educational psychologist Robert Gagné’s classic nine events of instruction (Gagné, 1965) is still used today (Gagné, Wager, Golas, & Keller, 2005; Romiszowski, 2013) in instructional design.

Table 8.3 summarizes how—after gaining the trainee’s attention (for example, level 1, reac- tion) and ensuring that the trainee is aware of the training objectives—stimulating recall of prerequisite learning is reinforced by subsequent events that ultimately lead to enhanced retention and transfer; learning processes include semantic encoding (learning in context), opportunities for reinforcement, and providing cues to assist in retrieval. As discussed in

http://www.fastcompany.com/3005989/innovation-agents/6-strategy-lessons-former-chess-prodigy-whos-now-ceo

A Framework for Training Transfer Chapter 8

Chapter 2, cues can include job aids, which can enhance transfer. Job aids can be used during actual performance of tasks; they give information that helps the trainee know what actions and decisions a specific task requires (Stolovitch & Keeps, 2011; Willmore, 2006).

Table 8.3: Gagné’s nine events of instruction

Instructional event Relation to learning process

1. Gaining attention Reception of patterns of neural impulses

2. Informing learner of the objective Activating a process of executive control

3. Stimulating recall of the prerequisite knowledge Retrieval of prior memory to working memory

4. Presenting the stimulus material Emphasizing features for selective perception

5. Providing learning guidance Semantic encoding; cues for retrieval

6. Eliciting the performance Activating response organization

7. Providing feedback about performance Establishing reinforcement

8. Assessing performance Activating retrieval; making reinforcement possible

9. Enhancing retention and transfer Providing cues and strategies for retrieval

Source: Adapted from Gagné, R. M. (1965). The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Self-Directed Learning Part of training design should include aspects of self- management, designing the training to use a trainee’s propensity and level for self-direction (Broad, 2005; Guglielmino, 2001; Noe, 2012; Rothwell & Sensenig, 1999; Saks, Haccoun, & Belcourt, 2010). Self-directed learning is the level of initiative in the trainee’s motivation to acquire the new ability and is linked to a trainee’s self-efficacy (Bijker, Van der Klink, & Boshuizen, 2010). Self- directed trainees are empowered to take more responsibility in their learning endeavors; as a result, self-directed trainees are more apt to transfer learning, in terms of both knowledge and skill, from one situation to another (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Guglielmino, 2001; Knowles et al., 2012). As described in Chapter 5, self-direction does not always equate to self-teaching; for example, for purposes of reinforcing transfer, a self-directed trainee may choose to be shown again how to do a task rather than self-teaching.

Work Environment

Training transfer has also been linked to the trainees’ perceptions about the work environ- ment (E). As discussed earlier and depicted here in Figure 8.2, this idea is consistent with the performance formula, whereby not only must E remain positive (+), but also perceptions about E must remain positive (+), as well.

For transfer to occur, the trainee must perceive that the work environment has a climate for transfer. A climate for training transfer includes factors such as level of supervisor sup- port, opportunities to practice trained tasks, and openness to change (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Blume, Ford, Baldwin, & Huang, 2010; Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993; Salas, Tannenbaum, Cohen, & Latham, 2013). Holton, Bates, and Ruona (2000) found specific variables that influenced

A Framework for Training Transfer Chapter 8

the transfer climate; these include supervisor support or sanctions, resistance or openness to change, levels of coaching or mentoring, and positive or negative personal outcomes (Holton, Bates, & Ruona, 2000). Peer support, too, was seen as a determinant of trainee transfer (Broad, 2000; Broad, 2005; Burke & Hutchins, 2008; Holton & Baldwin, 2003; Holton et al., 2000; Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993), although not any stronger than supervisor support (Van den Bossche, Segers, & Jansen, 2010). Table 8.4 lists frequencies of transfer categories.

