Transfer of Training - Human Resources/Psychology

Original Article

Transfer of Leadership Skills The Influence of Motivation to Transfer

and Organizational Support in Managerial Training

Franziska Franke and Jörg Felfe

Organizational Psychology, Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg, Germany

Abstract. The successful transfer of managerial skills acquired in training is important for organizational performance. As leadership skills are complex, it is highly demanding to learn these skills and to apply them in practice. Therefore, motivation to transfer and organizational support are important determinants of transfer particularly in managerial training. The present study examined the lagged effect of motivation to transfer and organizational support on the leaders’ behavior right after training and 1 year later. As expected, motivation to transfer and organizational support predict behavioral transfer immediately after training and 1 year later. Moreover, behavioral transfer after the training predicts job performance 1 year later.

Keywords: managerial training, transfer, motivation to transfer, organizational support

Organizations make large investments in trainings in order to benefit from the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) their employees acquire in the trainings (Combs, Liu, Hall, & Ketchen, 2006). It is, however, the extent to which the KSAs are transferred to the job and lead to substantial changes in work performance that constitutes a beneficial training (Blume, Ford, Baldwin, & Huang, 2010). Regard- ing managerial training, transfer means the extent to which trainees display desired leadership behaviors they have learned in the training (e.g., goal-setting, feedback, time management) on the job more frequently after training (Tracey, Tannenbaum, & Kavanagh, 1995). It is particularly managerial training that has the potential to add benefit when it leads to behavioral changes in the trained managers and their followers (Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996; Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002; Theorell, Erndad, Arnetz, & Weingarten, 2001). Although managerial educa- tion is critical for success in today’s organizations (Kutschera & Byrd, 2005), there is skepticism about the effectiveness of leadership-development programs. Meta-analyses revealed low effect sizes (Collins & Holton, 2004; Powell & Yalcin, 2010) suggesting that ‘‘there may not have been a significant improvement in the effectiveness of managerial training’’ (Powell & Yalcin, 2010, p. 235). Therefore, research needs to put greater attention on determinants of positive transfer in managerial trainings.

There is a vast body of research on individual (e.g., cog- nitive ability), situational (e.g., social support), and training design factors (e.g., goal-setting) that increase transfer effec- tiveness (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Burke & Hutchins, 2007; Schaper, 2004). These studies refer to employee training rather than managerial training. However, leadership tasks usually are more complex and varying than those of employees (Dragoni, Tesluk, Russell, & Oh, 2009). Yelon

and Ford (1999) call skills necessary to fulfill such tasks open skills, oppositely to closed skills. Closed skills refer to skills which need to be produced exactly the same way in the work environment as in the training (e.g., computer skills), whereas open skills refer to principles and guidelines which give orientation but need to be adapted to the specific transfer context (e.g., conflict management). As Salas, Milham, and Bowers (2003) pointed out, open skills are more difficult to train, require higher cognitive efforts (e.g., reflection), and a more supportive context to enable transfer. As a result, an immediate, successful application and short-term reinforcement for transfer are unlikely (Blume et al., 2010). Therefore, we argue that particularly the transfer of leadership skills depends on the trainees’ motivation to meet the requirements, overcome setbacks, and persevere transferring in the long term. Furthermore, organizations, which actively encourage and enable trainees to use trained principles on the job, are more likely to foster transfer and to benefit from behavioral change. Therefore, we argue that organizational support is a second crucial aspect for successful transfer.

There is already some support that managerial trainees who report a high motivation to learn, a related motivational concept, are likely to transfer more than trainees who report low motivation to learn (Facteau, Dobbins, Russell, Ladd, & Kudisch, 1995; Switzer, Nagy, & Mullins, 2005). In addi- tion, previous research has found evidence on organizational climate to enhance transfer of managerial skills (Cromwell & Kolb, 2004; D’Netto, Bakas, & Bordia, 2008; Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993; Tracey et al., 1995).

However, all of these studies (except D’Netto et al., 2008) considered trainees, who (a) came from one company (e.g., supermarket, university), (b) learned leadership skills particularly relevant for that company (e.g., customer

Journal of Personnel Psychology 2012; Vol. 11(3):138–147 DOI: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000066

� 2012 Hogrefe Publishing

T hi

s do

cu m

en t i

s co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or o

ne o

f i ts

a lli

ed p

ub lis

he rs

. T

hi s

ar tic

le is

in te

nd ed

s ol

el y

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

relations, empowerment of university staff), and (c) took part in trainings of a relatively short duration from three days up to a few weeks. Thus, findings of these specific trainings and companies are difficult to compare. Further- more, since leadership skills are more difficult to train (com- pared to closed skills), it can be questioned whether such relatively short interventions provide enough opportunities for learning, reflecting, and thinking about transfer chal- lenges (Blume et al., 2010).

The present study was conducted to determine the effects of motivation to transfer and organizational support on behavioral transfer with regard to leadership skills. Doing this, our study makes three important contributions to the existing literature: First, to our knowledge, this is the first study that examines the influence of motivation to transfer and organizational support on behavioral transfer in mana- gerial trainings simultaneously. Thereby, we contribute to the understanding of transfer with regard to the generaliz- ability across types of trainings (open vs. closed skills) and trainees (employee vs. managerial training).

Second, we follow a more general approach to leader- ship training as we evaluate a non-sector-specific and extra-occupational leadership-development program. Train- ees from a variety of industries and companies took part in this program. Thereby, we overcome weaknesses of pre- vious studies regarding their generalizability across sectors, companies, and occupations.

