J.1748 8583.2003.tb00082.x

Employee perceptions and their in uence
on training effectiveness
Amalia Santos, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
Mark Stuart, University of Leeds
Human Resource Management Journal, Vol 13 No 1, 2003, pages 27-45

Studies of the bene® ts of human resou rce development (HRD) for organisations have
assumed a direct connection between training strategy and a hierarchy of performance
outcomes: learning, behavioural change and performance improvement. The in¯ uence of
workplace practices and employees’ experiences on training effectiveness has received
little attention. This study investigates evaluation strategies designed to elicit greater
training effectiveness, and explores the influence of trainees’ pe rceptions and work
en vironment factors on this. Drawing on detailed case study findings, the authors
highlight the importance of management practices, trainees’ perceptions of the work
environment and systems of reward in explaining behaviour change after training.
Contact: Amalia Santos, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3AB.
Email: amalia_santos@yahoo.co.uk or ms@lubs.leeds.ac.uk (Mark Stuart)

C
onventional wisdom suggests that investments in training and development are
associated with a range of individual and organisational benefits. The HR
liter ature, for example, posits training as the `vital component’ in organisational
processes of cultural change and an important behavioural device in terms of securing
workfo rce commitment and in realising the latent potential of employees (see Keep,
1989). Similarly, economic studies identify training and development investments as
key determinants of organisational performance and economic growth (Mason et al,
1996; Prais, 1995; Romer, 1993). The clear assumption is that more is better. In practice,
h o w e v e r, the issue of demonstrating the `effectiveness’ of training has pro v e d
e xtremely complex. While practitioners can draw on a range of prescriptive evaluative
methodologies to guide them in this endeavour, such frameworks are often overly
deterministic, are insensitive to workplace context and typically obscure as much as
they reveal. Probl ematically, the mainstream HR literature has devoted little empirical
attention to the issue of how companies evaluate the effectiveness of training
investments and, in particular, the way in which employee perceptions, attitudes and
experiences might have an impact on training effectiveness.
Against this backdrop, this article presents evidence from a detailed case study
designed to explore the effectiveness of training at the workplace. The article has two
central empirical objectives. First, it aims to evaluate employees’ experiences of, and
attitudes towards, training activity and the organisation context of training
investments. Secondly, it assesses how these experiences of training shape the
`tran s fe r’ of training into the workplace and thus mediate effectiveness. The ® n d in g s
suggest that by taking into account the actual recipients’ views of training our
understanding of the factors affecting training effectiveness can be enhanced. We
begin with a review of the HR, economics and psychology literature on the evaluation
of training outcomes, revealing the intractable problems organisations face in
evaluating the effectiveness of training investments. The main ® ndings from the case

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

Employee perceptions and their in uence on training effectiveness

study are the n reported. These suggest that management practices, trainees’
pe rceptions of the work environment and systems of re w a rd are antecedents of
behaviour change after training.

EVALUATING TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS

Levels of outcomes
The HR and training literatures emphasise the organisational bene® ts to be gained
from adopting a systematic approach to HRD whereby the ongoing development of
employees’ skills underpins broader business objectives (Keep, 1989). Core elements
of a systematic approach to training often include identifying needs, planning,
delivery and evaluation. The evaluation stage is arguably the most problematic part
of the training process (Reid and Barrington, 1997). Thus, even though the bottom
line for most training and development programmes is an improvement in overall
organisational performance, organisations often devote little attention to evaluating
training effectiveness. In 1989, for example, only 3 per cent of UK establishments
undertook any cost-benefit analysis of their training (Deloitte Haskins and Sells,
1989: 46).
Wh e re training effectiveness is evaluated, the outcomes of training are usually
assessed hierarc h i c al l y. The widely used Kirkpatrick (1967) model, for example,
proposes four levels of training outcomes: trainees’ reactions to the programme content
and training process (reactions), knowledge or skill acquisition at the end of the
programme (learning), behaviour change in the job (behaviour) and improvements in
tangible individ ual or organisational outcomes such as turnover, accidents or
productivity (results). This model has been highly in¯ uential. A c co rding to a re c e n t
survey by the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD), it is still the
most commonly used evaluation framework among their Benchmarking Foru m
1
Companies (Bassi and Cheney, 1997). The model is also widely accepted in the ® eld of
industrial/organisational psychology (Cascio, 1987) and underpins the UK Investors in
People standard.
Most commentators follow this general framework, albeit with rather diffe re n t
categories. Warr et al (1976) suggest the acronym CIRO. This stands for evaluation of
context, input, reaction and outcome. Context evaluation focuses on factors such as the
c o r rect identification of training needs and the setting of objectives in relation to
organisation culture and climate. Input evaluation is concerned with the design and
delivery of the training activity. Reaction evaluation looks at gaining and using
information about the quality of trainees’ experiences. Outcome evaluation focuses on
the achievements gained from the activity and is assessed at three levels. Immediate
evaluation attempts to measure changes in knowledge, skills or attitude before a trainee
returns to the job. Intermediate evaluation refers to the impact of training on job
performance and how learning is transferred back into the workplace. Finally, ultimate
evaluation attempts to assess the impact of training on departmental or organisational
performance in terms of overall re sults.
Typically, the evaluation process is organised in a sequential, linear manner. Thus,
higher level outcomes can only be understood if evaluation has taken place at all lower
levels. Hamblin (1974: 15), for example, argues that the impact of training is linked by a
ca us e -a nd -e ffect chain, whereby `training leads to reactions, which leads to learning,
which leads to changes in job behaviour, which leads to changes in the orga ni sa tion,
which leads to changes in the achievement of ultimate goals.’ Kirkpatrick (1994) and

