A MISSING LINK IN THE TRANSFER PROBLEM? EXAMINING HOW TRAINERS LEARN ABOUT TRAINING TRANSFER H O L LY M . H U T C H I N S , L I S A A . B U R K E , A N D A L I C E M AY B E R T H E L S E N This study describes and reports the methods training professionals use to learn about training transfer. Specifically, this study focused on trainers’ use and perceived utility of the literature (research and practitioner-based) to develop their knowledge of how to support training transfer in their organization. Consistent with extant research conducted on human resource professionals, our survey results suggest that training professionals seek knowledge mostly through informal learning (e.g., job experiences, discussions with internal and external training professionals, books, searching the Web), but they prefer to learn about training transfer in discussions with external trainers and academics. As a follow-up to the survey, our interview results indicate that trainers select learning methods based on source quality, motivation, and accessibility, but these differed based on which learning methods were chosen. Ideas to guide future human resource researchers are presented within the framework of information-seeking theory. This paper concludes by discussing practical implications for increasing trainer competencies that support training transfer in organizations. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Keywords: workplace learning, training transfer, information-seeking, research-practice gap ore than ever, organizations are looking for ways to endure and thrive in challenging economic times through effective human resource development strategies. Keeping sharp and retaining their most valued asset, human capital, firms have used various training and development interventions to leverage knowledge into competitive business
M
results. To ensure these interventions become documented successes, researchers and practitioners have pursued the study of training transfer—applying knowledge and skills from training to the work setting—for decades. Beginning with Baldwin and Ford’s (1988) seminal work in identifying individual trainee, training design, and work-related factors that influence training transfer, subsequent
Correspondence to: Holly M. Hutchins, University of Houston, 110 Cameron Building, Houston, TX 77204, Phone: 713-743-4059, Fax: 713-743-4110, E-mail:
[email protected]. Human Resource Management, July–August 2010, Vol. 49, No. 4, Pp. 599– 618 © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/hrm.20371
600
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULY–AUGUST 2010
research has increased our understanding of how knowledge learned (through training) can become knowledge applied on the job. Current research has expanded these areas and identified the role of transfer climate, technological support, and using self-management methods that influence trainees to use new learning on the job (cf. Blume, Ford, Baldwin, & Huang, 2010, for a meta-analyAlthough the extant sis on transfer, and Burke & Hutchins, 2007, for an integrative research continues literature review on training transfer). Despite these advances in unto focus almost derstanding how to support and exclusively on assess transfer, training professionals continue to struggle with realBaldwin and Ford’s izing performance improvements resulting from training events. (1988) tripartite Although the extant research transfer model, the continues to focus almost exclusively on Baldwin and Ford’s (1988) role of trainers and tripartite transfer model, the role of trainers and specifically their specifically their knowledge and skills related to knowledge and skills training transfer has been largely overlooked. Training professionals related to training often point to insufficient time and support, lack of accountability, transfer has been and low priority placed on measuring learning outcomes as to why largely overlooked. transfer support is not a major initiative within their organizations (Longnecker, 2004; Zenger, Folkman, & Sherwin, 2005). One unexamined link in the transfer problem, however, may center on the trainers’ knowledge of evidence-based transfer practices, which would directly influence their ability to enable the learner to apply (from training) new knowledge on the job. Specifically, we suggest that a possible reason organizations continue to struggle with the inveterate transfer problem may be attributable to how training professionals learn about training transfer and what methods they choose to employ. Indeed, there is a paucity of research examining trainers’ role in bolstering transfer (Burke & Saks, 2009; Kopp, 2006), particularly regarding how trainers develop their knowledge of transfer via formal and informal learning methods. Put simply, what trainers know (and do not know) about transfer, and how
they come to know it, may be contributing to the root cause of low transfer rates. Lackluster training transfer rates present a challenge for HR departments, which are increasingly held accountable for practices that support organizational learning and performance (Baldwin, Ford, & Blume, 2009; Bersin, 2006). As HR expands its role in creating a strategic learning culture, both training and non-training interventions (e.g., talent management, coaching, mentoring, communities of practice) are falling under the purview of training and HR professionals (Paradise & Patel, 2009). Toward this end, training professionals will be expected to demonstrate much more than effective intervention design and delivery skills. They will also be required to show the firm’s grasp of what factors influence learner intentions to transfer skills to their work, which support aids are most useful to begin applying new knowledge, and how technology might be leveraged to aid trainees in applying skills on the job. Thus, the extent to which trainers can effectively support training transfer will be largely contingent on how they develop their knowledge about evidence-based transfer practices. To explore how trainers develop their knowledge of training transfer, we describe and report two studies exploring trainer workplace learning methods. Trainers engage in workplace learning when they seek information and guidance through formal or informal learning sources. Our specific concern, therefore, is how trainers learn about an important area of training (training transfer), whether they perceive these learning methods to be particularly useful, and which determinants influence method choice. To guide our study, we review workplace learning in general, with a specific focus on using formal versus informal learning methods. We then examine trainer perceived utility of learning methods and factors that influence method choice.
Workplace Learning Methods Workplace learning is often described as acquiring, using, and critically reflecting knowledge to achieve organizational goals (Beattie, 2006; Clarke, 2005; Elkjaer, 2004; Smith, Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
A MISSING LINK IN THE TRANSFER PROBLEM?
2003). This learning occurs as a process of individuals developing propositional (knowledge about), procedural (knowledge of how), and dispositional (development of values and attitudes) knowledge through their workplace experiences. For example, training professionals may engage in learning about instructional design (propositional) by participating in train-the-trainer sessions, designing training through small projects or apprenticeships (procedural), and developing attitudes about how training should be designed from other trainers (dispositional). Trainers then share this knowledge with others in the organization, adding to the collective understanding of the topic, practice, or process under study. According to Billet (2002), robust vocational practice includes engaging in novel work practices that extend individuals’ proficiency, securing guidance from experienced coworkers, and being able to access practice on “prized” (p. 29) or important tasks. Embedded in this context are formal and informal learning methods that identify how both the individual and the organization create, share, and reflect upon learning. To consider how learning methods support trainers’ workplace learning, we situate our study in Billet’s (2002) theoretical perspective of developing vocational practice and Marsick and Watkins’s (1992) theory of informal learning. We next present these perspectives and a literature review on formal and informal methods.