Third, we pay attention to the time span between the end of the training and the transfer measure. Independent variables and transfer outcomes were often gathered at the same time (e.g., D’Netto et al., 2008; Facteau et al., 1995) or with only a few weeks in between (e.g., Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993; Switzer et al., 2005). This relatively short time span has been criticized because it neglects the time required for an effective transfer (Taylor, Russ- Eft, & Taylor, 2009), which is particularly true for open skills like leadership skills. ‘‘Although it is not clear what the best time frame is for measuring transfer following training, a good strategy is probably to have a short-term and long-term measure’’ (Gaudine & Saks, 2004, p. 61). Previous studies mostly did not pay sufficient attention to the time span what might explain inconsistent findings (Blume et al., 2010; Chen & Ho, 2001). We address this issue by gathering data immediately after training (T1) and 1 year later (T2).

Figure 1 summarizes the predictions of the study. In the following section, we outline our theoretical model and derive our hypotheses.

Motivation to Transfer

Motivation to transfer is described as the trainee’s desire to utilize skills learned in a training setting to his or her job environment (Noe, 1986). Regarding training context, expectancy theory (Lawler, 1973) suggests that trainees con- sider the utility of training for a desired outcome. They decide to attend the training, spend effort, and persist to attempt using new skills when they expect to improve job

performance and believe that the new skills help to solve work-related problems (Noe & Schmitt, 1986).

In line with this argumentation, studies on employee training have shown motivation to transfer to be positively associated with transfer (e.g., Axtell, Maitlis, & Yearta, 1997; Chiaburu, Van Dam, & Hutchins, 2010; Nijman, Nijhof, Wognum, & Veldkamp, 2006). In the field of mana- gerial trainings little is known about the effects of motivation to transfer. However, there is some evidence that the related construct motivation to learn is linked to transfer in manage- rial training (Facteau et al., 1995; Switzer et al., 2005).

Thus, we hypothesize motivation to transfer to be posi- tively related to the improvement of leadership behavior. Although transfer after the training is a considerable success, its benefit is limited if it ends after a few months (Gaudine & Saks, 2004). Therefore, successful transfer should be obser- vable also 1 year after training. Consequently, we postulate a positive relationship between motivation to transfer and leadership behavior 1 year after training (T2).

Hypothesis 1: Motivation to transfer (T1) is positively related to leadership behavior at T1 and T2.

Organizational Support

We further expect that the transfer of leadership principles depends on whether organizations provide their trainees with opportunities and support to do so. In general, organi- zational transfer climate is defined as environment factors which encourage the use of KSAs learned in training on the job (Baldwin & Ford, 1988). These include organiza- tions’ actions signaling whether training is important as well as actions offering the amount of control, time, or decision latitude they need (Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992). Given the trainees being leaders, role models for the desired leadership behavior are another important aspect. Role models within the organization provide orientation on which behaviors are likely to be rewarded and serve as cues to remember the use of new skills (Luthans & Kreitner, 1985; Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993). Therefore, we define organizational

Motivation to transfer

Organizational support

Leadership behavior

Leadership behavior

Perceived job performance

time T1 T2

Figure 1. Research model on transfer of leadership behavior and its determinants (with relationships con- trolled for age, sex, professional position, tenure, and satisfaction with examination results).

F. Franke & J. Felfe: Behavioral Transfer in Managerial Training 139

� 2012 Hogrefe Publishing Journal of Personnel Psychology 2012; Vol. 11(3):138–147

T hi

s do

cu m

en t i

s co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or o

ne o

f i ts

a lli

ed p

ub lis

he rs

. T

hi s

ar tic

le is

in te

nd ed

s ol

el y

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

support as the extent to whether the organization appreciates training participation, provides opportunities to use new skills as well as role models for the acquired leadership skills.

In line with social exchange theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), the trainee’s perception of the organization support- ing transfer is likely to enhance the trainee’s wish to recip- rocate these efforts. The trainee, then, might be more willing to apply new skills on the job and show the desired leadership behavior. According to social-cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997), role models for the desired leadership behavior are likely to be imitated in order to gain anticipated reinforcement. Thus, trainees who have role models for the desired leadership behavior might show more transfer than trainees who have not.

Previous research on employee training indicated that these aspects of organizational support are meaningful (e.g., Lim & Morris, 2006; Noe & Wilk, 1993; Saks, Uggerslev, & Fassina, 2007). In managerial training, trans- fer of leadership skills was shown to be positively related to a supportive organizational climate (Cromwell & Kolb, 2004; D’Netto et al., 2008; Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993; Tracey et al., 1995). Thus, we hypothesize that organiza- tional support is associated with higher transfer.

Hypothesis 2: Organizational support (T1) is posi- tively related to leadership behavior at T1 and T2.

Leadership Behavior and Job Performance

The investments of organizations in training do not always pay off in behavioral change and productivity improve- ments. Therefore, it is necessary to observe the transfer over a considerable period of time but also to link transfer to more distal outcomes. According to Kirkpatrick (1998), suc- cessful transfer can be associated with improvements in organizational results which ‘‘could take myriad forms including sales quotas met, cost reductions, increased employee retention or satisfaction, and any number of sys- tem outcomes’’ (Powell & Yalcin, 2010, p. 230). Trainees who show the desired leadership behavior more frequently after training (e.g., goal-setting, feedback) are likely to increase their own performance as well as their followers’ outcomes (e.g., follower job satisfaction or team perfor- mance, Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004). Thus, we considered performance on different levels: team-related performance (e.g., follower satisfaction), position-related performance (e.g., income), and the leaders’ perceptions of their standing as leaders (personal growth). We assume that leaders’ self- efficacy regarding their leadership role is fostered due to training and might lead to a perception of personal growth. Assuming that these performance improvements take time, we hypothesize that showing desired leadership behavior shortly after training is associated with increased job perfor- mance 1 year later.