Figure 8.2: Environment includes trainee perceptions

The organizational environment not only has to have an actual climate for training transfer, but the transfer-friendly environment must also be perceived by the employees.

f08.03_BUS375.ai

Transfer Ability

Perceived

Actual (climate for transfer)

Environment

Willingness

Performance = f(KSAs × M × E)

Source: Adapted from Blanchard, P. N., & Thacker, J. W. (2010). Effective training: Systems, strategies, and practices (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Table 8.4: Frequencies of transfer categories

Transfer factor Frequencey (%)

Transfer influences Learner characteristics Trainer characteristics Design and development Work environment

3 (2%) 8 (4%) 104 (46%) 112 (49%)

Time period Before During After Not time bound

28 (12%) 70 (31%) 74 (32%) 56 (25%)

Stakeholder support Trainee Trainer Supervisor Peer Organization

53 (23%) 109 (48%) 57 (25%) 2 (1%) 7 (3%)

Source: Burke & Hutchins, 2008. Note. Emergent factors are in italics. Transfer influences were coded as 1 = learner characteristics, 2 = trainer characteristics, 3 = design and development, 4 = not time bound; stakeholder support was coded as 1 = trainee, 2 = trainer, 3 = supervisor, 4 = peer, 5 = organization.

A Framework for Training Transfer Chapter 8

Food for Thought: Apply Transfer of Training

Practice some key ideas in transfer of training with Baylor University’s E-Learning Module: http://business.baylor.edu/knue/3345TOT.

Consider This 1. Using the cognitive theory of transfer, what would be some techniques that would

enhance transfer? 2. What would be examples of peer support in training transfer? 3. What is meant by the term intellectual capital as it relates to training transfer?

Trainees are also more motivated to transfer training when it is part of pursuing desirable outcomes or rewards (or to avoid undesirable outcomes). The value trainees place on such outcomes is known as valence, and the trainee’s belief that he or she will actually receive that outcome or reward when the performance expectation is met is known as instrumentality. This is part of the expectancy process theory of motivation (Vroom & Yetton, 1973) that influ- ences certain decisions that employees will make—in this case, transfer of the training.

Positive outcomes include not only extrinsic rewards such as salary increases and bonuses, but also intrinsic rewards such as opportunities for advancement and recognition (Broad, 2005; Holton & Baldwin, 2003; Holton et al., 2000, Vroom & Yetton, 1973).

On the Quality of Transfer: Negative and Positive

Not all transfer is equal, and when managing transfer, we need to consider two states:

• Positive transfer. Near and far transfer enables what is known as positive transfer. Positive transfer is when workplace performance improves due to the training. Posi- tive transfer is more likely when the trainee’s prior learning facilitates the trainee’s acquisition of the new learning or skills. For example, a trainee’s prior experience in learning an older inventory package expedites his or her learning procedures for using the newer package. This concept is consistent with Knowles’s principles of adult learning, where prior experience informs new learning (Knowles, 1973).

• Negative transfer. When the trainee performance worsens following the training, this is considered negative transfer. Specifically, negative transfer can happen when a trainee’s prior learning interferes with the acquisition of the new learning or skills. For example, users who switch from a BlackBerry phone, with its physical keyboard, to an iPhone, with its virtual keyboard, find it more difficult to type and text than users who are switching from a Samsung phone, which also has a virtual keyboard. This idea is consistent with Hedberg’s (1981) assertion that there are times, in fact, when adults have to unlearn ideas before new learning can occur.

Training transfer is not just a binary proposition. That is, we do not just evaluate whether or not transfer occurred (zero transfer is when we observe no change in the trainee’s KSAs).

http://business.baylor.edu/knue/3345TOT/

Accountability for Training Transfer Chapter 8

Specifically, we also must be mindful that new training may negatively affect the trainee, and the resulting performance not only may fail to improve but, in fact, may become worse than it was before the training.

8.2 Accountability for Training Transfer At the end of the (training) day, who is responsible for level 3’s training transfer? Is it the trainer, the trainee, or the trainee’s supervisor?