Formal Learning Methods Billet (1992) based his theory of vocational practice on the idea that experiences in the workplace are the primary source of individuals’ initial and continued professional development. In surveying workers across multiple industries, Billet (1992, 1993, 2001) found that being involved in everyday work tasks, direct guidance from experts, and indirect experience that emerged in the workplace contribute to how workers learn and develop their professional knowledge. Although Billet (1992) recognized that situated learning could occur indirectly through observation and trial and error, he also suggested that developing expertise through guided learning inHuman Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
601
teractions between learner and expert (through formal mentoring and on-the-job training) is critical for developing conceptual knowledge that might not be so salient if accessed through serenLimited opportunities dipitous (informal) learning. Grounded in the perspectives to participate in of behaviorism and cognitivism, formal learning research has recognized formal learning opportunities as instituopportunities tionally sponsored and highly structured learning events (Mermay influence riam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007). Formal learning is often the individuals (e.g., primary method of instruction in trainers) to seek professional development or competency-based learning programs informal methods to and includes interventions such as training sessions, academic acquire and develop courses, or continuing education their professional programs (e.g., offered at colleges and professional conferences). Decompetencies. spite organizations’ heavy reliance on formal learning (Rivera & ParaSimilarly, the dise, 2006), the opportunity to trainers’ role engage in these experiences is sometimes limited (particularly in or status in the tough economic times). Drawing upon Billet’s (2002) description of organization may workplace learning as a participaprevent them from tive process of individual agency and work norms and practices, participating in Fenwick (2005) further suggested that an organization’s division of formal learning labor, social relationships, rules, practices, and cultural norms and opportunities. That the perspectives of the individuals is, organizations within the organization often shaped learning. Limited opportunities to participate in formal learning opportunities may influence individuals (e.g., trainers) to seek informal methods to acquire and develop their professional competencies. Similarly, the trainers’ role or status in the organization may prevent them from participating in formal learning opportunities. That is, organizations may provide higher status or valued employees (e.g., managers)
may provide higher status or valued employees (e.g., managers) with formal learning opportunities rather than trainers.
602
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULY–AUGUST 2010
with formal learning opportunities rather than trainers.
Informal Learning Methods Informal learning focuses on the non structured learning opportunities that can occur from both intentional actions and serendipitous discoveries (Marsick & Watkins, 1992). Informal learning is based in the constructivist learning perspective, which focuses on the learner’s experience in creating knowledge. From this perspective, learning becomes socially situated and occurs through the learner’s role in the collective sensemaking and sense-sharing of organizational experience (Gherardi, Nicolini, & Odella, 1998). Examples of informal learning include self-directed learning (e.g., reading, browsing Web sites), networking, coaching, mentoring, observing others, and trial-error experiences (Marsick & Watkins, 2001). Informal learning is considered an unstructured but mostly intentional method of learning and has been found to comprise the majority of learning experiences in organizational settings (Eddy, D’Abate, Tannenbaum, Givens-Skeaton, & Robinson, 2006; Noe & Ford, 1992). While research concerning workplace learning has steadily increased in the last decade, its focus has centered primarily on how informal learning supports professional knowledge and developing skills. In a study exploring the self-directed learning behaviors of experienced public school teachers, Lohman (2000) found that teachers more often engaged in exchanging knowledge (talking with teachers and students, sharing resources, observing others’ classes, collaborative projects), experimenting (trial-error using new knowledge, critically reflecting on behavior), and environmental scanning (seeking knowledge through external sources) in their learning. In terms of the private sector, Enos, Kehrkahn, and Bell (2003) explored the role of informal learning in developing managerial proficiency in a Fortune 100 company. Enos et al. (2003) found that among the 247 learning activities managers used to develop 20 core managerial skills,
70% were identified as informal learning activities. The most frequently reported activities were interacting with others, challenging job assignments, and observing others (respectively). Similarly, Beattie (2006) found line managers working at two organizations (recognized for their workplace learning) reported coaching, sharing task-specific knowledge, reflective thinking on performance, discussion, and guided activities were the primary learning methods. Overall, these studies have suggested that informal learning methods consist mostly of interactional forms of learning and serve as a major source of creating and sharing knowledge at work. Given the social interaction trainers experience as a natural part of their job, and perhaps their limited opportunities to engage in formal learning (cf. Ellinger, 2005; Enos et al., 2003; Fenwick, 2005), such informal learning methods could be a convenient and inexpensive method in addition to or in place of formal learning. Thus, our first research question is: Research Question 1a: What methods (formal or informal) do training practitioners use to learn about training transfer? Researchers have also studied human resource professionals concerning their preferred learning methods. Building on her research on informal learning with teachers, Lohman (2005) explored the learning preferences of human resource development (HRD) professionals. Interestingly, she found these employees engaged in autonomous informal learning activities that included observing others, searching the Internet, and scanning professional magazines and journals to a (statistically) significant degree more than did teachers. Human resource development professionals reported that they preferred independent forms of learning because they perceived their colleagues and workplace did not support formal learning activities, a barrier also identified in other learning studies (Ellinger, 2005; Enos et al., 2003). Given our focus, we also examine trainers’ preferred methods of learning about training transfer. Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
A MISSING LINK IN THE TRANSFER PROBLEM?
Research Question 1b: What methods (formal or informal) do training practitioners prefer to use to learn about training transfer?
Literature Sources and Perceived Utility In a related study to those examining workplace learning methods, Rynes, Colbert, and Brown (2002) explored how HR professionals sought information to solve job-related problems. Although their focus was not on learning methods per se, we suggest that the act of seeking information to fill knowledge gaps is commensurate with a learning activity. Specifically, Rynes et al. (2002) found that human resource professionals more frequently consulted other HR professionals, browsed Web sites (such as shrm.org), and, to a lesser extent, reviewed discipline-relevant literature to obtain information and solve job-related problems. In terms of literature sources, Rynes et al. (2002) sample reported rarely, if ever, reading research publications (< 1% “usually” read academic journals such as the Academy of Management Journal), and the only periodical respondents read more than “sometimes” was the practitioner-focused HR Magazine. Replications of the Rynes et al. (2002) study uncovered similar results. For example, in a study of 626 Dutch HR practitioners (Sanders, van Riemsdijk, & Groen, 2008), professional HR (Dutch) journals were read more frequently than academic journals. Still, however, only three professional journals were read more than “sometimes.” Thus, HR practitioners seldom seek out periodicals, either academic or practical. As Cohen (2007) suggested, scholars generally do not write in a way that motivates practitioners to read their published findings, and practitioners are not trained to read research articles or have little time or desire to spend reading them. We therefore explore trainers’ use and perceived utility of the literature, which may help us glean insights into a contributor of the enduring transfer problem: Research Question 2: Which literature sources (research vs. practitioner based), if any, do training practitioners (1) use to remain current in their Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
knowledge of training practices and (2) find useful in supporting their practice? To explore how learning methods are related to trainers’ accrued knowledge of training transfer, we also examined the relationship between learning methods and perceived utility and specific trainer characteristics, including their transfer literacy. In a study exploring trainers’ knowledge of the extant transfer research, Hutchins and Burke (2007) found training professionals were more familiar with academic transfer research when they occupied higher job positions (manager or higher), had a college degree, and possessed a professional certification. These findings are consistent with Rynes et al. (2002), who also found job level to be a significant predictor of knowledge of research-based findings, academic reading, and discussions with consultants. As related to our study, examining the relationships among these factors may clarify the use of learning methods to develop trainers’ knowledge of transfer findings. Research Question 3: To what extent are training practitioners’ utility perceptions of the literature, their learning methods, and demographic attributes related to their knowledge of research-based transfer findings?