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

Amalia Santos and Mark Stuart

Warr et al (1976) recognise, however, that the cause-effect chain is often dif® cult to
demonstrate, especially with reg ard to ultimate level evaluations.
Easterby-Smith (1986), by contrast, argues against such causal assumptions. Based
on an extensive review of the literature and resea rch, Easterby-Smith puts forward the
CAIPO framework as an alternative: context, administration, inputs, process and
outcomes. Context evaluation focuses on factors outside and beyond the training
p rogramme: for example, the level of support for learners at the workplace.
Administration evaluation is concerned with the mechanisms of nomination, selection
and brie® ng before any training starts, and any follow-up activities eg debrie ® ng by the
line manager or post-course evaluation. Evaluation of inputs examines the content and
methods of training. Process evaluations focus on what actually happens during a
training activity and how the participants experience it. Finally, outcome evaluation is
concerned with establishing the outputs or outcomes of employee training and
development. The focus may be on individuals and changes in their knowledge, skills,
attitudes and behaviour, individual and/or organisation performance or on shifts in
o rganisation culture and climate. Methods used in applying the CAIPO framework
may be similar to those used in others. However, this model provides a series of
choices for evaluation, since the areas considered are more independent and are not
linked by cause-effect relations.

Evaluation issues
The widespread acceptance of conventional evaluation models has much to do with
their simplicity and prescriptive appeal. Positive reactions of trainees, learning,
behaviour change and improvements in job performance are expected from well-
designed and administered training programmes. Pro bl ematical l y, there is not much
evidence to support this. In a meta-analysis of previous training evaluation studies,
Alliger and Janak (1989) found only 12 articles in which attempts had been made to
c o r relate the various levels advocated by Kirkpatrick. No relationship was found
between reaction measures and the other three levels of criteria ± ie good reactions did
not predict learning, behaviour or results any better than poor reactions ± and
relatively small correlations were found between learning and behaviour and between
behaviour and organisational results. Likewise, Noe and Schmitt (1986) found limited
support for Kirkpatrick’ s (1967) hierarchical model of training outcomes.
The limited correlational support for the hierarchical model may be due to `noise’
from intervening variables such as motivation, context of transfer and trainee attitudes
(Clement, 1982). Nevertheless, the lack of causal connections between diffe rent levels of
training outcomes implies that evaluation should be done at all levels because each
level provides a diff e rent kind of evidence (Bramley, 1996). Unfortunately, while all
levels of evaluation are important, such data are rarely collected. Many training and
development programmes are monitored only at the reactions level (Bramley, 1996)
and articles regularly appear lamenting the lack of evaluation efforts (Goldstein, 1993).
This means that few companies, despite their investment in training, are actually
determining whether the training provided was effective. Why should this be? From an
analytical and managerial perspective, there are major dif® culties in ® nding measure s
of training effectiveness in terms of bottom-line results. Indeed, assessing the rate of
return from training may be an `unrealisable ideal’ (Green, 1997: 3). Green claims that
companies are not in a position to carry out such an assessment, due to uncertainties
over the bene® ts of training and because of the dif® culty in accounting for its true cost.
Evaluation strategies may, in certain circumstances, even prove self-defeating. A s
Ashton and Green (1996) note:



...it may not be worthwhile and could be misleading to draw up a balance
of the advantages and disadvantages that can actually be measured. Such
an accounting mentality could itself be the cause of low training, if training
programmes were obliged to demonstrate a suf® cient measurable re turn
on investment. Ashton and Green, 1996: 59

Trainee attitudes, motivation and expectations
At the individual level, Keep (1989) argues that training investment constitutes a
powerful signalling device to re a s s u re employees that they are valued by their
employers, which in turn enhances employee motivation and commitment to the
organisation. Such propositions receive support from the Employment in Britain
Survey which, drawing from a dataset of 3,855 employed individuals, found that 94
per cent of respondents felt that training received had been beneficial (Gallie and
W hite, 1993). Th is was mo st commonly quantified in terms o f achieving a
q ua l i ® cation, gaining a promotion or a better job, an increase in earnings and other
non-financial benefits such as job satisfaction and commitment. These findings are
informative but the actual means by which investments in training and development
translate into a more competent, better motivated and a more self-reliant workforc e
remains an under-developed area of enquiry. Indeed, the re s e arch designs discussed
thus far downplay the social and political processes mediating training outcomes. Ye t,
as a number of commentators note (Green, 1992; Heyes and Stuart, 1994; Heyes, 1998),
training outcomes are best understood as a socially constructed process. In this regard,
evidence suggests training is more likely to have a positive effect on employee
attitudes (e g motivation and job satisfaction) where employers develop formal,
s tru ctu red approaches to training which link skill formation to job tenure, caree r
progression, recognition and rewa rd (Heyes and Stuart, 1996).
Likewise, ethnographic investigations reveal that the impact of training provision on
performance outcomes is dependent on how and in whose interest skills are deployed
at the workplace (Heyes, 1998). The relationship between training and performance
outcomes (eg productivity and co-operative employee attitudes) should not, there fore,
be treated in a predetermined way, since skill formation is not automatically used by
employees to pursue management goals. As Heyes (1998) suggests, social and political
processes at the level of the workplace shape the distinction between skill acquisition
and skill deployment ± a distinction conventionally re fe r red to as the problem of
`transfer of training’ (Easterby-Smith, 1986: 53). It is widely accepted that learning and
the transfer of learning to the workplace will only occur when trainees have both the
ability and motivation to acquire and apply new skills (Wexley and Latham, 1991; Noe
1986). Yet, as Noe (1986) observed in a seminal intervention, the in¯ uence that trainees’
attributes and attitudes may have on the effectiveness of training has been a re latively
neglected concern.
A wide variety of trainee characteristics likely to affect the transfer of training can be
iden ti® ed. Noe (1986) identi® es personality and motivational factors and develops an
expectancy model that hypothesises the process by which trainees’ attitudes concerning
their jobs and careers and their perception of the work environment in¯ uence training
outcomes. Testing the model, Noe and Schmitt (1986) found that trainees with high job
involvement were more motivated to learn and transfer skills to the work setting. The
effectiveness of a training programme can also be in¯ uenced by events prior to training
(Baldwin and Magjuka, 1991) as well as post-training activities (Baldwin and Ford,
1988). Supervisor and peer support, goal setting, feedback mechanisms, the opportunity