Hypothesis 3: Leadership behavior at T1 is positively related to team-related performance, position-related performance, and personal growth at T2.

Methods

Sample

Of the 591 German-speaking leaders, who took part in the leadership-development training, we obtained 241 surveys with usable data at T1 (response rate of 41%) and 115 at T2 1 year later (response rate 19%). For 69 trainees, both measurement points could be matched. Thus, a total of 69 participants provided data on all scales.

There are several reasons that may explain the low response rates. Nonrespondents include many leaders who could not respond due to wrong addresses, overfilled mail- boxes, or spam filters. Nondelivery reports or envelopes returned to sender provide indication in this regard: At T1 15% and at T2 even 25% of the distributed surveys failed to reach the addressee. Another reason for nonresponse might be that the survey was completed during leisure time. Additionally, trainees were asked for their names to match the measurement points. However, asking for such objec- tionable questions lowers response (Dillman, Sinclair, & Clark, 1993). Moreover, the commitment to the training institute may have decreased after 1 year.

According to Krosnick (1999) and Dillman et al. (1993), low return rates are not biasing when respondent character- istics do not systematically differ from nonrespondents. Therefore, we compared the studied sample and the overall population of leaders who took part in the training. We were provided with demographic variables (age, sex, place of residence) and examination results of this overall sample. As can be seen in Table 1, no differences in the results of the practical examination are found. However, participants of our sample are older on average and yielded better results in the written examination than the overall population, albeit both differences are small. Thus, age and examination results are considered as control variables in the analyses. Furthermore (not reported in Table 1), there were no differ- ences in sex (v2(1) = 2.93, p = .09) and place of residence (v2(9) = 10.91, p = .28).

Although differences point to possible difficulties in the interpretation of results, the generalizability of the studied sample can be estimated more appropriately when compar- isons are made with regard to study variables. Thus, we compared the study sample with the population of respon- dents who only responded at T1. This comparison revealed no significant differences (except one for age, Table 1). Par- ticipants had similar ratings in motivation to transfer, orga- nizational support, and leadership behavior at T1.

In sum, despite small differences in age and written examination results, the comparison of study variables justi- fied to assume similarity of the sample and (parts of the) population. The 69 participants worked in different indus- tries: About 33% of the participants were employed in the

140 F. Franke & J. Felfe: Behavioral Transfer in Managerial Training

Journal of Personnel Psychology 2012; Vol. 11(3):138–147 � 2012 Hogrefe Publishing

T hi

s do

cu m

en t i

s co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or o

ne o

f i ts

a lli

ed p

ub lis

he rs

. T

hi s

ar tic

le is

in te

nd ed

s ol

el y

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

logistic sector, 13% in the financial sector, 9% in education, 7% each in health care and manufacture, less than 6% each in trade, telecommunication, and administration (13% in other industries).

Evaluation Design

The leadership-development program, which was evaluated in Switzerland, is an extra-occupational training of leader- ship and management skills (i.e., skills regarding interper- sonal relations, procedural, and instrumental leadership). The trainees work in a variety of organizations and indus- tries (e.g., logistics, finances, health care) and it is a precon- dition for participation to already hold a leadership position. After trainees have completed all modules, they have to pass written and practical examinations. Most of the trainees complete the program in 2 years.

A post-training and follow-up evaluation design was employed because pre-training measures could not be obtained from participating trainees. Due to the duration of training (approximately 2 years) and budget restrictions, we also forwent a control group. A more pragmatically useful evaluation procedure as ours was recommended (Bamberger, Rugh, Church, & Fort, 2004; Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001) because training evaluations with a randomly assigned experimental and control groups are usu- ally seen as disruptive and expensive (Frese, Beimel, & Schoenborn, 2003), particularly in the field of managerial training. Post-training ratings (T1) were gathered within 1 month after finishing the training, the follow-up ratings 1 year later (T2). This design enables us to examine whether trainees apply the leadership skills they have after training (T1) in their workplace in the longer run (T2). Of course, it would be possible that trainees have already had leader- ship competences before the training or that they have

already applied acquired skills in their workplace during the 2 years of training. Nevertheless, it is of particular importance to consider behavioral change and the influenc- ing conditions after the training has passed. With the train- ing contents and first transfer experiences in mind, trainees may assess more realistically how willing they are to apply these contents and how much support they can get from their organization with regard to the specific training. Con- sequently, we argue for the appropriateness of the post-train- ing assessment of the determinants of transfer success.

Procedure

Trainees were contacted within 1 month after finishing the program. They were informed that participation was volun- tary and anonymous. Questionnaires were distributed directly to the respondents. At T1, participants rated motiva- tion to transfer, organizational support, and their current leadership behavior (T1). One year later, they rated their leadership behavior (T2) again as well as their job perfor- mance. In order to motivate participation in the follow-up survey, among those who took part twice, 10 book tokens (of 50 Swiss Franc each) were drawn.

Measures

The selection of measures was based on existing instru- ments, training material, and in-depth interviews conducted at the beginning of the evaluation process with leadership experts as well as trainees with transfer experience. In order to check the respective factor structure, we applied explor- atory factor analyses using principal component analysis with varimax rotation.1 Scales developed by the authors are displayed in the appendix.