While there is no clear HRD-policy answer (Burke & Hutchins, 2008), many training scholars and practitioners have suggested a transfer trinity, or triad, consisting of the trainer, the trainee, and the manager (Blume et al., 2010; Haskell, 2001; Rummler & Brache, 1990); each one plays a role to ensure transfer success. (See Figure 8.3.) Others propose that management is ultimately responsible for ensuring transfer (Esque & McCausland, 1997), and still others place more on the trainer’s shoulders (Broad & Newstrom, 1992; Broad, 2005; Kopp, 2006). Here, trainers not only lead their training toward voluntary transfer, but also stimulate the transfer after the training event, including having trainers partner with supervisors and man- agers to support trainees in their new learning.

Figure 8.3: Training transfer trinity

Although there has been no consensus about who is ultimately accountable for the transfer of training (or, “where the transfer buck stops”), many in the field agree that a shared accountability exists between the trainer, trainee, and direct manager—the so-called training trinity.

f08.04_BUS375.ai

Direct Manager

Assessment training

reinforcement

Trainee Trainer

Source: Adapted from Coates, D. (2008). Enhance the transfer of training. Alexandria, VA: ASTD, p. 7.

Accountability for Training Transfer Chapter 8

Using diabetes education and training as a backdrop, Kopp (2006) specifically suggested that the trainer be primarily accountable for training transfer; he argued that trainers should take ownership of level 3, so that a distinction could be made between effective trainers and inef- fective ones. He viewed the trainer as individually necessary and jointly sufficient in training transfer. That is, although the trainer alone is not sufficient for (and does not guarantee) trans- fer, the trainer was fundamentally necessary—and it follows, therefore, that the trainer can- not be absolved of primary accountability. Burke and Saks (2009) seek commonality rather than a single-minded construct; they conclude that many stakeholders can (and should) be held accountable for transfer and the transfer-related activities that they can affect.

The Who, What, and When of Transfer

Broad’s and Newstrom’s (1992) extensive research on training transfer included assembling a panel of experts and—using a Delphi method in which the rankings from the experts are col- lated—the perceptions of roles in transfer strategies where given a final rank in every phase of transfer: before, during, and after (see Table 8.5). (Also see the Food for Thought feature box titled “Transfer Strategies,” which provides a link to a summary of Broad and Newstrom’s work.) One of their findings was that the most frequently used roles in transfer differed from the most influential roles in transfer during a given phase of transfer. For example, although the panel thought the manager had the most influential role before transfer (first), managers were actually ranked fifth in frequency of use before transfer.

Table 8.5: Frequency versus influence

Ranking—most frequently used roles in transfer

Before During After

Trainer (facilitator) 2 1 7

Manager 5 6 9

Learner 8 3 4

Ranking—most influential roles in transfer

Before During After

Trainer (facilitator) 2 4 8

Manager 1 9 3

Learner 7 5 6

Source: Adapted from Broad, M., & Newstrom, J. (1992). Transfer of training. Philadelphia, PA: Perseus Books.

For example, whereas the trainer was most frequently used in the total transfer process, the manager was thought to be the most influential in the transfer process, even given the man- ager’s limited role during the training. This finding was consistent with Burke and Hutchins’s (2008) more recent research, which confirmed that the role of trainers (48%) was more influ- ential than the role of supervisors (25%) during training transfer. In their study, Burke and Hutchins selected training professionals and practitioners who were members of a large met- ropolitan chapter of ASTD and asked about the suggested best practices for enhancing and bolstering training transfer.

Accountability for Training Transfer Chapter 8

Table 8.6 outlines recommended strategies and action items for each transfer agent.

Table 8.6: Actions items of transfer agents

Transfer agent Time period

Before During After

Manager Communicate that learn- ing is a prime organiza- tional objective.

Encourage full par- ticipation by ensuring trainee’s job is covered during the learning program.

Provide opportunities to practice and demon- strate new skills.

Trainer Provide clear descrip- tion and precourse information to trainee and manager.

Ensure good delivery. Provide follow-up con- sultation to maximize application.

Trainee Clear up daily activities prior to the learning program.