to use new skills and the availability of res ources are all thought to in¯ uence the process
of transfer (Noe, 1986). While the logic behind Noe’s model is clear, its applicability and
usefulness remains underdeveloped. Empirical investigations of ability, personality,
motivational and work environment effects on training and transfer outcomes are still
quite limited (Baldwin and Ford, 1988; Orpen, 1999).
The re s e a rch eviden ce discussed so far suggest s that determ ini ng training
e ffectiveness is a complex process. The effect of training on performance outcomes
appears, theref ore, to be unresolved. Signi® ca ntl y, if training and development are not
always applied to pursue management objectives, this raises questions about whether
and how organisations are seeking to assess the effectiveness of their training and
development interventions. In other words, what steps, if any, are being taken to
determine whether these objectives are being achieved? Secondly, what factors are
likely to in¯ uence the effectiveness of training? Finding answers to these questions
will be important if we are t o und erstand how, and w he ther, perform ance
improvements will result from training interventions. Further re s e arch is needed in
this area to identify what trainee attitudes and work environment factors in¯ uence the
transfer and effectiveness of training. A cc ord in g ly, the remainder of the article focuses
on the issue of assessing training effectiveness, which seems to depend not only on the
quality of the training process but also on the interaction of trainee attitudes and
management practice.

METHODOLOGY

The article is based on a case study conducted between June and September 1999. The
setting for the study was a single case, a ® nancial services organisation, based in the north
of England, which we refer to as FinanceCo. The company was at the frontier of good
practice in HRD, moving towards implementing many of the people management
processes that Tyson and Doherty (1999) describe as `best practice’. A key component of
this was an increased emphasis on training and development activities. The organisation
therefore provides an ideal case for examining the issue of training effectiveness.
The re s e a rch utilised a multi-method approach combining qualitative and
quantitative methods. At a qualitative level, 10 lengthy semi-stru ctu red interviews
w e re carried out at FinanceCo’ s head office in Yor k s h ire to investigate the formal
structures, processes and general background of the organisation and the training and
development function in particular. Interviewees had an average service of 11 years,
comprised ® ve women and ® ve men and re presented a cross-section of functions from
within management and supervisory grades. To actually uncover training outcomes in
terms of the adoption of new and diffe rent attitudes and practices ± ie training transfer
± it was necessary to analyse training provision from the stance of the intended
recipients ± both managers and employees. Thus, a questionnaire was designed to
gather extensive data on three broad issues: employees’ experiences of training and
development, employees’ perceptions with re g a rd to training outcomes, and work
environment factors affecting training transfer. The target population was limited to the
4,055 employees working in the core ® nancial services business. The population was
strati ® ed by dividing respondents into head of® ce (45 per cent) and branches (55 per
cent) and by dividing the branch network into geographical regions. A re presentative
sample of 350 employees was randomly selected from the company’s computer
system. Questionnaires were posted directly to individuals through the company’s
internal mail system and a pre-paid envelo pe was enclosed, addressed to the
re s e a rcher to guarantee anonymity and confidentiality of responses. A total of 167



usable replies were received ± an overall response rate of 47.7 per cent (comprising 66
per cent female and 34 per cent male).

TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT AT FINANCECO

Background
FinanceCo operates within the confines of a highly and increasingly competitive
market ± consumer ® nancial services. In the 1980s the UK government’ s liberalisation
policies and commitment to free markets led to banks and other ® nancial org anisations
o ffering mortgages ± once the privilege of building societies ± to their clients.
Encouraged by market opportunities FinanceCo expanded and diversified. In May
1997, for example, a specialist business-to-business mortgage operation with no branch
network was acquired, followed by a 370-branch network in April 1998. FinanceCo
now covers the country, with nearly 1,000 branches and agency outlets. In 1998 the
group’s post-tax pro® ts grew by 33 per cent to £84 million and the customer base grew
to more than 4 million. The organisation employs more than 7,900 staff, embracing a
diverse set of skilled, white-collar employees.
The appointment of a new chief executive in 1996 had major change implications for
management and staff. As a manager explained:
The change of senior executives led to a quick and immediate change of
c u l t u re, reflected, for example, in more open communication with
employees. Pre v iously, senior managers had been working for FinanceCo
for all their lives... The majority has been replaced with people with a more
diverse commercial experience in big multinationals... and they will
probably not stay with FinanceCo fore v e r... This has made a huge
difference to the organisational culture.
This process of cultural change witnessed the reshaping of the business around a
strategic customer focus. The increased customer focus re qui red new ways of working
such as telephone banking and teamworking, with all the attendant challenges of
cultural reconciliation and implications for training and development. Management
was hoping to strengthen ¯ exibility and adaptability of employees to change, as well as
their ability to become multi-skilled. A ccording to a training manager:
In today’s working environment, if they [employees] want to stay with the
organisation they would move among roles... We cannot do anything
about change but we can help people be better pre pa red to cope with
change, to have a ¯ exible workforc e.

HR strategy
HRM took on a considerable role in supporting and nurturing organisational change. In
o rder to transform its perso nnel function into an active business partner, HR
professionals were organised between group HR ± a centralised function, where
policies and proc e d u res were defined ± and line HR ± geographically dispersed
personnel specialists within each core business area delivering day-to-day services to
line managers. Many proce dures formerly attached to the personnel role were handed
over to line management, a process that was facilitated by a major management
development programme. Furthermore, in recognition of the fact that a customer
orientation strategy was vulnerable to the threat of withdrawal of co-operation by



employees, managem ent began to place an increasing emphasis on notions of
employee involvement and empowerment.
A competency framework was also introduced to support FinanceCo’s strategic
objectives by de® ning the skills, knowledge and behaviour that were important for
success within each particular role and level. Competencies were formally linked into
the main HR policy areas ± i e re c ruitment, perform ance appraisal, traini ng,
development and promotion ± in an attempt to produce a coherent and cohesive HR
system. This was enshrined within a broader performance management system which
was based on goal setting and put as much emphasis on performance goals and
deliverables as it did on the competencies needed to achieve those goals.
All employees were covered by a formal appraisal scheme which was linked into
the re w ard system through performance-related pay, salary increments and bonuses.
Training needs were identi® ed by the individual and his/her line manager within
the appraisal process, although the acquisition and application of new skills and
competencies were not directly recognised or re w arded ® na n c i a lly. The ability and
willingness of employees to achieve competencies was to be assessed through the
performance appraisal process, but the link was under-utilised in practice, due
primarily to the past and continu ous focus on financial result s. As an HR
p rofessional explained:
It takes some time [for appraisers] to accept that things such as teamwork,
internal quality of work etc are part of the performance criteria of a person
since it is difficult to assess and measure objectively. The use of the
competency framework in the performance management process has to be
constantly re inforced.