Determinants of Method Choice Finally, and in addition to knowing which learning methods trainers use to learn about transferring training, we also explored why training professionals choose certain methods. Information-seeking theory provides a useful lens to explore this question, drawing upon decades of studies on how professionals seek and use information. Choo (2006) defined information-seeking as “the process in which the individual purposefully searches for information that can change his or her state of knowledge or understanding” (p. 29). Choo (2006) suggested that individuals seek certain methods based on source accessibility (proximity, cost, clarity, ease of access/lack of barriers), source quality (perceived source relevance, reliability, and helpfulness), and individual
603
604
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULY–AUGUST 2010
motivation and interest (individual motivation and interest to use the source, whether externally or internally influenced). For example, medical practitioners reported using face-toface communication predominantly to avoid the barriers of using other sources such as time constraints (Reddy & Spence, 2008), knowledge of where and how to find relevant information (Nail-Chiwetalu & Ratner, 2007), information overload, and Elucidating why too little specific information (Casebeer, Bennett, Kristofco, Carillo, & trainers seek Centor, 2002). Elucidating why trainers seek certain learning methcertain learning ods can help HR researchers and methods can help practitioners understand how to provide useful learning opportuniHR researchers ties about transfer and identify additional factors that may contribute and practitioners to the research-practitioner gap. understand Research Question 4: Why do trainhow to provide ing professionals prefer certain learning methods? useful learning opportunities about
Study Overview
transfer and identify
Our research questions were a part of a larger survey of experienced additional factors training professionals and training that may contribute transfer. In the present paper, we describe and report on two studies to the researchexploring how training professionals learn about training transfer practitioner gap. practices. In the first study, training professionals were surveyed regarding their current and preferred methods of gathering knowledge about training transfer and the extent to which they found the training literature (i.e., discipline-relevant research journals and practitioner magazines) useful for supporting transfer in their organizations. We then conducted follow-up interviews with a selected group of trainers to explore why trainers preferred certain learning methods.
Survey Sample Our sample of voluntary survey respondents included members of a regional American Society of Training and Development (ASTD)
chapter located in a south-central urban area. The survey invitation included a description of our research questions, how subjects were identified, incentives to participate, data security measures, researcher contact information, and the Web site for our survey. The survey was created and administered online for convenient participant access and data control (Ilieva, Baron, & Healey, 2002). Incentives included four small Amazon.com gift certificates, randomly awarded from the pool of participants. The use of initial branching questions ensured subjects were currently working practitioners in the training, human resource development, or workplace learning field. Of approximately 413 surveys distributed to valid e-mail addresses, 172 surveys were returned (41.6%), of which 139 provided usable data (i.e., passed our filter questions and included complete data), yielding a response rate of 33.7% (139 of 413). Participants were mostly female (69%) with an average of 15 years of professional experience (SD = 7.68) in training or workplace learning. Significantly more than half of the participants (72%) were employed in a training-related position for a private (32%) or public sector (40%) organization, while the remaining respondents identified themselves as independent consultants (25%) or by another title (4%). Participants were diverse in their job level, serving as analyst/ associate (40%), manager (26%), director (11%), vice president (5%), or president of the firm (14%). The majority of participants (90%) had a college degree, with 58% of those also having an advanced degree. Of respondents with a college degree, more than half (55%) completed a degree of study in training or workplace learning. Few participants held a professional certification from either the Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM) or ASTD (9% and 17%, respectively).
Survey Measures Learning Methods To investigate RQ1a and RQ1b, respondents were asked about their current and preferred Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
A MISSING LINK IN THE TRANSFER PROBLEM?
methods for learning about training transfer. Two items were presented: “What methods do you CURRENTLY use to learn about research findings as related to training transfer?” and “What methods do you PREFER to use to learn about research findings as related to training transfer? Check any box that applies.” Participants were then presented with various formal and informal learning methods either captured in the literature (e.g., Lohman, 2005; Rynes et al., 2002) or identified by the authors.
Literature Sources Used and Perceived Utility To assess the specific literature sources trainers use to stay current on training transfer findings (RQ2), we asked: “Please examine the list of sources below and rate with what frequency you use or consult them to remain current in your knowledge of research-supported training practices.” The response scale was anchored as never, a few times a year, about once a month, several times a month, every week, and almost daily. Respondents were then provided with a list of academic and practitioner journals and magazines that publish training and HR research (discussed and presented later in this paper). The list was based on reviewing HR journals used in similar research on professional use of research (e.g., Rynes et al., 2002) and reviewing training and human resource development academic and professional association Web sites. Participants were also presented with four items asking whether they perceived the training literature and research to be useful for helping them learn about transfer for executing their job responsibilities. The authors developed the items to tap whether participants perceived research and practitioner outlets were useful in developing knowledge about training. Sample items included “I believe research findings presented in discipline-relevant journals and magazines are useful in my current training role” and “I believe reading the training literature is useful in helping me to increase the transfer success of learners in my organization.” The 6-point Likert scale ranged Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
from strongly disagree to strongly agree; the alpha was .89.
Knowledge of Transfer Research In examining RQ3, a 32-item true/false measure was created to capture key findings in the training transfer research. Major research databases were consulted to generate the items, and a pilot study using trainers and researchers was conducted to ensure item clarity and content validity. We also conducted a pilot study of undergraduate and graduate training and development students to ensure reasonable survey completion time, an aesthetically appealing survey format, and appropriate response validation parameters. To establish test-retest reliability, we administered the online survey to senior-level undergraduate students (n = 33) enrolled in management courses at two U.S.-based universities. Time 1 and time 2 measures were gathered using a 4-week interval; the correlation between the two sets of responses was .79 (p < .01). In the present sample of trainers, the average participant correctly answered 25 of the 32 (78%) transfer of training survey items on the true/false measure; however, there was a notable array of total correct answers logged, ranging from a low of 18 (56.3%) to a high of 31 (96.9%).
Survey Results Learning Methods In terms of RQ1a, trainers reported that they currently use more informal learning methods than formal methods to learn about training transfer (Table I). Of the most frequently reported informal learning practices, learning through job experiences (80%), discussions with internal and external training professionals (72% each), and searching the Web (64%) garnered top spots. These informal methods are “close” to trainers; that is, learning while working, talking to other internal trainers, and searching the Web are easily accessible. In terms of (current) formal methods, the most frequently reported was attending practitioner
605
606
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULY–AUGUST 2010
TABLE
I
Frequencies of Survey Respondents’ Current and Preferred Learning Methods About Training
Method of Learning Formal/Informal
Currently Use Count (%)
Prefer to Use Count (%)
Formal Practitioner conferences
92 (66%)
71 (51%)
Training program (external)
76 (54%)
75 (54%)
Training program (internal)
67 (48%)
38 (27%)
Academic program
31 (22%)
54 (39%)
Formal mentoring
31 (22%)
53 (38%)
Academic conferences
18 (13%)
31 (22%)
Learning through job experiences
112 (80%)
61 (44%)
Talking with other training/workplace professionals (internal)
101 (72%)
56 (40%)
Talking with other training/workplace learning professionals (external)
101 (72%)
72 (51%)
Searching training or workplace learning Web sites
90 (64%)
54 (39%)
Observing other training or workplace learning professionals
70 (50%)
59 (42%)
Reviewing the training research literature
63 (45%)
45 (32%)
Informal mentoring with workplace learning professionals
55 (39%)
52 (37%)
Talking with training or workplace learning academics
40 (29%)
49 (35%)
Participating in training or workplace learning listservs
29 (21%)
30 (21%)
11 (8%)
28 (20%)
Informal
Participating in training or workplace learning chat groups Note: n = 139.