Participate actively and ask questions.

Discuss performance objectives and action plans with manager.

Source: Broad, 2000; Broad & Newstrom, 1992; Broad, 2005; Burke & Hutchins, 2008.

Food for Thought: Transfer Strategies

Listen to the Center for Corporate and Professional Development describe transfer strategies in every phase of transfer (before, during, and after): http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=cf2DoL4TDF4.

Consider This 1. How formalized should the responsibilities of manager, trainer, and trainee be prior to

the training? 2. Is there a case to be made that the process of transfer should be organic and not hard

coded? Why or why not? 3. Would the roles during transfer vary when it comes to informal or incidental learning?

Explain your reasoning.

Manager or supervisor support for applying new skills has consistently been found to be a key factor affecting the success of the transfer process (Broad, 2000; Broad, 2005; Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993). Specifically, a manager’s support and positive attitudes toward the trainee may result in opportunities to practice newly learned skills, whereas negative attitudes toward the trainee may cause the manager to assign unchallenging tasks that fail to allow the employee to practice newly learned skills.

In sum, a trainee’s manager may provide either more or fewer opportunities to perform newly learned skills (Broad & Newstrom, 1992; Ford, 2014; Hafler, 2011; Holton & Baldwin, 2003; Noe, 2012). Table 8.7 summarizes transfer support responsibility among the training transfer triad of manager, trainer, or trainee.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cf2DoL4TDF4

Barriers to Training Transfer Chapter 8

Table 8.7: Support per transfer agent

Support method Implementing agent

Establish explicit objectives Manager

Repetition of learning Trainee

Evaluation and feedback Manager

Use multiple examples Trainee

Trainee selection Manager

Supervisory support Manager

Cultivation of meaning in material Trainer and trainee

Source: Adapted from Cresswell, S. (2006). Practitioner guide to transfer of learning and training. Albany, NY: Rockefeller College of Public Affairs & Policy; Haskell, R. E. (2001). Transfer of learning: Cognition, instruction, and reasoning. Waltham, MA: Academic Press.

8.3 Barriers to Training Transfer Many potential barriers affect training transfer, and these barriers are more likely to be situ- ational, not dispositional; that is, these barriers affect the trainee but are not caused by the individual trainee (Broad & Newstrom, 1992; Burke & Hutchins, 2008; Noe, 2012). As part of their extensive research, Broad and Newstrom (1992) not only surveyed trainers and train- ees from a range of organizations to rank barriers to training transfer, they also evaluated a collection of organizational case studies—including their own at Saturn Corporation, an auto- maker subsidiary of General Motors, that described how transfer was obstructed or enhanced (see Table 8.8).

Table 8.8: Barriers to training transfer

Rank: Highest to lowest Organizational barrier

1 Lack of reinforcement on the job

2 Interference in the work environment

3 Nonsupportive organizational structure

4 Trainees view the training as impractical

5 Trainees view the training as irrelevant

6 Trainees’ discomfort with change

7 Trainees’ separation from trainer after training

8 Poor training design and/or delivery

9 Peer pressure against change

Source: Broad, M., & Newstrom, J. (1992). Transfer of training. Philadelphia, PA: Perseus Books. Reprinted with permission from the authors.

Barriers to Training Transfer Chapter 8

No factor was found to be more impactful than lack of reinforcement on the job, ranked the highest as an organizational barrier. Specifically, negative or inadequate responses from supervisors can diminish the trainee’s attempts at applying new skills to the job (Ford, 2014; Morrison, Ross, & Kalman, 2012; Wan, 2013. The second-ranked barrier, interference in the work environment, can occur when the trainee lacks the necessary equipment or information to apply the new learning; for example, an employee tries to use new videoconferencing but the remote link is slow or intermittently drops the line. Also, the supervisor’s opposition to, or rejection of, the use of new skills or failure to provide the trainee with opportunities to apply the new skills or knowledge is an example of a nonsupportive organizational structure, the third-ranked barrier to transfer (Bates & Davis, 2010; Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993).