Training and development strategy
H i s to r i ca l l y, FinanceCo had a large training and development department that was
described by one of its members as `paternalistic’ and `traditional, with an emphasis on
in-house training and development, and no evaluation of training effectiveness beyond
the happy sheet’ . At the time of the study, most training was provided by outside
consultants. Technical, operational and sales training responsibility resided within line
HR, with support from the central organisation development (OD) function for the
m ore professional and ideological dimensions of training.
Management was increasingly concerned to use training to aid the change
management process. In management’s view, FinanceCo was fully committed to the
vision of a learning organisation and, as such, recognised that development rested with
the individual. As a training manager noted:
FinanceCo very much supports continuous learning and development of
employees. We are trying to encourage a culture of self-development. That
is part of the strategy.
The organisation provided the res ources and support but it was up to the individual
to explore their needs and make informed choices about personal development. This
was supported by the establishment of a distance learning library comprising a range
of books, videos, audio, computer-based training, CD-ROMs and other materials,
which was free for all staff to use at their own convenience.
As a line manager noted, training provision had increased in recent years:
I have had more training in the last 12 months than in the last ® ve years!
FinanceCo has woken up to investing in its future, at last.



The survey results reveal that the majority of staff (99 per cent) had experienced
training at some time since joining the company. Forty-one per cent stated that they had
received training within the past 12 months and 47 per cent within the last three months.
Current participation in training activity was relatively lower at 24 per cent. Traditional
training methods such as learning through the job, courses, workshops or lectures were
the most frequently used and were considered the most effective by trainees.

Training evaluation
In an environment of increased training investment, management was concerned to
monitor the costs and determine the effectiveness of such investment. In the past, the
evaluation of training courses was limited to an immediate post-course questionnaire,
with the purpose of improving the efficiency of content and delivery. It was thus
assumed that if needs were carefully analysed and the interventions designed
app ropriately effective training would follow. By contrast, at the time of this study the
renewed purpose of training evaluation was threefold: to generate feedback for quality
c on trol of the design and delivery of training activities, to ensure that investment
i m proved individual performance and to redefine the responsibility for learning
between trainers, trainees and managers. The design of the new training evaluation
process re¯ ected that purpose and, to some extent, resolved the evaluation dilemma by
adopting a pragmatic approach; evaluation was individually focused and a decision
was made not to evaluate at departmental and organisational levels.
Within this process, evaluation started before the training event with both the
participant and the line manager documenting the intended, mutual bene® ts. Training
specialists then assessed the documentation forms as part of the nomination procedure. A
course evaluation form was to be completed by the trainee immediately after. Six months
after the end of the programme the agreed bene® ts of the event were followed up. This
took the form of a structured self-report, completed by participants but strangely without
line manager involvement, which focused on the achievement of the stated bene® ts and
assessed the transfer of learning from the classroom back to the workplace.
Training evaluation was thus made the responsibility of the delegate and the line
m a n a g e r, aiming to encourage in divid uals to take owne rship of their own
development, as well as management ownership for staff development. Overall, the
new evaluation process was more cost-focused, re p resenting a switch from an
assessment of the actual training event to broader organisational effectiveness. The
delayed evaluation approach overcame the problem of a possible action gap between
the euphoria at the end of training and what happened when participants returned to
the workplace (Currie, 1994). Experimental proc e d u res and control groups were
eschewed. Nor was quantitative evaluation of learning and transfer to the workplace
conducted before and after the programme. A qualitative approach was used which
relied on individuals’ self-assessment and judgement in order to measure the bene® ts
of training. In the absence of quantitative measures such as financial performance,
training benefits were articulated in terms of `improved customer service’ , `better
interpersonal relationships’ and so forth. However, it was impossible to say what
proportion of the improvements were attributable to the training given and what
proportions to other factors such as better performance management, feedback on
customer complaints or improved planning. This seemed unavoidable, as a training
manager eloquently explained:
Could you actually say that the improvement in performance of a unit or a
branch is directly attributable to any development that [staff] had



un d e rgone or is it attributable to other concurrent fact ors? It is not
something that we do not want to do. But I think if we are going to spend
any time and money on it, we want to be fairly safe that the evidence we
can draw from that could be substantiated.
The evaluation pro ce d u re adopted was also politically motivated. Conducting
evaluation studies to overcome the methodological dif® culties outlined above would
be highly re s o u rce-intensive. The central OD function lacked such re s ou rces and
t h e re f o re dev olved res ponsibili ty to the line and ultimately the indi vidual.
Furthermore, given that FinanceCo had an operational emphasis, where customer care
and financial results took priority, a method for gathering information re g a rd i ng
training effectiveness would only be successful if it was seen as not con¯ icting with
operational objectives. It made sense, in these circumstances, to minimise time spent by
participants and line managers on training evaluation.