conferences (66%), followed by participating in an external training program (54%). Examining trainer responses to their preferred methods (RQ1b) of learning about training transfer revealed that their most preferred method of learning is via formal external training programs (54%), followed by attending practitioner conferences and talking informally with external trainers (51% each). Trainers also reported that they prefer to attend more academic programs and academic conferences and talk more with academics than they do now, and they prefer to attend fewer internal training programs than they do currently. This finding is consistent with Rynes et al. (2002) and Sanders et al. (2008), who reported that HR professionals would prefer to talk to academics about HR problems. As such, trainers’ preferred learning methods revealed less desire to learn on the job (e.g., perhaps via trial-and-error learning), less desire to interact with internal trainers, less reliance on Web searches, and less use of the training literature. Overall, these findings indicate trainers may
see downsides to relying on proximate informal sources (as we explore later) and instead favor more interaction with external sources. The results also suggest, surprisingly, that practitioners see value in interfacing with academics to learn about training transfer and other training practices. This is not a natural conclusion one would derive from current researchpractice gap discussions in the literature (e.g., Keefer & Stone, 2009; Short, 2006). Perhaps trainers merely prefer a different communication medium than what is now predominantly used; that is, they seem to value and prefer talking with academics rather than passively reading their esoteric writings.
Literature Sources and Perceived Utility For RQ2a and RQ2b, trainers reported they used specific training journals (both practitioner and research-based) to seek knowledge about training practices. We intentionally asked about “training practices” and Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
A MISSING LINK IN THE TRANSFER PROBLEM?
TABLE
II
Means and Standard Deviations for the Frequency of Journal Use (Survey)
Journal
Mean
Standard Deviation
Practitioner-oriented Training
2.56
1.23
Training and Development (T⫹D)
2.54
1.03
Human Resource Magazine
1.81
.99
Workforce
1.69
1.12
Chief Learning Officer
1.62
1.01
Human Resource Executive
1.33
.84
Performance Improvement Journal
1.29
.60
Human Resource Focus Magazine
1.25
.74
Human Resource Development Quarterly
1.18
.61
Personnel Psychology
1.16
.63
Performance Improvement Quarterly
1.14
.37
Human Resource Development Review
1.13
.55
Human Resource Management (Wiley)
1.13
.41
Academy of Management Journal
1.12
.44
International Journal of Training and Development
1.11
.36
Research-oriented
Journal of Workplace Learning
1.10
.37
Academy of Management Learning and Education Journal
1.09
.40
Human Resource Planning Journal
1.08
.32
Academy of Management Perspectives
1.04
.24
Note: 1–6 scale, where 1 = never; 2 = a few times a year; 3 = about once a month; 4 = several times a month; 5 = every week; 6 = almost daily
TABLE
III
Means and Standard Deviations for Perceived Utility of Training Literature (Survey)
Items
Mean
Standard Deviation
Training literature is useful in helping me perform my current training role. Research findings in journals and magazines are useful in my current training role.
2.21
1.04
2.30
1.09
Reading the training literature is useful in helping me to increase the transfer success.
2.33
1.07
Research findings presented in journals and magazines can help achieve greater training transfer to the job.
2.25
1.05
Note: 1–6 scale, where 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = moderately disagree; 3 = slightly disagree; 4 = slightly agree; 5 = moderately agree; 6 = strongly agree.
not “training transfer” in an effort to gauge trainers’ overall use of the training literature. As expected, trainers read practitioner journals (e.g., Training, T+D) significantly more often than research journals (t(138) = 17.70, p < .05); however, even trainers read Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
practitioner-oriented publications only a few times a year (Table II). Although 45% of respondents reported currently using the literature to learn about transfer, they clearly do so rarely (similar to Rynes et al., 2002, findings), at least with respect to the publi-
607
608
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULY–AUGUST 2010
cations listed in Table II. We also queried trainers concerning their attitudes about the utility of the training literature (Table III). Not surprisingly and consistent with the research-practice gap literature (Lawler, 2007), the data suggest trainers perceive the training literature to be of little use to them in remaining current on training practices.
Correlates of Transfer Knowledge For RQ3, we examined to what extent training practitioners’ utility perceptions of the literature, their use of formal/informal learning methods, and demographics were correlated to their knowledge of transfer (Table IV). The only positive correlate our study revealed of transfer knowledge (i.e., score on the transfer survey of research-based findings) was education level. As such, trainers who have higher levels of education tend to demonstrate more knowledge of transfer research, presumably given their exposure to this type of research in their academic programs. TABLE
IV
Surprisingly, respondents who scored higher on the transfer knowledge measure actually perceived the training literature as less useful. This result may indicate that the practitioner training literature is perceived by knowledgeable consumers to be somewhat deficient in providing valuable research-based findings on transfer, an observation also advanced in related research (Rynes, Giluk, & Brown, 2007). This result may also help us interpret the negative correlation between trainers’ utility perceptions of the training literature and their use of informal learning methods (r = ⫺.19); that is, one possible explanation may be that trainers who think little of the training literature might be more likely to seek other informal learning methods (e.g., people) to learn about training transfer. While trainers’ overall attitude toward the training literature was unfavorable, trainers with a Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM) certification were more likely to perceive the literature as useful for providing knowledge about training practices. This might be because SHRM supports
Correlations and Reliabilities (Survey)
Variables
M
SD
1
2.27
.92
(.89)
2. Use of formal learning methods
.34
.26
⫺.05
3. Use of informal learning methods
.48
.26
⫺.19*
4. Training/workplace learning cert.
1.85
.36
.13
⫺.30**
⫺.21**
5. SHRM certification
1.91
.28
.18*
⫺.07
⫺.05
.01
1.
Utility perceptions (training lit.)
6. Education 7 . Work experience 8. Job Level 9. Transfer knowledge score
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
.14
(.79)
(.60) .53**
(.78)
3.40
.91
⫺.02
⫺.10
.00
⫺.02
.05
14.64
7.68
.08
.04
.03
⫺.12
.07
.23**
2.42
1.74
.05
⫺.02
.08
⫺.03
⫺.01
.22*
.37**
25.10
2.79
⫺.23**
⫺.04
.10
⫺.12
⫺.07
.17*
.07
Note: N = 107. Job level coded: 1 = analyst, 2 = manager, 3 = director, 4 = chief learning officer, 5 = vp, 6 = president. Education coded: 1 = high school, 2 = associate’s degree, 3 = bachelor’s degree, 4 = master’s degree, 5 = doctorate degree, 6 = juris doctor. Work experience coded: Number of years in training. Training certification coded: 1 = no, 2 = yes. SHRM certification coded: 1 = no, 2 = yes. Reliability reported for transfer knowledge score is a test-retest correlation (n = 32 survey items). Reliability coefficients are in parentheses ( ). *p < .05, ** p < .01.