According to Sales Performance International (2014), 55% of respondents listed a lack of posttraining implementation as one of the top weaknesses of sales training; when tested 5 weeks after training, participants in the sales training forgot half of what was taught. In sum, the top three barriers were lack of reinforcement, interference in the work environment, and a nonsupportive organization (Broad & Newstrom, 1992; Park, 2008).

Transfer of Training as Change Management

Transfer of training means changing employee behavior through the new training (that is, level 3); as a result, the potential exists for trainees to resist that change. Not surprisingly, resistance to change can be seen literally or symptomatically as all or part of other barri- ers presented—for example, peer pressure against change, trainees’ discomfort with change, not seeing the training as relevant or practical (Broad & Newstrom,1992). Consequently, one of the implications is that effective trainers, managers, and supervisors need to be effective change agents. One way to manage transfer is to frame it as an aspect of change management (Beer & Nohria, 2000; Broad & Newstrom, 1992; Connor, Lake, & Stackman, 2003; Laird, Naquin, & Holton, 2003; O’Toole, 2010).

Kurt Lewin, a renowned psychologist, is considered the father of social psychology; he stud- ied change from a group dynamics and organizational development point of view (Cummings & Worley, 2014). Lewin developed what is known as force-field analysis, a framework for looking at the factors (or forces) that influence situations. Force-field analysis evaluates the forces that are either driving the change (facilitators) or restraining the change (restrainers or barriers) (Cummings & Worley, 2014; Lewin, 1943). Simply put, from a training perspec- tive, if restrainers are more potent than drivers, then transfer most likely will not occur. Spe- cifically, for example, if the organizational culture is more unsupportive than not, or if peer pressure is greater than peer support, these factors will prove to be too dominant for transfer to take place, even if the trainee is willing and able. Likewise, with a supportive organizational environment, transfer may not be realized with a trainee who is unable or unwilling (see Figure 8.4).

Barriers to Training Transfer Chapter 8

Figure 8.4: Transfer as change management

One way to frame training transfer is to view it through a change management lens. Using Lewin’s force-field analysis, we can see why transfer does or does not occur, specifically as a function of driving forces and restraining forces.

f08.05_BUS375.ai

Positive reinforcement Negative reinforcement

Peer support Peer pressure

Effective training Poor training

Able Willing

Zero Transfer

Zero TransferPositive Transfer Negative Transfer

DRIVING FORCES Facilitators

RESTRAINING FORCES Barriers

SUPPORTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE UNSUPPORTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

Not able Not willing

Food for Thought: Apply Force-Field Analysis

This case study shows how Eastland Memorial Hospital implemented electronic health records (EHRs) and illustrates how driving forces (catalysts) and restraining forces (barriers) must be managed. The case study, titled “Overcoming the Top Five Barriers to EHR Implementation,” was coauthored by Ted Matthews, CEO of Eastland Memorial Hospital. It illustrates examples of barriers or restraining forces to training: http://www.prognosishis. com/pdf/Overcoming%20Barriers%20Whitepaper.pdf.

Consider This 1. What would be examples of driving forces in Eastland Memorial’s quest to change over to

EHRs? 2. What would be examples of restraining forces? 3. Describe what factors will dictate if driving forces are stronger than restrainers.

http://www.prognosishis.com/pdf/Overcoming%20Barriers%20Whitepaper.pdf

Transfer and the Learning Organization Chapter 8

8.4 Transfer and the Learning Organization Peter Senge, founding chair of the Society for Organizational Learning at the MIT Sloan School of Management, first coined the term learning organization. Senge (1990, 2010) defined a learning organization as an organization where people continually expand their capacity to create the desired results, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where there is collective aspiration, and where people are continually learning together. He contends that what specifically distinguishes a learning organization from a more traditional organization is the mastery of certain basic disciplines. The so-called five disciplines Senge identified are: personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning, and systems thinking (see Figure 8.5).