Table 1. Comparison of the studied sample with the population of trainees and the population of T1 respondents (t-test for independent samples)

Studied sample (N = 69)

Population of trainees, exclusive of the study sample (N = 522)

Population of T1 participants, exclusive of the study sample

(N = 172)

M SD M SD t (df) M SD t (df)

Demographic variables Age 39.61 6.78 37.04 6.70 �2.84* (248) 37.46 6.87 �2.19* (236) Result written examination 4.36 0.47 4.09 0.67 �2.86* (589) 4.30 0.49 �0.65 (239) Result practical examination 4.54 0.68 4.34 0.72 �1.90 (587) 4.46 0.66 �0.86 (238)

Study variables Motivation to transfer 3.16 0.81 – – – 3.03 0.81 �1.08 (227) Organizational support 4.04 0.55 – – – 4.13 0.54 0.61 (236) Leadership behavior (T1) 3.82 0.56 – – – 3.78 0.50 �0.36 (228)

Note. Data on the study variables were not available for the overall sample, *p < .05.

1 Because of the small sample size additional factor analyses were conducted. The factor structure of motivation to transfer, organizational support, and leadership behavior (T1) was retested in the sample of T1-respondents (N = 241). The factor structure of leadership behavior (T2) and job performance (T2) was retested in the sample of T2-respondents (N = 115). These analyses revealed similar results.

F. Franke & J. Felfe: Behavioral Transfer in Managerial Training 141

� 2012 Hogrefe Publishing Journal of Personnel Psychology 2012; Vol. 11(3):138–147

T hi

s do

cu m

en t i

s co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or o

ne o

f i ts

a lli

ed p

ub lis

he rs

. T

hi s

ar tic

le is

in te

nd ed

s ol

el y

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

Motivation to transfer was assessed by six items of the Noe and Schmitt (1986) scale. The items were translated and partly adapted to the current training (e.g., ‘‘I am deter- mined that I will use and apply as much as possible of what I have learned in the training’’). The factor analysis revealed a single factor accounting for 45% of the variance with load- ings greater than .45. Cronbach’s a was .71, which is slightly higher than the estimate reported by Noe and Wilk (1993).

Organizational support was assessed by five items devel- oped by the authors (see appendix). The items regarding interest in the training, opportunities to use skills, and role modeling loaded on one factor that accounted for 48% of the variance. Loadings were at least .44. The internal consis- tency was .72. Both measures were anchored on a 5-point scale from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (completely true).

Transfer was conceptualized as the frequency of display- ing desired leadership behavior trained in the program (Tracey et al., 1995). It was measured by nine items reflect- ing the leadership behaviors that most evidently represent the skills learned. The items (see appendix) were rated for T1 (‘‘now’’) and T2 (‘‘since finishing the program’’). All items were completed on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very often). The factor analyses revealed a single factor accounting for 44% of the variance (load- ings > .42) in T1 and a single factor accounting for 40% of the variance (loadings > .31) in T2. Internal consistencies were .83 (T1) and .81 (T2), respectively.

Job performance was assessed by self-report ratings (see appendix). Instead of general performance measures, the items were formulated concretely (e.g., ‘‘. . . I am responsi- ble for a higher amount of staff’’) in order to receive ratings as realistic as possible. The 14 items contain team-related aspects (e.g., follower satisfaction), personal growth (e.g., stress resistance), and position-related aspects (e.g., income). The factor analysis revealed three factors accounting for an overall variance of 68%. The first factor comprises five posi- tion-related items (42%), the second factor (14%) six per- sonal-growth items, and the third factor three team-related items (12%). Loadings were greater than .66 on the respec- tive factor. Internal consistency of the performance measures was .87 (position-related), .85 (personal growth), and .77 (team-related). Participants rated the items on a 5-point scale from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (completely true), reflecting dif- ferent degrees of improvement.

Control Variables

In addition to age and examination results, organizational tenure was considered because organizational support might be higher the longer trainees are working in the company. Trainees have received the invitation to the survey after their examination results. Therefore, we also controlled for satis- faction with the results because trainees, who are not satis- fied with their grades, might express more negative judgments than satisfied trainees.

Results

Means, standard deviations, and correlations of all variables are presented in Table 2. For hypotheses testing, hierarchical regression analyses were conducted. In all analyses, age, tenure, professional position, examination grades, and satis- faction with the examination results were considered as con- trol variables. We did not control for sex because it is not correlated with the study variables.

H1 and H2 postulated positive associations between motivation to transfer, organizational support, and leadership behavior. As can be seen in Table 2, motivation to transfer is positively correlated with leadership behavior at T1 (r = .42, p < .001) and T2 (r = .46, p < .001), respectively. Organi- zational support is positively related to leadership behavior at T1 (r = .36, p < .001) and T2 (r = .37, p < .001), respec- tively (see Table 2). The hierarchical regression analyses confirm these results (see Table 3). They show post-training leadership behavior (T1) to be positively related with moti- vation to transfer (b = .37, p < .01) and support (b = .40, p < .01). As hypothesized, also the lagged effect on leader- ship behavior 1 year after the training can be shown (moti- vation to transfer: b = .32, p < .05, support: b = .30, p < .05). Thus, H1 and H2 can be supported.

H3 addressed the lagged effect of leadership behavior on trainees’ perceived job performance 1 year later. As can be seen in Table 4, leadership behavior (T1) is positively related to all performance measures: subordinate perfor- mance (b = .29, p < .05), personal growth (b = .30, p < .05), and position-related performance (b = .34, p < .05). That means, the more desired leadership behavior trainees displayed at T1, the better they rated their own and their team’s performance as well as their personal standing as leaders 1 year later. Thus, H3 can be supported.