EMPLOYEES’ PERCEPTIONS

The training environment
A c co rding to management, training at FinanceCo was integrated within a strategic,
long-term approach to the development of human re s o u rces. Most managers
interviewed determined employees’ development needs via the appraisal process and
planned what training was re q ui red. The survey revealed that 72 per cent of staff had
discussed a personal development plan and 81 per cent currently had personal
development goals. Of those employees with the latter, however, only 51 per cent had
received any training to help them achieve their development needs. This seems to be
the result of inconsistency of approach. The criteria for selecting and supporting
participants on training courses varied widely across diff e rent departments of the
company and it was described as `not suf® ciently tailored and focused on the needs of
the individual’. It was suggested that often the availability of a course triggered the
nomination of an employee to attend, rather than being built in as part of that
person’s development.
T he re are also instances when practice fell far short of the espoused policy. Many
respondents, for example, felt that line managers did not see personal development as
a priority. On average, as Table 1 (overleaf) shows, they perceived a moderate-to-low
level of line management involvement in discussing training needs, setting and
reviewing development goals and providing coaching and guidance.
Poor relationships with management can negatively affect development. Those
respondents encouraged by management were more likely to be receiving training.
Of those who stated that their line managers encouraged them to train, 58 per cent
w e re currently receiving training, as compared to 24 per cent of those who claimed
no or little management encouragement. Eighty-nine per cent of those re ce i v i n g
high management support for HRD also had a personal development plan; those
without one were signi® cantly more likely to perceive a low level of management
support for personal development. This suggests that employees’ perceptions of
FinanceCo’ s commitment to HRD may be positively associated with the existence of
formal pro c e d u res to monitor and focus training. Such proc e d u res were, statistically,
far more like ly to influence res ponde nts ’ perceptions of the degree of line
management support for HRD than broader contextual or contractual factors. Thus,
no correlation was found between the various aspects of line management support



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

To a To a To a
great moderate limited
extent extent extent
My manager encourages and supports me to take 42 29 29
advantage of training and development opportunities*

My manager regularly discusses my training 23 36 41
and development needs with me*

My manager jointly sets tasks and development 35 28 37
goals with me**

My manager jointly reviews progress on tasks 38 28 34
and development goals at timely intervals**

My manager coaches and guides me effectively*** 25 33 42

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

and gender, contractual status (full time, part time or temporary) or prof e s s io n a l
level within the company.

Perceived outcomes
In an effort to clarify what trainees believed were the re w ards of training, participants
w e re asked whether their involvement had contributed to certain outcomes. The
findings suggest that individua ls at FinanceCo benefited from training thro u gh
i m proved knowledge and skills and also through improved con® dence, self-ef® ca cy,
less need for supervision and general enjoyment. Managers also stressed the link
between individual advantage and organisation gain. As a training manager explained:
If people feel they have been invested in, automatically their trust in the
organisation increases and that has an indirect bene® t for their work and
ultimately for performance-related issues.
Table 2 summarises employees’ perceptions on the likely individual benefits of
training. The ® ndings reveal a general split between intrinsic and extrinsic rew ards.
Most respondents saw training as having a positive impact on their job satisfaction,
motivation at work, ability to do their jobs and personal growth. Employees were less
like l y, however, to see training as leading to higher pay, better promotion prospects or
c areer prog ression. This re ¯ ects the fact that, as noted earlier, competency and skill
acquisition were not consistently recognised and re w arded per se.
Further analysis reveals little correlation between the perceived bene® ts of training and
the sex, contractual status or position within the ® rm of respondents. The sole exception
was with regard to pay. Women were signi® cantly less likely to report that training would
make an appreciable difference to their pay than men. The perceived bene® ts were far
m o re likely to be influenced by the incidence of training, the existence of personal
development plans and the degree of line management support. Where respondents were
currently receiving or had received training during the last three months, they were far
more likely to associate it with higher job satisfaction, better promotion prospects and the
degree to which they felt valued by the company. Personal development planning was



TABLE 2 Perceived bene® ts of training (% of sample)

Agree Neutral Disagree

Training leads to higher pay 20 32 48

Training leads to higher job satisfaction* 79 14 7

After training, I feel more motivated at work 78 17 5

Training helps me to do my job better 90 7 3

Training improves my promotion pros pe cts 42 32 26

After training, I feel valued by the company** 37 40 23

Training enables career progress 54 27 19

Training helps me to grow as a person 80 16 4

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

also positively correlated with respondents’ attitudes towards the impact of training on
job satisfaction and the degree to which they felt valued by the company.
Those respondent s who had received active encouragement and support for
personal development from line managers were more likely to think that their
promotion prospects would improve as a result of training. The propensity of staff to
feel valued by the company and identify job satisfaction, motivation and personal
g rowth as potential bene® ts arising from training was also related to line management
support for HRD. However, employees’ views concerning the potential impact of
training on job performance or pay appeared to be unrelated to the extent to which
they had been supported by line management in their development.
Employees’ motivation and commitment towards their own personal development
was found to be signi® cantly associated with the perceived impact of training on non-
monetary re w ards. Those who associated training with better promotion prospects and
c a reer pro g ress were far more likely to engage themselves in proactive behaviour
towards personal development such as continuous improvement, requesting feedback
on performance or career exploration. Likewise, the perceived impact of training on job
satisfaction, motivation, personal growth and job performance was signi® cantly related
to the individual’s commitment to personal development.