Figure 8.5: The learning organization

Management theorist Peter Senge proposed five characteristics that make up the learning organization. These key characteristics include personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning, and systems thinking.

f08.06_BUS375.ai

LEARNING ORGANIZATION

Team Learning

System s Th

in kin

g Pe

rso na

l M as

te ry Mental M

odels

Sh ar

ed V

is io

Source: Adapted from Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday; Senge, P. M. (2010). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Random House.

Studies have shown that a learning organization culture predicts a positive learning transfer climate (Alipour, Idris, & Karimi, 2011; Bates & Khasawneh, 2005) and, particularly, that a learning organization—through the transfer of training—improves its overall performance outcomes and facilitates an organization’s competitive advantage (Haskell, 2001; Park, 2008;

Transfer and the Learning Organization Chapter 8

Weldy, 2009). A learning organization is thought to be more effective in training transfer because it moves beyond simple employee training into organizational problem solving, innovation, and learning (Agbettor, 2013; Ford, 2014; Neirotti & Paolucci, 2013; Noe, 2012; Reed & Signorelli, 2011). Transfer of training is supported by each of the five disciplines as described by Senge:

• Personal mastery involves an individual’s ability to know what he or she wants and the desire to work toward that goal. A learning organization creates an environment in which members can develop themselves toward goals and purposes; transfer of training encourages expertise seeking of KSAs (Ackerman, Vokmar, & Volker, 2002).

• Mental models are the employee’s internal worldview or paradigm. Learning orga- nizations are based on holistic paradigms; that is, the organization is thought to be a living, breathing organism because it is filled with living, breathing organisms (Boje, 1991; Hassard, 1995). Therefore, in a holistic paradigm, the focus is on the process of transfer, not just the transfer itself.

• Shared vision is building a sense of commitment in an organization by develop- ing shared images of the future. This process includes developing the principles and guiding practices used to reach the goal. With respect to training transfer, organiza- tions create shared vision by involving trainees in setting goals and training outcomes (Carter, Ulrich, & Goldsmith, 2012; Smith-Jentsch, Salas, & Brannick, 2001).

• Team learning is geared toward developing collective thinking skills. These skills enable members of a group to reliably develop intelligence and abilities greater than the sum of the individual members’ talents. Transfer should be framed in the context of individual performance, team performance, and ultimately, organizational perfor- mance (Lee, Bond, Scarbrough, Gillan, & Cooke, 2007).

• Systems thinking is a way of thinking about and understanding the forces and interrelationships that shape the behavior of systems. This mode of thinking helps organizations see how to change the systems more effectively by error detecting and correcting (Argyris, 1999). If we look at transfer as part of the ADDIE system of training, we can assist transfer by better understanding the ADDIE subsystem, with its interrelationships and linkages.

Did You Know? Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization

Can you have one without the other? As the metaphor in Figure 8.6 depicts, organizational learning is a process that works within the learning organization’s structure.

In the long run, you cannot have one without the other. Organizational learning initiatives, such as new training programs or new interventions, will “die on the vine” if a learning organization fails to support them. Likewise, simply claiming to be a learning organization is not enough; if no organizational learning is occurring inside, the house will implode.

Transfer and the Learning Organization Chapter 8

Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization

As Figure 8.6 illustrates, organizational learning and the learning organization are not meant to be synonymous. In a transfer context, organizational learning is a process that includes training transfer (Dermol & Cater, 2013). Within the process of organizational learning, train- ing transfer is facilitated by organizational members who are committed to sharing, dia- loguing, and problem solving. The learning organization is the structure—built on personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning, and systems thinking—where those processes can take place (Gorelick, 2005; Senge, 1990, 2010).

Figure 8.6: The learning organization and organizational learning

One way to illustrate the relationship between organizational learning and the learning organization is to use the house metaphor. Think of a learning organization as a structure itself, or house, and organizational learning as the active processes that occur within the house.

f08.07_BUS375.ai

Organizational Learning

Personal mastery • Mental models • Shared vision • Team learning • Systems thinking

Le ar

nin g Organization

Summary and Resources Chapter 8

HRD in Practice: Effectively Trained … Doughnuts!