Discussion

Given that recent meta-analyses paint a somewhat bleak pic- ture about effectiveness of managerial training (Collins & Holton, 2004; Powell & Yalcin, 2010), the aim of the pres- ent study was to examine whether motivation to transfer and organizational support influence the transfer of leadership skills. Furthermore, the link between behavioral transfer and job performance 1 year after training was considered (Figure 1).

As expected, motivation to transfer and organizational support are related to behavioral transfer shortly after train- ing (T1) and 1 year later (T2). Managerial trainees who are motivated to transfer the learned skills on their job and per- ceive their company to enable them to do so are more likely to engage in the desired leadership behavior. The positive effect of motivation to transfer supports findings in employee trainings (Axtell et al., 1997; Chiaburu et al., 2010). Furthermore, it extends findings regarding manage- rial training showing that besides motivation to learn

142 F. Franke & J. Felfe: Behavioral Transfer in Managerial Training

Journal of Personnel Psychology 2012; Vol. 11(3):138–147 � 2012 Hogrefe Publishing

T hi

s do

cu m

en t i

s co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or o

ne o

f i ts

a lli

ed p

ub lis

he rs

. T

hi s

ar tic

le is

in te

nd ed

s ol

el y

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

motivation to transfer is also an important determinant of behavioral transfer (Facteau et al., 1995; Switzer et al., 2005). In addition, the positive effect of organizational sup- port is consistent with past research in managerial training (Cromwell & Kolb, 2004; D’Netto et al., 2008; Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993; Tracey et al., 1995). Thus, in line with previous studies, our findings provide further evidence that transferring open skills, in particular, depends on whether trainees are motivated to invest effort in applying new skills into their daily routines and whether they perceive their organizations to be interested in and to provide opportunities and cues for transfer.

Furthermore, these findings add to the discussion of the time span between the end of training and the transfer mea- sure. While one might expect decreasing effects the later the transfer measure is assessed (e.g., learning decay), one can also assume increasing effects due to more opportunities for applying new skills and for observing behavioral changes (Blume et al., 2010; Taylor et al., 2009). Meta-ana- lytic findings rather support the ‘‘learning-decay’’ assump- tion showing lower effect sizes with the length of time (Blume et al., 2010). Our findings showed that motivation to transfer and organizational support significantly contrib- uted to the explanation of transfer, immediately after training and even 1 year after training and controlled for the transfer immediately after training. One might assume that more complex skills require more time to be reflected in sustain- able transfer. Thus, an interesting question for future research is how the type of skills trained (open vs. closed) and the length of time before the transfer measure are related.

One practical implication is that it seems useful to involve organizations (e.g., supervisors, HR managers) more closely in the training preparation and realization. They might take an active role in clarifying a trainee’s expecta- tions and transfer opportunities and provide feedback on behavioral changes during and after training in order to enhance trainees’ awareness for transfer.

Given the concerns that training investments do not always pay off, it is important to examine how effective behavioral transfer is. Thus, we focus on the association between transfer and job performance. We hypothesized that showing desired leadership behavior at T1 is related to improved personal and team performance, and personal growth 1 year after training (T2). This lagged effect was sup- ported in our data. The significant link of behavioral transfer and subjective performance is in line with Kirkpatrick’s (1998) suggestion that both evaluation criteria are separate but related.

From the organizations’ perspective, this is an important finding because job performance can be seen as the most rel- evant outcome of training effectiveness. It emphasizes that organizations ensuring a favorable environment for behav- ioral transfer are more likely to benefit from training, with regard to improved leader performance but also enhanced follower performance (Barling et al., 1996; Dvir et al., 2002; Theorell et al., 2001). Oppositely, if organizations do not promote the application of acquired skills, their costs might be twofold, costs for the training and costs due to ‘‘old’’ less effective behavior patterns. Because our findingsT

a b le

2 . M ea n s, st an d ar d d ev ia ti o n s, an d co rr el at io n s am

o n g st u d y v ar ia b le s

M S D

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 1 0

1 1

1 2

1 3

1 S ex

– –

2 A g e

3 9 .6 1

6 .7 8 � .0 4

3 T en u re

1 3 .0 7

1 0 .2 9 � .1 1

.5 0 * * *

4 P ro fe ss io n al

p o si ti o n

– –

� .1

.1 9

.2 0

5 S at is fa ct io n w it h ex am

in at io n

3 .4 6

1 .1 2 � .1 6

.1 3

.1 4

.2 6 *

6 R es u lt w ri tt en

ex am

in at io n

4 .3 6

0 .4 7 � .1 2 � .0 4

.0 8

.2 7 *

.5 1 * * *

7 R es u lt p ra ct ic al

ex am

in at io n

4 .5 4

0 .6 8 � .0 5

.0 8

.2 2 *

.2 4 *

.6 3 * * *

.3 6 * * *

8 O rg an iz at io n al

su p p o rt (T 1 )

3 .1 6

0 .8 1 � .0 1

.2 3 *

.5 6 * * *

.2 0

.1 4

.0 6

.2 5 *

9 M o ti v at io n al

to tr an sf er

(T 1 )

4 .0 4

0 .5 5

.0 6

.2 2 *

.1 4

.1 3

.1 3

� .0 4

.0 0

.1 1

1 0

L ea d er sh ip

b eh av io r (T 1 )