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
A MISSING LINK IN THE TRANSFER PROBLEM?
its members with a multitude of user-friendly resources, templates, white papers, toolkits, and benchmarking surveys. This might also be because trainers with a broader HR perspective seek a more expansive literature base to stay current on training practices. Other findings in Table IV reveal a strong positive correlation between informal and formal learning methods (r = .53), suggesting that trainers who learn informally will also seek formal methods to learn about transfer. Curiously, trainers with a training certification were less likely to use informal or formal learning methods; it may be they feel less of a need to stay current on research because they have demonstrated a grasp of central training concepts via their certification. In summary, our results suggest that training professionals seek knowledge mostly through informal learning activities (e.g., job experiences, discussions with internal and external training professionals, searching the Web, as examined with RQ1a). Trainers also reported, however, that they preferred to learn about training transfer through formal methods and discussions with external trainers and academics (RQ1b). While trainers consult the practitioner literature to learn about training transfer significantly more than they consult the research literature, they do so sparingly and find the training literature to be of little value in helping them support training transfer (RQ2). Finally, trainer education level proved to have the only significant relationship with transfer knowledge (RQ3).
Interview Sample For the follow-up interviews to address RQ4, eight training professionals from seven different organizations were selected based on their experience in a recent training project within the three to four months prior to the interview. Their titles included curriculum designer, consultant, director of global learning and development, manager of best practices, and human resource manager for talent development. Participants reported working in these positions for an average of four years and averaged 17 years of total training expeHuman Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
609
rience. Job responsibilities included designing, facilitating, and evaluating training; best practices research; conducting needs assessments; and managing training budgets. Participants represented a variety of industries including oil and gas, energy, finance, utilities, engineering, and high-tech consulting. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with each participant Curiously, trainers using an interview protocol. Two of the authors and a trained unwith a training dergraduate student transcribed certification were the data. In addition to demographic questions, participants reless likely to flected on a specific training project in which they participated in use informal or the prior three to four months. Specific to this scenario, particiformal learning pants were asked to share (1) what methods; it may methods were used to learn about transfer and (2) why these learnbe they feel less ing methods were used. A priori categories, derived of a need to stay from sources in our literature review and survey, were used to current on research code the responses (see Table I for because they have the complete learning methods code list), based on Choo’s (2006) demonstrated a work on information-seeking. grasp of central Specifically, participant responses to RQ4 were coded based on source quality (perceived credibility or training concepts via quality of the source), personal their certification. motivation or interest (personal interest in or familiarity/experience with the learning method), and source accessibility (the relative proximity or ease of access to the method). To ensure validity and reliability of the coding process, a code sheet was created to ensure reliability among the three coders (Creswell, 2005). Coders used the code sheet to categorize the data independently and then had face-to-face meetings to review and discuss the codes. Consensus among raters was estimated at 88% for each question; however, disagreements on coding were discussed and resolved based on consensus among the raters. The code sheet was then expanded to clarify existing codes and to add emergent codes. After each revision to the codebook, the research team en-
610
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULY–AUGUST 2010
TABLE
V
Interview Data: Learning Methods and Selection Rationale
Method of Learning Formal/Informal
Method Count
Selected Rationale Perceived Quality
Personal Motivation
Accessibility
Formal Practitioner conferences
4
3
2
1
Professional meetings/Seminars
3
1
1
1
Training program (external)
1
-
1
-
Academic conferences
2
1
-
-
Total
10
5
4
2
Books
7
2
2
1
Talking with other training/workplace professionals (internal)
4
-
2
2
Reviewing the training research literature
3
1
-
1
Talking with other training/workplace professionals (external)
2
1
-
-
Talking with training or workplace learning academics
2
-
1
-
Learning through job experiences
1
1
1
-
Searching training or workplace learning Web sites
1
-
1
1
Participating in Webinars
1
-
1
2
Professional magazines
1
1
-
-
Total
22
6
8
7
Informal
Note: n = 7. Some participants either cited multiple selection rationale for a single method or did not provide any reason for selecting a method, thus resulting in unequal totals for the Method and Selection Rationale counts.
gaged in an iterative review to identify any new codes and consider existing codes in the data (Ruona, 2005). In addition, the research team followed up with some participants to clarify and confirm various data interpretations. Through member-checking, one of the participants’ interview data was eliminated because her answers were not specific to training transfer. This resulted in seven participants’ responses being used in this portion of the study.
Interview Results To address RQ4 regarding why certain methods were used to learn about training transfer, participants were first asked to reflect on
a training project in which they actively sought information about training transfer. Participants were then asked which learning methods they used to satisfy their need for knowledge. Consistent with our survey findings, our interview participants reported using informal methods more frequently than formal methods (i.e., 22 instances of informal learning methods versus 10 instances of formal learning; see Table V) for learning about training transfer. Notably, although a priori codes were used to categorize the learning methods the trainers reported using, emergent themes in the data indicated that trainers also consult books and Webinars, suggesting potentially fruitful avenues for reaching practitioners. Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
A MISSING LINK IN THE TRANSFER PROBLEM?
Specific to RQ4, participants were asked why they chose their reported learning methods to learn about training transfer. Results indicated that trainers selected formal sources based primarily on source quality and personal motivation/interest. This result suggests that trainers choose formal sources of learning (e.g., conferences, courses, meetings) because they perceive these as credible or prefer them based on positive past experiences or familiarity with the method, but do not necessarily choose formal methods based on accessibility. One participant, for example, spoke candidly about using practitioner conferences as a primary formal method for learning about transfer: I like the conferences so that I can see what hot trends are coming up and what problems companies across industries are having. So, I continue discussions about what people find to be the most difficult, how they get around it, and how they convince the client that they need to perpetuate the learning over and over again. [I also talk to people about] what kind of incentives they would use to insure that it [transfer] happens. In contrast, participants reported that they choose informal learning methods based on the three rationale criteria almost equally (Table V), indicating that accessibility is somewhat more important in driving the use of informal versus formal methods. Participants reported using informal sources that were familiar based on past use or for which they experienced a particular preference. These results suggest that trainers remain loyal to specific sources, and their continued use reflects a positive past experience in using the source. This is consistent with Choo’s (2006) discussion of the affective role in information-seeking; that is, information sources that increase user efficacy in resolving learning needs motivate continued use, making them “go-to” sources for information. For example, one participant discussed Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
611
why she consistently uses Bob Mager’s book to learn about transfer: The reason why I like him [Bob Mager] so much is because he talks about people that have already learned something and how come they aren’t performing anymore. That ties into on-thejob training as well because you have to find out why they’re cutting corners and why extinction is setting in, when they first, you know, used to know how to do it and they’re still not doing it. … Bob’s got some great flow charts and things that are really logical, something quick that the client will see as very useful and practical. Although learning through work experiences was the most frequently reported informal learning method in the survey results, only one participant mentioned this method in the interview. This interviewee’s excerpt is included here, however, because it aligns well with Billet’s (2002) discussion of learning as situated within the work context:
These results suggest that trainers remain loyal to specific sources, and their continued use reflects a positive past experience in using the source. This is consistent with Choo’s (2006) discussion of the affective role in informationseeking; that is, information sources that increase user efficacy in resolving
I spend a lot of time talking learning needs to people about the extent to which they practice what motivate continued they learned in the classuse, making them room in the real world. In the training sessions that I “go-to” sources for do, they are divided in two information. parts and there is a week or two, or three in between the two parts. At the end of the first part of the training, I give them work to do. Then, at the beginning of the next session, which could be another couple weeks away, I ask them to give me an example of how they practiced
612
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULY–AUGUST 2010
it in the workplace. That is how I learn about how knowledge-transfer, or the extent to which they can do what they learned during the training session and the extent to which they can do it in practice. So, that is how I learn it … directly from the participants.
Trainers can no longer prevail with basic training design knowledge; their grasp of the entire training and performance improvement process must be comprehensive and focused on how to help learners
In reviewing the frequency of learning methods chosen across the three (rationale) categories, participants chose three learning methods (professional meetings/ seminars, practitioner conferences, and books) due to their accessibility, personal interest, and quality. The methods of learning through job experiences, talking with (internal) colleagues, using Webinars, and reviewing training-related Web sites were chosen based on two of the categories. These results suggest that trainers select certain learning methods based on a combination of reasons, thus increasing the attractiveness of a particular approach. For example, two participants described multiple criteria when selecting their chosen method to learn about transfer:
apply (transfer)
First, I read about it [the Learning Transfer System Inventory] in HRDQ [Human job (Baldwin et al., Resource Development Quarterly]. Second, I attended a 2009). presentation by Ed Holton about it at the conference and therefore felt a certain amount of comfort as a result of that. I think the third thing was the fact that they made available a beta or free version of the instrument that I could use myself. So, those three things combined.
their learning on the
I get a lot of emails and webinars and so I listen to a lot of webinars on transfer and what we need to do to make learning stick. The emails were easy because
they came to me and if the topic is interesting, I will go through the webinars. It was convenient. I didn’t go out looking for them; they came to me. They were interesting and we sat through it. That’s the main one. They were reliable, I guess. I look to see how reliable the vendor is that is putting out the topic. In summary, our interview data suggest that trainers attribute multiple reasons for selecting methods to learn about transfer, and their selection criteria differ, depending on whether they engage in formal or informal learning methods.
Discussion Understanding how trainers learn about key areas of the training process is an important contribution to the HR literature. To have the greatest impact on firm performance, trainers can no longer prevail with basic training design knowledge; their grasp of the entire training and performance improvement process must be comprehensive and focused on how to help learners apply (transfer) their learning on the job (Baldwin et al., 2009). As such, the results of the current study present a useful picture of how trainers perceive and seek the knowledge they gather about training transfer as they enact HR’s role in creating a learning organization. In response to this study’s research questions, our results suggest trainers currently use informal more than formal methods to learn about transfer, such as seeking information from other internal trainers, learning through work experiences, reading books (not periodicals), or searching the Web. Trainers also reported learning about transfer through formal methods, such as attending practitioner conferences, but to a lesser extent. While trainers reported a preference for using formal methods more frequently to learn about training transfer, we learned from our interviews that they select these based on perceived quality and prior experience in using the learning methods. Notably, trainers were less selective when choosing informal learning methods, reporting that accessibility was as important as Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
A MISSING LINK IN THE TRANSFER PROBLEM?
perceived quality or familiarity with the learning method. Taking this finding to its logical end, we suggest that trainers’ use of less scrutinized, proximate methods to learn about best practice transfer strategies could contribute, in fact, to the enduring transfer problem. Thus, to revisit our introductory assertion, what trainers know (and do not know) about transfer and how they come to know it may in part contribute to the root cause of low transfer rates. It is promising that trainers reported preferring more interaction with external sources, including academics, perhaps indicating a need for more verifiable information on transfer. This finding is also consistent with other studies exploring HR workplace learning methods. For example, Sanders et al. (2008) found that Dutch HR professionals expressed more desire (M: 3.38 vs. 2.86) than U.S. HR professionals (cf. Rynes et al., 2002) to interact with academics concerning specific professional areas. Interactions with others outside one’s typical routine can inject different perspectives, expand one’s knowledge base, and present ideas of tested interventions to enhance transfer. A clear and present theme in the research-practice literature is that practitioners want to know about evidence-based practices (Cohen, 2007), especially when they are communicated so that the results and application to practice are understandable (Latham, 2007). We were encouraged to find that trainers shared information about transfer, suggesting that (at least in our limited interview sample) they perceived the information important enough to their role as trainers to develop a collective understanding through discussions. Training professionals within an organization may have a wealth of tacit knowledge on supporting transfer, but unless this knowledge becomes explicit and shared, organizational learning exists only in silos rather than within the communal dialogue on learning and performance. Taken together, our results suggest that trainers have an interest in learning more about training transfer through other formal means in addition to or as a proxy for informal sources that may not be perceived as credible or familiar. Consistent with other studies on practitioners’ use of the literature (cf. Rynes et al., Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
2002; Sanders et al., 2008), our survey results suggest that training practitioners seldom consult either the research or practitioner literature and find it of little value in supporting their workplace learning role. Reading the published literature may be emotionally, practically, and cognitively “unreachable” to most training laypersons. Instead, as based on our findings, trainers rely on learning about transfer from sources closest to them (other trainers, books, Webinars). That is, when an individual reads information that is not easy to understand or interpret, cognitive dissonance likely ensues, resulting in decreased motivation to continue using that source (Kuhlthau, 2004). Such a reaction is consistent with our finding that motivation/ interest was the most cited reason for choosing a learning method (formal and informal). As our interviews showed, trainers rely on books, practitioner conferences, and professional meetings/seminars where presenters typically share research results in a way that is easy to understand and apply for practitioners. Whether books and other cited learning methods in the current study all follow the academy’s recognized research guidelines is unknown; however, these outlets do appear to be where trainers seek their information and where progress toward plugging the research-practice gap could be targeted. Regarding this study’s other findings, we were not surprised by the positive association between trainers’ transfer knowledge and their educational attainment. This is because professional certification exams seem to reward “book knowledge” as much as if not more than work experience. Regarding trainers with higher transfer knowledge scores being less positive on the value of the training literature, perhaps the content in current training publications is not advanced enough for them, leaving them disappointed. This is an issue that calls for further study. It is not surprising that professionals who employ informal methods also use formal methods of learning about transfer and training practices. Uncovering that trainers with training/ workplace learning certifications avoid both informal and formal learning methods, however, was unexpected. Do trainers with this
613
614
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULY–AUGUST 2010
particular certification feel they have adequately mastered all they need to know? Perhaps moderating variables are at work here such as their firm’s learning culture, access to resources, actual or perceived usability of the literature, and/or other situational determinants. More research on These methods, these areas is clearly needed. As with all research, our study while reported as has limitations. A high profesaccessible and sional certification mean suggests that our (survey) results may be familiar, may lack limited to a certain professional segment (those with certificaevidence-based or tions), thus limiting our study’s generalizability. Including items empirical research in future research that have been findings about found to tap non response bias would help clarify how the results training transfer. might apply to certain populations. In addition, a low reliability Thus, a logical estimate on the formal methods extension of the instrument (Table IV) suggests irregularities in participant recurrent study would sponses on this measure, which may be attributable to the reliabilbe to examine ity measure used (i.e., we used the prevalence of alpha rather than a test-retest measure). Finally, increasing the research findings number of interviews would help in generalizing findings from our in the learning final research questions. methods trainers reported.
Directions for Future HR Research
Extant HR research on informal and workplace learning has primarily answered the question of what methods professionals use to learn; however, this study extends the literature by examining why trainers choose certain learning methods. Although information-seeking studies have been conducted across many professions (i.e., medical professionals, lawyers, information technology workers), our study extended this focus to include HR professionals, specifically training practitioners. Information-seeking theory provided a useful lens for exploring why individuals chose certain sources to learn about training transfer, a focus that has yet to be
considered in research on HR professional learning methods. To guide future research, we suggest additional inquiry into trainers’ learning methods and expanded work in the area of information seeking for training and HR professionals. As this study reported, trainers learn about transfer mostly through methods other than reading the academic literature. These methods, while reported as accessible and familiar, may lack evidence-based or empirical research findings about training transfer. Thus, a logical extension of the current study would be to examine the prevalence of research findings in the learning methods trainers reported. Although some methods may be more difficult to assess given the spontaneity of informal learning (e.g., learning through work experiences, conversing with other trainers), specific inquiry could be directed at practitioner conferences, books about training transfer or evaluation, and professional meetings and seminars. Understanding these outlets would be especially relevant because our study revealed that trainers choose these learning sources based on multiple criteria. Similarly, professional certification and certificate programs (e.g., SHRM, International Society of Performance Improvement, American Society of Training & Development, to name a few) could also be examined for their inclusion of evidence-based findings on transfer (or any HR-related topic).
Implications for HR Practice Linking our results to suggestions for practice, we suggest HR executives consider how their training professionals receive and are held accountable for developing knowledge on evidence-based training transfer practices. Organizations can support opportunities for trainers to converse with recognized training transfer experts, involve trainers in sponsored research on assessing transfer interventions, and enable trainers to seek formal and informal opportunities to learn about proven transfer practices. Moreover, trainers need to understand clearly both the enablers and barriers to training transfer that are unique to their organization. Although robust support Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
A MISSING LINK IN THE TRANSFER PROBLEM?
is offered for enabling strategies such as assessing learner and transfer climate needs (including transfer strategies such as goal-setting in the training design, engaging managers, and using technology to integrate learning with work [Baldwin et al., 2009]), these interventions may vary based on organizational structure, training content, and work environment support. For example, manager support may be less important for participants working in teams where peer collaboration is common (and influential on overall performance). Lise Saari, Ph.D., and Global Director of Workforce Research at IBM, captured the importance of leveraging researchinformed practice to develop HR practitioners’ knowledge of relevant topics: I am a very firm believer in research-based practice. My colleagues and I strive to incorporate the vast research-based knowledge of our field into the work that we do in our company for HR practitioners and managers. We try to concisely state what the research says, without heavy wording and long explanations. We focus on topics that are relevant to our organization. Recent examples include the relationships between employee attitudes and business measures, and use of goal setting and feedback when a 360-degree survey shows managers are not providing enough direction and feedback. We don’t seek to educate HR practitioners in our organization on the topics researchers study most. We focus on a defined need or a need that we think the organization has. Therefore, at any one time we are highlighting for our HR practitioners only a very small portion of the topics that researchers actually investigate. (Saari, 2007, p. 1043) Saari observes that trainers, like other adult learners, prefer to learn when they have Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
a “need to know.” Consequently, authors, publishers, editors, and professional organizations should (1) reconsider how to best package their research findings so that trainers can easily access specific topics when they need to know about them and (2) position findings in a medium trainers prefer to use (e.g., “chat with the expert” sessions at seminars and conferences or interactive Webinars with experienced professionals). Another implication for HR practitioners is that they should revisit the value placed on trainers’ professional development efforts. Trainers’ desire to seek out sources of learning on transfer will be tied to the importance they and others (e.g., managers, professional organizations) place on that information and how they (and others) perceive their role in the organization (Fenwick, 2005). As suggested by Zenger et al. (2005), firms unfortunately place more emphasis on designing and facilitating training courses than measuring transfer or the impact (results) of training investments. This emphasis misdirects efforts of trainers, who subsequently rely on training design knowledge while neglecting evaluation and other performance metrics. In addition, when trainers disproportionately focus efforts on training design rather than helping trainees apply and maintain new learning on the job, it inaccurately reinforces the assumption that learning is a sufficient condition for transfer to occur. HR executives, therefore, must hold trainers accountable for knowing how to support transfer effectively by using interventions before, during, and after training interventions (Broad, 2005; Burke & Hutchins, 2008; Burke & Saks, 2009). Similarly, professional organizations can better signal to trainers the importance of transfer in their certification efforts. Our findings that trainers prefer more formal sources to learn about transfer may indicate that organizations are not providing enough learning opportunities for trainers or that the methods provided are not perceived as credible or lack a comprehensive treatment of training transfer. A prominent example appeared in ASTD’s professional certification (Certified Professional of Learning and Performance) study materials, where
615
616
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULY–AUGUST 2010
training transfer was discussed only in the context of Kirkpatrick’s (1976) evaluation levels. Unfortunately, discussing transfer in terms of evaluation only suggests that certified trainers are not required to have a thorough knowledge of how to support and assess training transfer (Hutchins & Burke, 2007). Human resource departments, therefore, must examine how they support trainers in developing their capabilities regarding training transfer if they expect trainers to focus on transfer initiatives (Kopp, 2006). Developing trainers’ knowledge and capabilities to support transfer has implications for business results as well. As HR expands its role in developing a learning culture, the training function must be viewed as a human capital investment (rather than a cost) that can produce business results (such as increases in productivity or customer satisfaction). A major contributor to the “training as a cost” perspective is the disparate ratio between training investments and business performance: the current training expenditures of U.S. organizations exceed $130 billion (Paradise & Patel, 2009), yet estimates of training transfer hover around 30%, resulting in a substantial waste of learning investments. Firms that align learning initiatives with business strategy; provide resources to their trainers to receive continuing education, coaching, or mentoring; and expect and require trainers to apply this learning will more likely see trainers develop knowledge of training transfer and, consequently, greater returns from their firm’s training investments. Each year, ASTD recognizes organizations based on how well they align their learning interventions with
strategy and demonstrate a clear impact on business results (cf. ASTD, 2009). Reviews of the selected organizations might provide useful suggestions for linking learning with demonstrable results. Because learning and development expenditures are predicted to increase as organizations begin competing to retain high potential employees (Paradise & Patel, 2009), organizations will rely more on training professionals to create learning opportunities that translate into on-the-job performance. This will make trainer knowledge of evidence-based transfer practices a key professional competency.
Summary Training transfer research has historically limited its purview to examining the role of learner characteristics, training design, and work support factors on training outcomes. Although these issues are useful for examining trainee-related issues, a missing link in our understanding of training transfer factors lies in how knowledgeable, and in turn, how actionable, trainers are in their understanding of proven methods for supporting transfer of training. Trainers play a key role in supporting transfer by preparing individuals for training, designing training materials and settings, and consulting with managers and other stakeholders to support trainee posttraining performance. Our study extends the practical and theoretical discourse around the recognized factors that influence trainee learning and performance by focusing on how trainers develop their knowledge of training transfer.
HOLLY M. HUTCHINS is an assistant professor of human resource development at the University of Houston. Her research emphases include training transfer, organizational crisis management, and e-learning design and assessment. LISA A. BURKE is a professor of human resource management at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. Her research interests include management training, development, and education. ALICE MAY BERTHELSEN is a recent graduate of the human resource development master’s program at the University of Houston. She is currently doing instructional design work and continuing her research on work-school conflict and social support. Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
A MISSING LINK IN THE TRANSFER PROBLEM?
References ASTD. (2009). BEST organization winners. Retrieved December 28, 2009, from http://www.astd.org/TD/ Archives/2009/TOC/0910_TOC.htm Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41(1), 63–105. Baldwin, T. T., Ford, J. K., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Transfer of training 1988–2008: An updated review and new agenda for future research. In G. P. Hodgkinson & J. K. Ford (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 41–70). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Beattie, R. (2006). Line managers and workplace learning: Learning from the voluntary sector. Human Resource Development International, 9(1), 99–119. Bersin, J. (2006). High-impact learning measurement. Oakland, CA: Bersin and Associates, Bersin and Associates Industry Report. Billet, S. (1992). Developing vocational skills in the workplace. Australian Journal of TAFE Research and Development, 8(1), 1–12.
mation seeking and on-line continuing education use patterns. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 22, 33–42. Choo, C. W. (2006). The knowing organization: How organizations use information to construct meaning, create knowledge, and make decisions. New York: Oxford University Press. Clarke, N. (2005). Workplace learning environment and its relationship with learning outcomes in healthcare organizations. Human Resource Development International, 8(2), 185–205. Cohen, D. J. (2007). The very separate worlds of academic and practitioner publications in human resource management: Reasons for the divide and concrete solutions for bridging the gap. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1013–1019. Creswell, J. W. (2005). Research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Eddy, E. R., D’Abate, C. P., Tannenbaum, S. I., GivensSkeaton, S., & Robinson, G. (2006). Key characteristics of effective and ineffective developmental interactions. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 17(1), 59–84.
Billet, S. (1993). What’s in a setting—learning in the workplace. Australian Journal of Adult and Community Education, 33(1), 4–14.
Elkjaer, B. (2004). Organizational learning: The “Third Way.” Management Learning, 35(4), 419–434.
Billet, S. (2001). Knowing in practice: Re-conceptualising vocational expertise. Learning and Instruction, 11(6), 431–452.
Ellinger, A. D. (2005). Contextual factors influencing informal learning in a workplace setting: The case of “reinventing itself company.” Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(3), 389–415.
Billet, S. (2002). Toward a workplace pedagogy: Guidance, participation, and engagement. Adult Education Quarterly, 53(1), 27–43. Blume, B. D., Ford, J.K., Baldwin, T. T., & Huang, J. L. (2010). Transfer of training: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 36(4), 1065–1105. Broad, M. L. (2005). Beyond transfer of training: Engaging systems to improve performance. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons. Burke, L. A., & Hutchins, H. M. (2007). Training transfer: An integrative literature review. Human Resource Development Review, 6(3), 263–296. Burke, L. A., & Hutchins, H. M. (2008). A study of best practices in training transfer and proposed model of transfer. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 19(2), 107–128. Burke, L. A., & Saks, A. (2009). Accountability in training transfer: Adapting Schlenker’s model of responsibility. Human Resource Development Review, 8(3), 382–402. Casebeer, L., Bennett, N., Kristofco, R., Carillo, A., & Centor, R. (2002). Physician Internet medical infor-
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
Enos, M. D., Kehrkahn, M. T., & Bell, A. (2003). Informal learning and the transfer of learning: How managers develop proficiency. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(4), 369–387. Fenwick, T. (2005). Conceptions of critical HRD: Dilemmas for theory and practice. Human Resource Development International, 8(2), 225–238. Gherardi, S., Nicolini, D., & Odella, F. (1998). Toward a social understanding of how people learn in organizations. Management Learning, 29(3), 273–297. Hutchins, H., & Burke, L. A. (2007). Identifying trainers’ knowledge of training transfer research findings— closing the gap between research and practice. International Journal of Training and Development, 11(4), 236–267. Ilieva, J., Baron, S., & Healey, N. (2002). Online surveys in marketing research: Pros and cons. International Journal of Market Research, 44(3), 361–375. Keefer, J. M., & Stone, S. (2009). Practitioner perspectives on the gap between research and practice: What gap? Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(4), 454–471.
617
618
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULY–AUGUST 2010 Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1976). Evaluation of training. In R. L. Craig (Ed.), Training and development handbook: A guide to human resource development (2nd ed., pp. 301–319). Kopp, D. M. (2006). Trainer self-loathing. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 17(3), 351–357. Kuhlthau, C. C. (2004). Seeking meaning: A process approach to library and information services (2nd ed.). Oxford: Greenwood. Latham, G. P. (2007). A speculative perspective on the transfer of behavioral science findings to the workplace: The times they are a-changin’. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1027–1032. Lawler, E. E. (2007). Why HR practices are not evidence-based. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1033–1036. Lohman, M. C. (2000). Environmental inhibitors to informal learning in the workplace: A case study of public school teachers. Adult Education Quarterly, 50(2), 83–101. Lohman, M. C. (2005). A survey of factors influencing the engagement of two professional groups in informal workplace learning activities. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(4), 501–527. Longnecker, C. O. (2004). Maximizing transfer of learning from management education programs: Best practices for retention and application. Development and Learning in Organizations, 18(4), 4–6. Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (1992). Towards a theory of informal and incidental learning in organizations. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 11(4): 287–300. Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2001). Informal and incidental learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 89, 25–34. Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons. Nail-Chiwetalu, B., & Ratner, N. B. (2007). An assessment of the information-seeking abilities and needs of practicing speech-language pathologists. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 95(2), 182–188.
Noe, R. A., & Ford, J. K. (1992). Emerging issues and new directions for training research. In G. Ferris & K. Rowland (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (pp. 345–384). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Paradise, A., and Patel, L. (2009). ASTD State of the Industry Report. Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press. Reddy, M. C., & Spence, P. R. (2008). Collaborative information seeking: A field study of a multidisciplinary patient care team. Information Processing and Management, 44(1), 242–255. Rivera, R. J., & Paradise, A. (2006). State of the industry in leading enterprise. Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press. Ruona, W. A. (2005). Analyzing qualitative data. In R. A. Swanson & E. Holton (Eds.), Research in organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Rynes, S. L., Colbert, A. E., & Brown, K. G. (2002). HR professionals’ beliefs about effective human resource practices: Correspondence between research and practice. Human Resource Management, 41(2), 149–174. Rynes, S. L., Giluk, T. L., & Brown, K. G. (2007). The very separate worlds of academic and practitioner periodicals in human resource management: Implications for evidence-based management. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 987–1008. Saari, L. (2007). Bridging the worlds. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1043–1045. Sanders, K., van Riemsdijk, M., & Groen, B. (2008). The gap between research and practice: A replication study on the HR professionals’ beliefs about effective human resource practices. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(10), 1976–1988. Short, D. (2006). Closing the research and practice gap in HRD. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 17(3), 343–350. Smith, P. J. (2003). Workplace learning and flexible delivery. Review of Educational Research, 73(1), 53–88. Zenger, J., Folkman, J., & Sherwin, R. (2005). The promise of phase 3. T+D, January, 30–34.
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