As the last employee left the room, Jason began to review the workshop evaluations; he suspected it was a hit.

“Yes! All 4s and 5s!” He smiled. “Good deal.” Jason gathered up the evaluations; he then energetically walked to the office of his supervisor, Bob Haskin.

“Bob?”

“Hey Jas … come on in, how’d the training go?”

“It went great, man … just skimming through the evaluations. Mostly 4s out of 5—even some 5s out of 5! They loved it! All the jokes worked, and thankfully, the air-conditioning came on today!” Jason said, snickering.

“Never mind that—did they like the doughnuts and coffee?” Bob chuckled.

“I think so! Not one doughnut survived!”

“Well, good job, Jason. Now we can check off Sexual Harassment Training from this year’s training list. Only four more subjects to go. Remember, if we don’t use these funds, we lose ’em! What is the next topic again?”

“Team building,” Jason confidently replied.

“Great. Make sure you order extra doughnuts!” Bob and Jason shared a laugh and a high five.

Consider This 1. Is Bob Haskin’s comment regarding receiving training funds—if we do not use them, we

lose them—unreasonable? 2. In what way is Jason being short-sighted regarding the success of the training today? 3. Given Jason’s focus on the training amenities, what do you think he would have done if

the ratings were 2s and 3s instead of 4s and 5s?

Summary and Resources Chapter Summary

• The framework for training transfer includes describing the trainee characteristics of willingness and ability, as well as considering the training design and work environ- ment. Within the training design, two particular theories of transfer are the theories of identical elements and cognitive theory. Overall, assessment of training transfer can be defined as positive, negative, or zero.

• Determining who is responsible for training transfer, the so-called level 3, is impor- tant. Some point out that responsibility for transfer is based on a team effort, includ- ing the trainee, trainer, and supervisor; others believe that although many variables influence transfer, final accountability should lie with the trainer.

• Understanding and managing the barriers to training transfer is important, and lack of reinforcement is usually the number one barrier to transfer. Using the change

Summary and Resources Chapter 8

management framework of force-field analysis assists in organizing the driving and restraining forces of transfer.

• Studies have shown that a learning organization culture predicts a positive learning transfer climate and, particularly, that a learning organization—through the transfer of training—improves its overall performance outcomes and facilitates an organiza- tion’s competitive advantage. A learning organization is thought to be more effective in training transfer because it moves beyond simple employee training into organiza- tional problem solving, innovation, and learning.

Posttest 1. Transfer of training that occurs automatically is known as .

a. high-road transfer b. low-road transfer c. far transfer d. stimulated transfer

2. An employee participated in a workplace training about developing leadership skills. He later was able to use what he learned not only in his job role, but also in his role of coach for his daughter’s soccer team. This is an example of . a. stimulated transfer b. near transfer c. far transfer d. low-road transfer

3. According to , transfer is dependent on trainee perceptions of the learning’s real-world relevance. a. cognitive theory b. stimulus generation theory c. the theory of identical elements d. transfer potential theory

4. Some researchers have argued that trainers should be primarily responsible for trans- fer of training . a. because trainers’ support of and positive attitudes toward trainees result in

chances to practice new skills b. because effective trainers can be distinguished from ineffective trainers c. because though they might not be the most used role in transfer, trainers are the most influential role

d. because it will encourage trainers to use best practices and follow ethical codes of conduct

5. In a survey of training professionals, what was considered best practice for managers during the training period? a. communicating the importance of learning so that employees take it seriously b. providing ample opportunities for the trainee to practice skills and discuss per-

formance objectives

Summary and Resources Chapter 8

c. providing consultations to ensure that employees are maximizing application of learning

d. having the trainee’s job covered during the training so the trainee can fully participate

6. Interference in the work environment is a barrier to training transfer that occurs when . a. supervisors oppose or reject the use of new skills b. trainees do not have the information or equipment necessary to apply their new

learning c. trainees believe the training is impractical or irrelevant and are reluctant to apply

it on the job d. employees have discomfort with change or face peer pressure against change

7. The theory that change in an organization depends on the relative power of change facilitators versus change barriers is called . a. force-field analysis b. change management framework c. the expectancy process theory d. the developmental point of view

8. What adjective best describes the mental models on which learning organizations are based? a. result oriented b. static c. holistic d. specialized

9. How can organizations best create a shared vision for training transfer? a. Include trainees in the process of establishing training outcomes and goals. b. Detect and correct errors in the training system. c. Work to change employees’ internal worldviews or paradigms. d. Strive to deliver training in-house rather than outsourcing to third-party trainers.

10. Which of the following most accurately describes the relationship between organiza- tional learning and the learning organization? a. For almost all purposes, the two are synonymous. b. The integrated learning organization is the end result of management’s focus on

organizational learning. c. Organizational learning can exist without the learning organization, but not vice

versa. d. The learning organization is the structure within which organizational learning

takes place.

Summary and Resources Chapter 8

Assess Your Learning: Critical Reflection 1. Explain how zero transfer may be the combined outcome of positive and negative

transfer in a training setting. 2. Describe specific scenarios in which a trainee has learned something (level 2) but

is unwilling to apply it to the workplace (level 3). What can be done about a trainee dynamic of able but not willing?

3. Explain the idea that an organization cannot just claim it is a learning organization; it must operate in specific ways. Give examples of what organizations must do.

4. Give examples of near and far transfer. In what ways can near transfer compromise far transfer? Does it matter if this happens?

5. What is meant by the concept of the trainer being necessary and/or sufficient for transfer to occur?

6. What would be an example of converting a restraining force to a driving force as it relates to training transfer?

7. Explain how unconscious competence (automaticity) facilitates near transfer.

Additional Resources Web Resources

For more reading on the transfer solutions in transfer of learning background: http://ucsf hr.ucsf.edu/index.php/training/article/transfer_of_learning_a_guide_for_ strengtheningsupervisory_performance

For more information on self-directed learning: www.selfdirectedlearning.org

For more explanation of error detecting and correcting in organizational learning by Chris Argyris: http://hbr.org/1977/09/double-loop-learning-in-organizations/ar/1

For more information on Peter Senge’s learning organization: http://infed.org/mobi/peter- senge-and-the-learning-organization and http://www.slideshare.net/Yuvarajah/ cdocuments-and-settingsyuvadesktoplearning-org

For more information on Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership: http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_44.htm#

For information on types of transfer—near versus far, high road versus low road, and others: http://www.udel.edu/dssep/transfer/definitions_of_trasfer.htm and http://www.utexas.edu/courses/svinicki/ald320/transexamp.html

More on cognitive theory of transfer: http://www.csulb.edu/~dkumrow/conference/learning_theory.html

For more on Robert Gagné’s classic nine events of instruction: http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/learning/id/nine_step_id.html

For more on transfer of training: http://www.silega.com/index.php?option= com_content&view=article&id=51&Itemid=82

For Kurt Lewin’s force-field analysis: http://www.change-management-coach.com/force- field-analysis.html

http://ucsfhr.ucsf.edu/index.php/training/article/transfer_of_learning_a_guide_for_strengtheningsupervisory_performance/

http://www.selfdirectedlearning.org

http://hbr.org/1977/09/double-loop-learning-in-organizations/ar/1

http://infed.org/mobi/peter-senge-and-the-learning-organization/

http://www.slideshare.net/Yuvarajah/cdocuments-and-settingsyuvadesktoplearning-org

http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_44.htm

http://www.udel.edu/dssep/transfer/definitions_of_trasfer.htm

http://www.utexas.edu/courses/svinicki/ald320/transexamp.html

http://www.csulb.edu/~dkumrow/conference/learning_theory.html

http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/learning/id/nine_step_id.html

http://www.silega.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51&Itemid=82

http://www.change-management-coach.com/force-field-analysis.html

Summary and Resources Chapter 8