3 .8 2

0 .5 6

.0 1

.1 7

.1 4

.2 2

.0 2

� .0 5

.0 1

.3 6 * * *

.4 2 * * *

1 1

L ea d er sh ip

b eh av io r (T 2 )

4 .6 4

0 .5 5 � .0 5

.2 0

.1 4 *

.1 0

.1 6

.0 3

.1 2

.3 7 * * *

.4 6 * * *

.4 9 * * *

1 2

T ea m

p er fo rm

an ce

(T 2 )

3 .4 8

0 .9 6 � .0 6

.0 9

� .0 2

.2 2 *

.0 1

.1 1

.0 0

.1 9

.1 1

.3 1 * * *

.3 8 * * *

1 3

P er so n al

g ro w th

(T 2 )

3 .6 6

0 .7 3

.1 1

.2 3 *

.0 0

.2 2 *

.2 5 *

� .0 6

.1 7

.2 4 *

.2 1 *

.3 5 * * *

.4 4 * * *

.5 3 * * *

1 4

p o si ti o n -r el at ed

p er fo rm

an ce

(T 2 )

3 .2 6

1 .3 1

.0 3

.1 6

.1 0

.1 5

.1 3

.0 2

.2 5 *

.1 5

.0 3

.3 6 * * *

.2 5 *

.4 3 * * *

.5 3 * * *

N o te s.

N = 6 9 . S ex : o n e m al e,

tw o fe m al e,

p ro fe ss io n al

p o si ti o n : v al u es

1 – 5 (h ig h er

v al u e = h ig h er

p o si ti o n ),

re su lt

ex am

in at io n s:

v al u es

1 – 6 (h ig h er

v al u e = b et te r re su lt ),

jo b p er fo rm

an ce

(t ea m -r el at ed , p er so n al

g ro w th , an d p o si ti o n -r el at ed ), * p < .0 5 . * * p < .0 1 . * * * p < .0 0 1 .

F. Franke & J. Felfe: Behavioral Transfer in Managerial Training 143

� 2012 Hogrefe Publishing Journal of Personnel Psychology 2012; Vol. 11(3):138–147

T hi

s do

cu m

en t i

s co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or o

ne o

f i ts

a lli

ed p

ub lis

he rs

. T

hi s

ar tic

le is

in te

nd ed

s ol

el y

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

are based on self-reports it would be interesting, however, to include, for example, supervisory performance ratings or objective performance measures in future research.

Limitations

Some limitations of the current study need to be addressed. First, our sample is small due to low response rates. Albeit the limited power due to the small sample size, effects become significant indicating meaningful links between the variables. However, small sample sizes raise the possi- bility of nonresponse bias affecting the interpretation of results. Empirical evidence for nonresponse bias, however, is limited at best (Krosnick, 1999; Schalm & Kelloway, 2001). As mentioned earlier, the comparison of the sample with the overall population revealed no differences except slightly higher means of age and examination results. Regarding the study variables, the comparison between the sample and the T1-respondents yielded no additional significant differences. Thus, we controlled for age and examination results when testing the hypotheses, however both control variables did not contribute to the explanation of the outcomes. To summarize, the similarity of our sample and the T1-respondents regarding the study variables gives us no reason for assuming meaningful differences. Nonethe- less, replication of these results using larger samples is needed.

Another limitation arises from the study design. We were not able to conduct a pre-post-training with control group design. It is well known that time, budget, and complexity constraints limit the design options of evaluators (Bamberger et al., 2004), particularly in managerial training. For the

purpose of examining training transfer, we, therefore, consid- ered a post-training and follow-up test design to be appropri- ate. It allows the estimation of lagged effects 1 year after training.

Trainees reported on the independent variables, their leadership behavior, and their job performance which raises the risk of common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). However, it should be emphasized that leadership behavior (T2) and job performance were assessed 1 year after the ratings of the independent vari- ables. Although these separated measures do not preclude the risk of common method bias, they make it less likely than it would be in cross-sectional designs.

An overestimation of ratings might be particularly likely for subjective performance ratings. Recent meta-analyses on training outcomes imply such an overestimation for self- reports compared to others’ ratings (Blume et al., 2010; Taylor et al. 2009). On the other hand, Tharenou, Saks, and Moore (2007) found similar effect sizes for self-reports versus objective measures of organizational factors. Instead of general performance, concrete performance aspects like improved budget or goal achievement were assessed in our study. These items should result in more realistic self- reports. Otherwise, participants would deliberately fake their answers. However, we see no reason for such a suspicion. Nevertheless, future studies should test the effects of motiva- tion to transfer and organizational support on transfer using multisource data (e.g., supervisor, peer, or subordinate reports and observations of job performance). Moreover, in order to avoid biases in subjective ratings of performance changes, future studies could apply objective performance tests (e.g., leadership assessments) before and immediately after the training as well as in the longer term.