Transfer of training
The re s e arch found that training had many bene® ts. For most individuals, training
increased con® dence and self-ef® ca cy, it improved competencies and skills and people
recognised that they had been invested in. Yet some interviewees found it dif® cult to
translate these cognitive insights into behavioural changes:
During a training course, everything makes sense. But after training, you
go back to the office and realise that it is difficult to apply what you
learned to the real job.
T h e re was also a concern about the extent to which trainees were suff i c ie n tl y
motivated, con® dent or able to apply what they learnt back on the job. As a business
manger noted:



Training is not always transferable to the job, mainly due to two proble m s.
Trainees do not make enough efforts to change the way they do things;
they are not pre pared to adopt change. And, sometimes, trainers are
detached from the workplace, are not aware of how things work, so the
training is not designed to be applied.
Table 3 presents a more systematic assessment of the perceived importance of, and
satisfaction with, pre and post-training activities on the transfer of training. The majority of
respondents considered the pre-training environment important in helping them apply the
learning to the job. On average, activities such as analysis of training needs, involvement in
deciding about training content and methods and setting objectives for performance
improvement were the most highly rated. This ® nding suggests that training interventions
focused on individual needs and, embedded in a purposeful performance improvement
framework, may encourage training transfer. Post-training activities were, however,
considered more in¯ uential with regard to the transfer of training. Not surprisingly, the
vast majority of respondents stated that having the opportunity to use new skills and
having the necessary resources were important for effective training transfer.
Coaching and feedback from line managers were also important factors in helping
employees apply the learning to their jobs. A supportive environment is key to training
e ffectiveness and it was clear that, as a group, the respondents both valued and needed
coaching and feedback on an ongoing basis. Yet the survey revealed that more than a
quarter of respondents were not receiving coaching and feedback to the extent that
they wished. It was noted that when employees returned to work after training the
most common experience was to be asked, `How did it go?’ or `Have you had a good
time?’ by their line managers, during a brief ® ve-minute chat.
A difference also emerged with re ga rd to respondents’ degree of satisfaction with
p re and post-training activities. In general, post-training activities revealed higher
levels of satisfaction than pre-training ones, although a satisfaction score of above 50
per cent was re corded in only one case. Thus, 62 per cent of respondents reported that
they were satis® ed with the opportunity to use any new knowledge of skills, compared
with just 18 per cent who were unsatisfied. In terms of post-training activities,
respondents were least satis® ed with line management follow-up and the levels of
res ource supports needed to effectively transfer training. At the pre-training level, low
levels of satisfaction were most marked with re ga rd to the opportunities available to
decide about the content and methods of training and the amount of release time to
prepa re for a training course. As we shall demonstrate, the degree of satisfaction with
pre-training activities has a signi® cant impact on transfer.
To further explore the issue of transfer, participants were asked whether they had
ever reverted back to the old ways of doing things `on the job’ after training and for
what reason. Forty-seven per cent reported not having applied new knowledge or
skills at some point. No signi® cant relationship was found between actual transfer of
training to the workplace and the age, gender or employment status of participants.
The immediate application of skills was, however, less likely among managerial than
non-managerial staff. Sixty-four per cent of managers reported having reverted back to
the old ways after training, as compared to 39 per cent of non-managerial staff.
Immediate application was less likely on `soft’ skill programmes and interventions that
include development activities aimed at changing organisational culture and
behaviou r, such as management development.
The primary reasons cited by managers for not applying training content to the
workplace were lack of time to practise new behaviour, habit ± it was easier to stick



with old ways of doing things ± and content not being suf® ciently tailored to their
practical demands. For non-managerial employees training transfer was more likely to
be inhibited by the need to produce results, insuf® cient re s ources (eg IT or staff) and a
lack of management support. Changing behaviour and ways of working re q u i re d
ongoing practice but, with the pressu re to deliver services, there was often insuf® ci en t
time for changes to be achieved. These ® ndings suggest that training activities might
not be having the desired results because work environ ment factors hindere d
participants’ ability to implement learning.
The relationship between the transfer of training and the degree of satisfaction with
2
pre and post-training activities is examined in Table 4. The ® ndings reveal a signi® cant
association between employees’ satisfaction with the pre-training environment and the
extent to which they returned to the old ways of doing things on the job after training.
Those managers and employees who felt dissatis® ed with the pre-training activities
detailed above were signi® cantly more likely to revert back to old working practices
and job behaviour. Likewise, individuals who were dissatis® ed with the post-training
activities reported lower levels of behavioural change after training. However, the
rel ationshi p was only statistically signif icant with re g a rd to the provisio n of
opportunities to use new skills. This ® nding con® rms interviewees’ views, since many

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

Ever failed to Satisfaction with Satisfaction with
transfer training? pre-training activities* post-training activities#

Low Moder at e High Low Moder at e H i gh

Yes 47 61 28 60 47 39

No 54 40 73 40 53 41
* Chi-square = 11.48; sig = .003
# Chi-square = 3.38; sig = .185

TABLE 5 P erceived impact of training by training transfer (%)

Ever failed to transfer training?
Does training have an impact on: Yes No
PAY* St rongly disagree 69 31
Disagree 51 49
Ne utr al 45 55
Agree 40 60
Strongly agree 0 100

PROMOTION# St rongly disagree 86 14
Disagree 54 46
Ne utr al 51 49
Agree 35 65
Strongly agree 40 60
* Chi-square = 9.28; sig = .05
# Chi-square = 8.25; sig = .08



of them mentioned a lack of opportunity to use skills as the primary reason affecting
training transfer. As one supervisor noted:
I think the worth of training all depends on what opportunities you have
to actually use those skills when you get back to your desk.
The survey also revealed that training activities might not be having the desire d
results because those who went through them did not feel they were being
adequately re w arded and so had no motivation to apply new skills and knowledge.
Thus, those who perceived training as leading to higher pay or better pro m oti on
p rospects were more likely to transfer training (see Table 5). No relationship was
found between the perceived intrinsic benefits of training ± such as incre a s e d
o rganisational commitment or motivation ± and the likelihood of transfer. This
indicates the importance of re w a rd systems, whether ® nancial or career development,
to improvements in training effectiveness.

DISCUSSION

Our case study has presented a detailed examination of the complex issue of training
trans fer and effectivene ss. It clearly demonstrates the way that employees ’
experiences of training, and attitudes towards broader situational factors, mediate the
tr a ns f er, and hence effectiveness, of training investments. At FinanceCo, management
was sensit ive to the difficulties of quantifying the benefits of org a n i s a t i o n a l
dev elopment, and thus developed an evaluation pro c e d u re that focused on
individual behaviour and the transfer of training rather than on achieving `ultimate
goals’. This was in part a pragmatic response to the complexities of evaluating
training effectiveness but the approach was also politically motivated as the amount
of time and re s o urces managers could devote to the process was circumscribed by
operational imperatives.
At the level of the individual, previous experiences of training and situational
conditions mediated its effectiveness and transfer. The exposure to and attitudes
tow a rds training were generally held to be positive, but there was a concern among
respondents that line management demonstr ated inconsistency with re g a rd to
developmental issues. At one level this is to be expected, given the pragmatic nature of
the evaluation strategy and the primacy of operational imperatives, but management
behaviour was found to influence access to training, perceptions of its benefits,
proactive behaviour towards personal development and, most signi® cantly of all, the
transfer of training. A c co rd i n g l y, where line managers were highly involved in
discussing training needs, setting development goals and reviewing pro g ress and
p roviding coaching and guidance, training was more likely to have a favourable
impact on employees’ motivation, job satisfaction and personal growth.
The perceived importance attached by respondents to pre and post-training
activities offe red some support for FinanceCo’s strategy of evaluating investments
both before and after training, yet it was also clear that employees were far from
s a ti s® ed with the process. Thus, those respondents who were dissatis® ed with such
p re and post-training activities were more likely to revert back to established
practices and behaviour after experiencing training. This was most signi® cant with
re g ard to pre-training activities, a finding that is perhaps unsurprising given the
emp ha sis Fina nc eCo p ut on line mana ge ment inv o lvem ent at t his st age.
Dissatisfaction was most pronounced over the degree of involvement employees had
in deciding training content and methods and the utility of the pre-course brie® n g



with managers. This suggests that companies embarking on widespread investments
in training activities and pro c e d ures should ensure that any training provided is
pe rceived to be of worth to both the individual and organisation. This should be
central to any evaluation pro ce d u re, since from the individual perspective evaluation
is important in revealing attitudes towards training and also the perceived value that
is attributed to any investment in it. Sending employees on training courses just
because they are available is not likely to be effective in the longer term. While the
impact of post-training activities on effective transfer was less marked, transfer was
nonetheless found to be conditional on the opportunities and re s ources available to
use new knowledge and skills.
At a much broader level, respondents who perceived training as leading to higher
pay or better promotion prospects were signi® cantly more likely to transfer training to
the workplace. This is an important ® nding as it suggests that the establishment of
evaluative pro cedures pre and post-training will not be enough in themselves to ensure
effective transfer to the workplace. Rather, such activities need to be enmeshed within a
wider set of enabling supports. Well-developed systems of appraisal and personal
development planning have a particularly important role to play here, not only in
terms of identifying the most relevant forms of development (pre-training) and
reinforcing training experiences (post-training) but also in terms of establishing more
explicit links between personal development and career progression and re w ard. This
can also contribute towards a more grounded and mutually bene® cial psychological
contract around training inv estm ents. The inconsist ency of approach among
FinanceCo’s line managers towards appraisal and personal development planning was
clearly problematic in this respect. While no definitive reasons were identified to
explain this inconsistency, the potential impact of such activities on line managers’
workloads would clearly be a contributory factor (see Sisson and Storey, 2000: 20). The
degree of support from central and line HR to line managers also played a role. As one
line manager noted:
The problem is that each department runs so diff e re n t l y, with no
systematic approach. Some units don’t ... have someone specificall y
looking at training.
Reinforcing the value of training and staff development to line managers is thus of
crucial importance. To this end, the fact that the appraisal system covered reward and
the identi® cation of training needs, but with no direct recognition or rew ard for the
acquisition and application of new skills, was also potentially pro blematic.
Returning to the extant literature on the evaluation of training effectiveness, our case
offers little support for the widely used Kirkpatrick model which is focused solely on
post-course evaluation and traces a prescriptive cause-and-effect chain from training to
organisational performance. Following Easterby-Smith (1986), our analysis suggests
that any evaluation of training effectiveness must take into account both pre and post-
training activities. Most important, however, is a recognition of the social and political
forces that shape organisational training practice and investment and the re s ul ta n t
training experiences of employees. Thus, the extent to which employees are able, and
willing, to transfer training into the workplace will be mediated by a wide range of
situational factors such as line ma nage ment commitmen t and involveme nt,
organisational re s ou rces and opportunities and re w a rds. In this respect our study
provides strong empirical support for Noe’s (1986) contention that trainees apply new
knowledge and skills on the job depending on the instrumentality of training to
provide rewards.



The results of this study have several possible implications for increasing the
application of trained ski lls to the workplace. Enro lling employees to attend
p rogrammes in a non-supportive working environment may waste training funds.
Training provision will be more effective if attention is given to ensuring that the work
climate and manage ment practic es encoura ge persona l deve lopment, since
behavioural change ± a proxy measure of performance improvement ± after training
seems more likely to occur where management encourage and re w a rd trainees for
using new skills.
Clearl y, we must be wary about the potential to generalise from a single case study,
but we would argue that our ® ndings have signi® cant analytical importance. As we
noted in the introduction, the mainstream HR literature has devoted little empirical
attention to date to the complex issue of training transfer and effectiveness, focusing
instead on the nature of employer strategy and practice towards training. This neglect
is somewhat surprising, given the significance commentators often attach to the
performance-enhancing benefits of training. A g reater consideration of the actual
recipients of training offers much in this respect. Certainly, our study has helped to
reinforce the ® ndings of previous studies that have utilised the individual as the unit of
analysis (see Antonacopoulou, 1999, 2001), particularly Heyes and Stuart’s (1996)
analysis of the positive impact that formal stru ctures of training provision can have on
employee attitudes. Most signi® c a ntl y, though, our analysis of the perceptions and
experiences of employees towards training activities has helped to develop our
understanding of the range of factors that mediate and impact on the effectiveness of
training. Further res e arch is clearly needed on the complex question of training transfer
and effectiveness, particularly in terms of the in¯ uence of the wider HR enviro nment
and the dynamics by which enterprise training translates into positive outcomes for
British organisations. Such re s e a rch would need to examine the financial and
productivity bene® ts (Green, 1997), as well as the long-term bene® ts for the company
and the workforce in terms of cultural and behavioural change.

Notes
1 The ASTD Benchmarking Forum is made up of 55 large, multinational companies
such as American Express, AT&T, Ford Motor Company and IBM. The latest survey
revealed that 67 per cent of organisations that conduct evaluations use the
Kirkpatrick Model.
2 The means of individual items were summed to give an overall score for
pre and post-training activities and then orde red into low, moderate and
high levels of satisfaction.

Acknowledgements
We are grateful to three anonymous referees for their helpful and constructive comments.

REFERENCES

All i g e r, G. M. and Janak, E. A. (1989). `Kirkpatrick’s levels of training criteria: thirty
years later’. Personnel Psychology, 42: 2, 331-342.
Antonacopoulou, E. P. (1999). `Training does not imply learning: the individual’s
perspective’. International Journal of Training and Development, 3: 1, 14-33.
Ant ona co poulo u, E. P. (2001). `Rec onciling in dividual and o rg a n i s a t i o n a l
development: issues in the retail banking sector’ in Training in the Workplace: Critical
Perspectives on Learning at Wo rk. H. Rainbird (ed). Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.



Asht on, D . and Gree n, F. (1996). Educati on, Training and the Global Econom y,
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Baldwin, T. T. and Ford J. K. (1988). `Transfer of training: a review and directions for
fu tu re re s e arch’. Personnel Psychology, 41: 1, 63-105.
Baldwin, T. T. and Magjuka, R. J. (1991). Òrganisational training and signals of
importance: effects of pre-training perceptions on intentions to transfer ’. Hum an
Resource Development, 2: 1, 25-36.
Bassi, L. J. and Cheney, S. (1997). `Benchmarking the best’. Training & Development,
Novemb e r, 60-64.
B r a m l e y, P. (1996). Evaluating Training Effectiveness (second editi on), London:
McGraw-Hill.
Cascio W. F. (1987). Applied Psychology in Personnel Management (t h i rd edition),
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Clement, R. W. (1982). `Testing the hierarc hy theory of training evaluation: an
expanded role for trainee reactions’ . Public Personnel Management Journal, 11: 2,
176-184.
Currie, G. (1994). Èvaluation of management development: a case study’. Journal of
Management Development, 13: 3, 22-26.
Deloitte Haskins and Sells (1989). Training in Britain: A study of Funding, Activity and
Attitudes ± Employer’s Activities (A report pre pared by Deloitte Haskins and Sells in
conjunction with IFF Research Ltd), London: HMSO.
Ea sterb y-Smith, M. (1986). Evaluation of Managem ent Education, Training and
Developm ent, Aldershot: Gower.
Gallie, D. and White, M. (1993). Employee Commitment and the Skills Revolution,
London: PSI Publishing.
Goldstein, I. L. (1993). Training In Organizations: Needs Assessment, Development and
Evaluation (thi rd edition), Paci® c Grove, CA: Bro oks/Cole.
G reen, F. (1992). Òn the political economy of skill in the advanced industrial nations’.
Review of Political Economy, 4: 4, 413-435.
G reen, F. (1997). Review of Information on the Bene® ts of Training for Employers, R esearch
Report No. 7. S h e f® eld: DfEE.
Hamblin, A. C. (1974). Evaluation and Control of Tr aining, London: McGraw-Hill.
Heye s, J. (1998). `Tra inin g and development at an agroche micals plant’ in
Experiencing Human Resource Management. C. Mabey, D. Skinner and T. Clark (eds).
London: Sage.
Heyes, J. and Stuart, M. (1994). `Placing symbols before reality? Re-evaluating the low
skills equilibrium’. Personnel Review, 23: 5, 34-47.
Heyes, J. and Stuart, M. (1996). `Does training matter? Employee experiences and
attitudes’. Human Resource Management Journal, 6: 3, 7-21.
Keep, E. (1989). `Corporate training: the vital component?’ in New Perspectives on
Human Resource Management. J. Storey (ed). London: Routledge.
Kirkpatrick, D. (1967). Èvaluation of training’ in Training Evaluation Handbook. R .
Craig and L. Bittel (eds). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kirkpatrick, D. (1994). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels, San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Mason, G., Van Ark, B. and Wag n e r, K. (1996). `Wor k fo rce skills, product quality and
economic perform ance’ in Acquiring Skills. A. Book and D. Snower (eds ).
Cambridge University Press.
Noe, R. A. (1986). `Trainees’ attributes and attitudes: neglected in¯ uences on training
e ffectiveness’ . Academy of Management Review, 11: 4, 736-749.



Noe, R. A. and Schmitt, N. (1986). `The influence of trainee attitudes on training
e ffectiveness: test of a model’ . Personnel Psychology, 39: 3, 497-523.
Orpen, C. (1999). `The in¯ uence of the trainee environment on trainee motivation and
p e rceived training quality’. International Journal of Training and Development, 3: 1,
34-43.
Prais, S. J. (1995). P ro d u c t iv ity, Education and Training: An International Perspective,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reid, M. A. and Barrington, H. (1997). Training Interventions: Managing Employee
Development (® fth edition), London: Institute of Personnel and Development (IPD).
R o m e r, P. (1993). `Idea gaps and object gaps in economic development’. Journal of
Monetary Economics, 32: 3, 543-73.
Sisson, K. and Storey, J. (2000). The Realities of Human Resource Management: Managing
the Employment Relationship, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Tyson, S. and Doherty, N. (1999). Human Resource Excellence Report, Benchmarking Best
Practice in Human Resource Management, Cran® eld University, London: Financial
Times Management.
War r, P., Bird, M. and Rackham, N. (1976). Evaluation of Management Tr a in in g, London:
Gower Press.
We xl e y, K. N. and Latham, G. P. (1991). Developing and Training Human Resources in
Organisations (second edition), New York: Harper-Collins.


J.1748 8583.2003.tb00082.x

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to J.1748 8583.2003.tb00082.x

J.1748 8583.2003.tb00082.x