Table 3. Regression analyses of behavioral change (leadership behavior T1 and T2) on motivation to transfer (T1) and training-specific organizational support (T1)

Leadership behavior (T1) Leadership behavior (T2)

b R2 DR2 b R2 DR2

Step 1 .08 .28* Age .09 .11 Tenure .07 .01 Professional position .22 �.06 Satisfaction with examination .03 .12 Results written examination �.05 �.01 Results practical examination �.10 .06 Leadership behavior (T1)a .48***

Step 2 .32** .24*** .39** .11* Age .06 .11 Tenure �.17 �.17 Professional position .14 �.08 Satisfaction with examination �.06 .05 Results written examination �.05 .03 Results practical examination �.03 .05 Leadership behavior (T1)a .27* Motivation to transfer (T1) .37** .32* Organizational support (T1) .40** .30*

Notes. N = 69, acontrolled for in the second analysis on the lagged effects, *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

144 F. Franke & J. Felfe: Behavioral Transfer in Managerial Training

Journal of Personnel Psychology 2012; Vol. 11(3):138–147 � 2012 Hogrefe Publishing

T hi

s do

cu m

en t i

s co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or o

ne o

f i ts

a lli

ed p

ub lis

he rs

. T

hi s

ar tic

le is

in te

nd ed

s ol

el y

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

Conclusion

Despite these limitations, the present study contributes to the explanation of successful transfer in managerial training. It extends previous research by examining the effects of motivation to transfer and organizational support in a sample of managerial trainees from a variety of industries, after a long-term leadership-development intervention. While trans- fer is often measured a few weeks after the end of the train- ing, we were able to assess leadership behavior and job performance 1 year after the training.

References

Axtell, C. M., Maitlis, S., & Yearta, S. K. (1997). Predicting immediate and longer-term transfer of training. Personnel Review, 26, 201–213.

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

Bamberger, M., Rugh, J., Church, M., & Fort, L. (2004). Shoestring evaluation: Designing impact evaluations under budget, time, and data constraints. American Journal of Evaluation, 25, 5–37.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.

Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and finan- cial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 827–832.

Blume, B. D., Ford, J. K., Baldwin, T. T., & Huang, J. L. (2010). Transfer of training: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 36, 1065–1105.

Burke, L. A., & Hutchins, H. M. (2007). Training transfer: An integrative literature review. Human Resource Development Review, 6, 263–296.

Chen, E. W. L., & Ho, D. C. K. (2001). A review of transfer of training studies in the past decade. Personnel Review, 30, 102–118.

Chiaburu, D. S., Van Dam, K., & Hutchins, H. M. (2010). Social support in the workplace and training transfer: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18, 187–200.

Collins, D. B., & Holton, E. F. (2004). The effectiveness of managerial leadership development programs: A meta-anal- ysis of studies from 1982 to 2001. Human Resources Development Quarterly, 15, 217–248.

Combs, J. G., Liu, Y., Hall, A. T., & Ketchen, D. J. (2006). How much do high performance work practices matter? A meta- analysis of their effects on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology, 59, 501–528.

Cromwell, S. E., & Kolb, J. A. (2004). An examination of work- environment support factors affecting transfer of supervisory skills training to the workplace. Human Resource Develop- ment Quarterly, 15, 449–471.

Dillman, D. A., Sinclair, M. D., & Clark, J. R. (1993). Effects of questionnaire length, respondent-friendly design, and a difficult question on response rates for occupant-addressed census mail surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 289–304.

D’Netto, B., Bakas, F., & Bordia, P. (2008). Predictors of management development effectiveness: An Australian per- spective. International Journal of Training and Develop- ment, 12, 2–23.

Dragoni, L., Tesluk, P. E., Russell, J. E. A., & Oh, I.-S. (2009). Understanding managerial development: Integrating devel- opmental assignments, learning orientation, and access to developmental opportunities in predicting managerial com- petencies. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 731–743.

Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 735–744.

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

Table 4. Regression analyses of job performance (T2) on leadership behavior (T1)

Team-related performance (T2)

Personal growth (T2) Position-related performance (T2)

b R2 DR2 b R2 DR2 b R2 DR2

Step 1 .07 .20 .10 Age .13 .24 .14 Tenure �.12 �.19 �.04 Professional position .21 .20 .10 Satisfaction with examination �.10 .29 �.05 Results written examination �.01 .05 .29 Results practical examination .13 �.26 �.08

Step 2 .15* .08* .28* .08* .21* .11* Age .11 .21 .11 Tenure �.14 �.21 �.07 Professional position .15 .13 .03 Satisfaction with examination �.11 .28 �.06 Results written examination .00 .07 .30 Results practical examination .16 �.23 .05 Leadership behavior (T1) .29* .30* .34*

Note. N = 69, *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

F. Franke & J. Felfe: Behavioral Transfer in Managerial Training 145

� 2012 Hogrefe Publishing Journal of Personnel Psychology 2012; Vol. 11(3):138–147

T hi

s do

cu m

en t i

s co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or o

ne o

f i ts

a lli

ed p

ub lis

he rs

. T

hi s

ar tic

le is

in te

nd ed

s ol

el y

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

Frese, M., Beimel, S., & Schoenborn, S. (2003). Action training for charismatic leadership: Two evaluations of studies of a commercial training module on inspiring communication of a vision. Personnel Psychology, 56, 671–697.

Gaudine, A. P., & Saks, A. M. (2004). A longitudinal quasi- experiment on the effects of posttraining transfer interven- tions. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15, 57–76.

Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 36– 51.

Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1998). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Krosnick, J. (1999). Determining effective follow-up of e-mail surveys. American Journal of Health Behavior, 21, 193–196.

Kutschera, I., & Byrd, J. (2005). Applying the concept of cognitive continuum to leadership training. Journal of American Academy of Business, 6, 20–50.

Lawler, E. E. (1973). Motivation and work organization. Mon- terey, CA: Brooks-Cole.

Lim, D. H., & Morris, M. L. (2006). Influence of trainee characteristics, instructional satisfaction, and organizational climate on perceived learning and training transfer. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 17, 85–115.

Luthans, F., & Kreitner, R. (1985). Organizational behavior modification and beyond. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.

Nijman, D. J. M., Nijhof, W. J., Wognum, A. A. M., & Veldk- amp, B. P. (2006). Exploring differential effects of supervisor support on transfer of training. Journal of European Indus- trial Training, 30, 529–549.

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

Noe, R. A., & Schmitt, N. (1986). The influence of trainee attitudes on training effectiveness: Test of a model. Personnel Psychology, 39, 497–523.

Noe, R. A., & Wilk, S. L. (1993). Investigation of the factors that influence employees’ participation in development activities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 291–302.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in behavioural research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

Powell, K. S., & Yalcin, S. (2010). Managerial training effec- tiveness. A meta-analysis 1952–2002. Personnel Review, 39, 227–241.

Rouiller, J. Z., & Goldstein, I. L. (1993). The relationship between organizational transfer climate and positive transfer of training. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 4, 377–390.

Saks, A. M., Uggerslev, K. L., & Fassina, N. E. (2007). Socialization tactics and newcomer adjustment: A meta- analytic review and test of a model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70, 413–446.

Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2001). The science of training: A decade of progress. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 471–499.

Salas, E., Milham, L. M., & Bowers, C. A. (2003). Training evaluation in the military: Misconceptions, opportunities, and challenges. Military Psychology, 15, 3–16.

Schalm, R. L., & Kelloway, E. K. (2001). The relationship between response rate and effect size in occupational health psychology research. Journal of Occupational Health Psy- chology, 6, 160–163.

Schaper, N. (2004). Förderung und Evaluation von Transfer bei computer- und netzbasierten Lernszenarien [Promotion and evaluation of transfer with computer-based learning scenar- ios]. In D. Meister (Ed.), Online-Lernen und Weiterbildung (pp. 105–136). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.

Switzer, K. C., Nagy, M. S., & Mullins, M. E. (2005). The influence of training reputation, managerial support, and self- efficacy on pre-training motivation and perceived training transfer. Applied Human Resource Management Research, 10, 21–345.

Tannenbaum, S. I., & Yukl, G. (1992). Training and development in work organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 399–441.

Taylor, P. J., Russ-Eft, D. F., & Taylor, H. (2009). Transfer of management training from alternative perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 104–121.

Tharenou, P., Saks, A. M., & Moore, C. (2007). A review and critique of research on training and organizational-level outcomes. Human Resource Management Review, 17, 251– 273.

Theorell, T., Erndad, R., Arnetz, B., & Weingarten, A. M. (2001). Employee effects of an educational program for managers at an insurance company. Psychosomatic Medicine, 63, 724–733.

Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York, NY: Wiley.

Tracey, J. B., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Kavanagh, M. J. (1995). Applying trained skills on the job: The importance of the work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 239– 252.

Yelon, S. L., & Ford, J. K. (1999). Pursuing a multidimensional view of transfer. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 12, 58–78.

Franziska Franke

Organizational Psychology Helmut Schmidt University Holstenhofweg 85 22043 Hamburg Germany Tel. +49 40 6541-3466 Fax +49 40 6541-2546 E-mail [email protected]

146 F. Franke & J. Felfe: Behavioral Transfer in Managerial Training

Journal of Personnel Psychology 2012; Vol. 11(3):138–147 � 2012 Hogrefe Publishing

T hi

s do

cu m

en t i

s co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or o

ne o

f i ts

a lli

ed p

ub lis

he rs

. T

hi s

ar tic

le is

in te

nd ed

s ol

el y

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

Appendix

Measures Developed for This Study

Time point

Organizational support Scale: 1 (not at all true) to 5 (completely true) T1 1 My company has greatly supported my participation in the leadership program. 2 The skills I have learned in the leadership program were received with interest by the company. 3 Organizational conditions (operations, decision-making powers) have to be improved in order to apply

the learned skills on the job. (reverse coded) 4 In my company there are supervisors who serve as convincing role models for what I have learned. 5 The leadership program has a good reputation in the company.

Transfer (leadership behavior) Scale: 1 (not at all) to 5 (very often) T1, T2 1 I regularly conduct structured staff interviews. 2 I talk about goals and goal achievement with the employees. 3 I regularly conduct structured team meetings. 4 I provide systematic and individual feedback to my staff. 5 I address conflicts and problems directly. 6 I set specific goals and control achievement of objectives systematically. 7 I systematically practice time management. 8 I regularly use planning and decision-making techniques. 9 I systematically practice project management.

Job performance Scale: 1 (not at all true) to 5 (completely true) Since the development program, . . . T2 Team-related performance 1 . . . my staff is motivated to a greater extent. 2 . . . team climate has improved. 3 . . . my staff is satisfied to a greater extent. Personal growth 4 . . . I am more satisfied with my work. 5 . . . I am more self-confident. 6 . . . I am more relaxed and cope easier with stress. 7 . . . the performance in my area of responsibility has improved. 8 . . . the performance goals were achieved easier in my area of responsibility. 9 . . . I am evaluated more positive by my supervisor. Position-related performance 10 . . . my professional position has increased. 11 . . . my income became higher. 12 . . . I am responsible for a higher amount of staff. 13 . . . my area of responsibility has increased. 14 . . . I have a higher budget.

F. Franke & J. Felfe: Behavioral Transfer in Managerial Training 147

� 2012 Hogrefe Publishing Journal of Personnel Psychology 2012; Vol. 11(3):138–147

T hi

s do

cu m

en t i

s co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or o

ne o

f i ts

a lli

ed p

ub lis

he rs

. T

hi s

ar tic

le is

in te

nd ed

s ol

el y

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .