Social Support

Tilburg University
Social support in the workplace and training effectiveness

Chiaburu, D.; van Dam, Karen; Hutchins, H. M.
Published in:
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
Document version:
Publisher final version (usually the publisher pdf)
Publication date:
2010
Link to publication
Citation for published version (APA):

Chiaburu, D., van Dam, K., & Hutchins, H. M. (2010). Social support in the workplace and training effectiveness:
A longitudinal analysis. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18(2), 187-200.
General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners
and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.
Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research
You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal
Take down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright, please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately
and investigate your claim.
Download date: 16. Jun. 2015
Volume 18 Number 2 June 2010
Social Support in the Workplace and Training

Transfer: A longitudinal analysis
Dan S. Chiaburu*, Karen Van Dam** and Holly M. Hutchins***
*Mays School of Business, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-4113, USA.
dchiaburu@mays.tamu.edu
**Department of Social Psychology, Tilburg University, Warandelaan 2, 5037 AB Tilburg, The Netherlands
***College of Technology, University of Houston, 4800 Calhoun Drive, Houston, TX 77018, USA
Training transfer is crucial for workplace effectiveness, yet some of its social support
antecedents are not well investigated. We examine the extent to which two forms of social
support (from the organization and the supervisor) predict training transfer and propose
several related processes explaining these influences. First, social support enhances training
self-efficacy, increases trainees mastery (learning) goal orientation, and their motivation to
transfer. In turn, we propose that these individual factors are positively related to trainingrelated cognitions. We test and confirm our model in a longitudinal study based on a sample
of 111 employees. The results contribute to a better understanding of organization- and
supervisor-based social support as predictors of transfer, and clarify several important
related mechanisms.
1. Introduction
nsuring that training investments yield performance

improvement continues to be a vexing problem for
organizations. Training transfer, commonly understood as
the generalization and application of new knowledge and
skills to the work setting (Baldwin & Ford, 1988), could
be considered the Achilles heel of the training design
process. That is, when trainees fail to use their new
knowledge to improve performance, resources dedicated
to training are wasted and business results go unrealized.
Such outcomes are particularity unwelcome to organizational executives demanding a positive return on training
investments, which in the United States accounts for over
130 billion dollars annually (Paradise, 2007).
Extant research on training transfer points to several
strategies at the learner, training design, and organizational level for increasing transfer. Learner attributes such
as cognitive ability (Colquitt, LePine, & Noe, 2000),
motivation (Axtell, Maitlis, & Yearta, 1997), self-efficacy
(Chiaburu & Lindsay, 2008), and perceptions of job utility
(Lim & Morris, 2006) have demonstrated both indirect
through learning and direct effects on transfer outcomes. Research has also demonstrated the resilience of
certain training design factors on skill application, namely
the use of learning principles (identical elements, stimulus
generalization, and practice) and instructional methods

on transfer performance (e.g., learner control, practice
variability; Holladay & Quinones, 2003; Orvis, Fisher, &
Wasserman, 2009; van Merrienboer, 1997). However,
current research has overwhelming favored some elements of support originating in the organizational setting
to positively influence individuals training transfer. Longstanding factors such as providing the opportunity to
apply new learning and receiving supervisor support (i.e.,
asking questions about training, holding trainees accountable, participative goal-setting) have been found to be
some of the most consistent predictors of transfer
outcomes (Burke & Hutchins, 2007).
An emergent aspect that accounts for a broader view
of organizational support for training transfer is trainees
perceptions of organizational support. Perceived organizational support (POS) is defined as an employees belief
about how much the organization cares about them and
values their contributions to the organization (Aselage &
Eisenberger, 2003; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).
Although important for performance and discretionary
behaviors, support from the organization is less examined
in connection to transfer. Indeed, extant research has
focused on specific antecedents (e.g., manager, peer
support) for general work performance and training
transfer (Rodgers & Hunter, 1991; Russell, Terborg, &
& 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.,

9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St., Malden, MA, 02148, USA
188
Powers, 1985), but less so on the perceived support
emanating from the organization. However, support from
the organization may bolster employees self-esteem and
give the employee the feeling that the employer values
them. Organizational support increases employees satisfaction and commitment (Ng & Sorensen, 2008) and is
reciprocated by employees feelings of obligation toward
the organization, leading further to increased work
engagement (e.g., Salanova, Agut, & Peiro, 2005). Extrapolating these outcomes to a training transfer context,
employees who perceive high levels of organizational
support may also demonstrate their commitment
through being more motivated in a training context and
applying the new learning on the job (Pidd, 2004; Russell
et al., 1985; Tansky & Cohen, 2001).
To date, research examining the relationship between
POS and training transfer has been limited, despite the
fact that organizational support is correlated with a
number of work aspects which have been related either
theoretically or empirically to training transfer (e.g.,
affective commitment, job satisfaction, job involvement;
Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Examining the role of
support originating from the organization in training
transfer would begin to elucidate possible differential
effects of support as behaviors originating from managers, coworkers, and other stakeholders (Cromwell
& Kolb, 2004) versus support as work characteristics
or broader organizational features (e.g., Clarke, 2002).
Given existing evidence for POS as an antecedent to
positive attitudes toward work and to performance, and
positive correlations between aspects of the work environment including support from the organization and
proximal aspects of transfer such as declarative knowledge (e.g., Tracey, Hinkin, Tannenbaum, & Mathieu, 2001),
we expect organizational support to positively influence
training transfer. In addition, this relationship is explored
because organizational context factors are less examined
as predictors of training transfer and, when examined,
they yield mixed results (Cheng & Ho, 2001).
Typically, POS and supervisor support are parallel
constructs (e.g., Kottke & Sharafinski, 1988; Rhoades &
Eisenberger, 2002). In a training transfer context, supportive supervision can include both a more general view of
employee development as an important aspect of the
managers jobs (Yarnall, 1998), coupled with more immediate and practical aspects, such as providing the
subordinate time for skill practice and offering reminders
aiding skill implementation (Chiaburu & Tekleab, 2005).
To best explore POS as a predictor of training transfer,
supervisory support (a longstanding transfer predictor)
must also be considered for examination within the same
model. This need is consistent with studies situated both
in a broad organizational context (see Ng & Sorensen,
2008, for a recent meta-analysis of the two forms of
support) and with research where support is conceptualized in a training transfer domain (Burke & Hutchins,

Dan S. Chiaburu, Karen Van Dam and Holly M. Hutchins

2007). Testing both organization- and supervisor-based
types of support will offer more information on each
factors unique contribution to training transfer and to
aspects leading to it.
We also attempt to elucidate intervening processes
between support and training transfer. Specifically, we
expect POS and supervisory support to affect training
transfer indirectly through influencing individual factors.
We focus specifically on trainee perceived self-efficacy
(Gaudine & Saks, 2004; Stevens & Gist, 1997), learning
(or mastery) goal orientation (Fisher & Ford, 1998; Silver,
Dwyer & Alford, 2006), and motivation to transfer
(Axtell et al., 1997). Trainees who perceive support
from both distal (POS) and proximal (supervisor) sources
will have increased perceived ability that they can transfer
skills (self-efficacy), high levels of learning goal orientation, and will reciprocate through increased motivation
(to transfer). In turn, these also influence how trainees
think about their training transfer, or engage in training
cognitions related to the skills acquired and to training
transfer. In this study, we suggest that training-related
cognitions mediate the relationship between individual
factors and training transfer.
1.1. Theory development

and hypotheses
Perceived support from the organization (POS) represents employees global beliefs regarding how much the
organization cares about their well-being (Eisenberger,
Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades, 2001; Eisenberger,
Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986). These can be
manifested by specific actions, including considering
employees goals and values, and offering help when
employees need it. In turn, employees reciprocate
through performance, citizenship behaviors, and more
involvement with their organizations (Aselage & Eisenberger, 2003; Coyle-Shapiro, 2002; Turnley, Bolino, Lester, & Bloodgood, 2003). This may include engaging in
acquiring new skills and transferring knowledge and skills
to a work situation, as part of employees felt obligation
to help the organization reach its goals (Shore, Barksdale,
& Shore, 1995).
We propose that POS influences performance through
individual-level factors found to have a positive impact on
training transfer, including trainees self-efficacy, learning
goal orientation, and motivation to transfer (Burke &
Hutchins, 2007). In more concrete terms, POS implies
assurance that aid will be available from the organization
when it is needed to carry out ones job effectively and to
deal with stressful situations (Rhoades & Eisenberger,
2002, p. 698). In a training transfer context, organizational support (in the form of rewards given to trainees
for transfer) positively impacts skill transfer, a relationship mediated by trainees self-efficacy (Tracey et al.,
& 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Social Support and Training Transfer

2001). More generally, based on sociocognitive and social
support theories, when various contingencies in the
work context are taken care of, including the assurance
of overall support from the organization, employees are
more likely to set and achieve challenging performance
goals (Bandura, 1986, 1997; Viswesvaran, Sanchez, &
Fisher, 1999). We examine similar outcomes of support
in a training transfer context, and focus next on trainees
self-efficacy, learning goal orientation, and motivation to
transfer.
Training self-efficacy is generally described as a trainees
judgment about their ability to succeed in training, and
has specifically been found to be positively related to
training generalization and maintenance across multiple
studies and settings (Ford, Smith, Weissbein, Gully, &
Salas, 1998; Gaudine & Saks, 2004; Latham & Frayne,
1989; Stevens & Gist, 1997; Tannenbaum, Mathieu, Salas,
& Cannon-Bowers, 1991). That is, trainees are more
likely to overcome obstacles that may delay the application of new learning when they believe in their ability to
learn and to use their knowledge and skills on the job. A
positive link between strategies that increase self-efficacy,
such as goal-setting, mastery experiences, supportive
feedback, and verbal guidance, have also been found to
influence transfer (Brown & Morrissey, 2004; Chiaburu &
Lindsay, 2008; Gist, 1986; Richman-Hirsch, 2001) suggesting that self-efficacy can be influenced as a way to increase
learning and subsequent transfer success. Although the
research largely supports the role of supervisory support
in influencing training self-efficacy, it is also expected that
such influence may emanate from the larger organizational context in addition to or instead of a discrete and
proximal source (i.e., supervisor or peer).
Specifically, when estimating their levels of self-efficacy,
individuals take into account both individual and situational resources and constraints (Gist & Mitchell, 1992),
such as support existing in their organizational environment. For example, Tracey et al. (2001) found that
trainees who perceived a supportive work environment
(comprised of support from manager, on the job, and
from the organization) reported higher levels of pretraining self-efficacy and pretraining motivation (which then
predicted transfer). These findings suggest that the
process by which trainees are prepared for training can
influence trainee attitudes and motivation toward applying their knowledge and skills in the work setting.
Learning (or mastery) orientation is grounded in the
theory of achievement motivation, and explains individual
behavior and motivation in achievement settings (Ames &
Archer, 1988; Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Trainees with a
learning (sometimes referred to as mastery goal orientation) orientation are concerned with developing competence through training, and are more likely to take on
challenging tasks that will further support learning acquisition. Although learning orientation is a predictor of
training knowledge (Fisher & Ford, 1998) and transfer
189
(Silver et al., 2006), it influences transfer outcomes
through some intervening mechanism. For example,
mastery goal orientation has been found to influence
transfer through pretraining motivation (Chiaburu &
Marinova, 2005), metacognitive activity (Ford et al.,
1998; Schmidt & Ford, 2003), and deeper (rather than
superficial) cognitive processing strategies and effort
(Dupeyrat & Marine, 2005).
Determinants of learning orientation are thought to
originate out of situational cues or factors in the larger
performance context, which can be altered (Dragoni,
2005; Dweck, 1989). In terms of training transfer, learning
orientation may be influenced by how employee application of training knowledge is valued and supported by the
organization. For example, Chiaburu and Marinova
(2005) suggest that contextual factors such as organizational reward structures might be used to influence
aspects of the environment that are likely to deemphasize
a learning orientation (and favor a performance orientation). That is, rewards that are based on effort rather
than results (e.g., sales quotes) may increase trainees
goals toward learning rather than just performance. The
existence of feedback and support, opportunities to
perform, and holding trainees accountable for applying
their training on the job may also increase trainees
leaning goal orientation (Kontoghiorghes, 2001; Lim &
Morris, 2006; Tracey, Tannenbaum, & Kavanagh, 1995).
Motivation to transfer is the trainees intended effort to
utilize skills and knowledge learned in training setting to a
real world work situation (Noe, 1986), and has been
found to directly influence transfer outcomes (Axtell
et al., 1997; Chiaburu & Lindsay, 2008; Nijman, Nijhof,
Wognum, & Veldkamp, 2006). Interestingly, research
connecting motivation to transfer directly with specific
transfer outcomes has overall been limited (Kontoghiorghes, 2002; Machin & Fogarty, 2004; Seyler, Holton,
Bates, Burnett, & Carvalho, 1998), compared with fairly
strong support for pretraining motivation and motivation
to learn (Burke & Hutchins, 2007; Pugh & Bergin, 2006).
For example, Kirwan and Birchall (2006) examined the
relationship of individual and work environment factors
in Holton, Bates, and Ruonas (2000). Learning Transfer
System Inventory, a diagnostic survey that assesses
trainees perceptions of individual, training design, and
situational factors known to influence transfer.
One of the more important findings to the current
study is that work support factors known to influence
transfer directly (opportunity to use, manager support,
manager sanctions, peer support, feedback, and coaching)
were strongly related to motivation to transfer. Additionally, results indicated that motivation to transfer was
significantly influenced by peer support, opportunity to
use, and feedback/coaching. Even though the influence of
POS (separate from supervisory support) on motivation
to transfer and transfer outcomes is less clear, there is
some empirical support for the role of learning culture in

190
motivation to transfer (Egan, Yang, & Bartlett, 2004) and
of the work environment on transfer dimensions (Noe,
1986; Tracey et al., 2001). Thus, elucidating the source
mechanism (i.e., POS, supervisory support) for influencing individual factors on transfer outcomes will help
tease out the specific contributions of each on training
transfer.
Hypothesis 1: POS is positively related to trainees (a)
training self-efficacy, (b) learning goal orientation, and
(c) motivation to transfer.
As discussed, the antecedents of individual factors that
influence performance often lie with situational cues:
these can originate not only from the organization, but
can also come in the form of supervisor support (Burke &
Baldwin, 1999; Clarke, 2002; Nijman et al., 2006). To
summarize, based on theories mentioned previously,
supervisors are well positioned to positively influence
their subordinates self-efficacy (Axtell & Maitlis, 1997;
Guerrero & Sire, 2001; Tracey et al., 2001), goal orientation (Dragoni, 2005; Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004), and
training motivation (e.g., Facteau, Dobbins, Russell, Ladd,
& Kudisch, 1995; Guerrero & Sire, 2001), which may
result in increased performance and training transfer.
Hypothesis 2: Supervisor support is positively related to
trainees (a) training self-efficacy, (b) learning goal orientation, and (c) motivation to transfer.
Research suggests that training transfer increases
when trainees have high expectations of their ability to
perform, focus on learning as an outcome, and are
motivated to use their skills on the job. However, it is
possible that these individual factors actually influence
how trainees engage in cognitive elaboration about how
they will use their learning acquired in training (i.e.,
thinking about when they will transfer, considering potential obstacles to transfer, and identifying needed support and resources). All these increase the likelihood that
trainees will transfer their learning to the work setting by
engaging in mental elaboration concerning skill transfer.
For example, an individuals level of self-efficacy will
influence the choice of activities and environments, and
will often dictate decisions on how much effort will be
invested into accomplishing goals despite obstacles or
stressful conditions (Tai, 2006).
The process of thinking about specific aspects of skill
utilization and how training will be applied (transferred) is
known as training-related cognitions (Dupeyrat & Marine,
2005; Gist, Stevens, & Bavetta, 1991). This type of
cognitive engagement parallels affective- and skill-based
outcomes of training (Ford, Kraiger, & Merritt, 2009) and
has both reflective and active aspects, such as thinking
about how to achieve goals and identifying obstacles to
skill transfer, respectively.


Although training-related cognitions focus on the
mental process of training and transfer, research suggests
that such cognitive processes can be predicted by individual difference aspects. For example, individuals with
learning goal orientations have more inclinations toward
being self-motivated (using an intrinsic mode of motivation; Hirschfeld, Thomas, & McNatt, 2008), which may
dispose them to think more of the skills acquired in
training, and elaborate more on how they can be maintained and used in a work setting. Empirical research in
educational setting indicates that learning orientations
are correlated to cognitive strategies, deep information
processing and persistence (Elliot, McGregor, & Gable,
1999; Wolters, 2004), and facilitate access to information
acquired during the training stage (Graham & Golan,
1991). Similarly, persons who consider themselves highly
efficacious are more likely to set difficult goals and adjust
them based on their progress, will take a proactive role in
reducing stress or disruptions in their environment that
may inhibit performance (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). Overall,
individuals who are likely to perceive they can succeed in
training, are more focused on mastering the training
content, and are motivated to transfer, will likely be
more inclined to consider how they can apply the
knowledge than trainees who are less active in these
areas.
Hypothesis 3: Trainees (a) training self-efficacy, (b) learning goal orientation, and (c) motivation to transfer are
positively related to training cognitions.
Transferring skills to a work context is an iterative
process involving transactions between declarative,
working, and procedural memory (Anderson, 1982).
Even though employees may have retained (and repeated
several times) behavioral checklists in a classroom setting,
they still need to recall, rehearse, utilize, and perhaps
optimize them in a work setting. Research on selfmanagement strategies, such as goal-setting and relapse
prevention techniques, suggests that having trainees
consider how they will use their new skills and knowledge on the job has positively influenced transfer outcomes (Brown, 2005; Burke & Baldwin, 1999; Frayne &
Latham, 1987; Gist, Bavetta, & Stevens, 1990; Latham &
Frayne, 1989; Richman-Hirsch, 2001). Self-management
skills not only include participants considering how new
learning will be applied, but also in how to mitigate
potential obstacles that may interfere (e.g., deadlines,
work pressure, interpersonal conflicts) with positive
training transfer.
For example, Ford et al. (1998) found that participants
engaging in monitoring learning, identifying which areas
they had problems, and adjusting behavior accordingly
reported greater knowledge and higher transfer performance in the training program. Likewise, experimental
work in educational settings has connected cognitive

activities (e.g., deep processing, persistence) with higher
levels of performance (e.g., Dupeyrat & Marine,
2005; Elliot et al., 1999). Similarly, cognitive engagement
consisting in thinking about the skills acquired in training
and ways to incorporate into day-to-day work activities
will enhance effectiveness in a training context. Thus,
it is also expected that engaging in thinking about how
training will be used will be related to actual training
transfer.
Hypothesis 4: Training cognitions are positively related to
training transfer.
Engaging in thinking about skill transfer has also been
found to mediate the relationships between individuallevel variables and training transfer (e.g., Schmidt & Ford,
2003). For example, participants with a mastery of
learning orientation reported more use of self-regulatory
behaviors (i.e., thinking about the training content, prioritizing tasks and resources for learning) during learning,
which then predicted performance on a skill-based
training assessment (Ford et al., 1998; Wolters, 2004).
The authors suggested that learners who were more
concerned with mastering the training content rather
than focusing on outperforming others engaged in
more cognitive processes relative to using and generalizing their new learning to the work setting. Similarly,
Enos, Kehrhahn, and Bell (2003) suggested that thinking
about how training would be used may work to increase
performance and help participants achieve goals despite
the level of support in the work environment. In a training
setting, Stevens & Gist (1997) found that trainees with
high levels of learning goal orientation engaged more in
skill maintenance activities, including thinking about what
skills to use and how to maintain them. The results are
consistent with recent meta-analytic work: masteryoriented trainees go beyond memorizing the material
and look at conceptual implications and connections
with other areas (i.e., through cognitive activities; Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2007), which can increase
transfer.
The utility of trainees considering how they will apply
their new knowledge and skills in the work setting is
consistent with Burke and Baldwins (1999) study of
relapse prevention. Specifically, engineering professionals
were more likely to use cognitive strategies (i.e., setting
skill maintenance goals, identifying obstacles, developing
cognitive strategies to mitigate obstacles) when they
perceived less support for training transfer. Although
relapse prevention was not tested as a mediator, the
study did show how using cognitive strategies in considering how training would be used is influenced by
trainees perception of support in the work setting. The
conclusions parallel those in educational settings, where
students with high levels of self-efficacy engage in more
cognitive activities (e.g., rehearsal, elaboration, and
191
organizational strategies), which lead to better performance (e.g., Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). Given the role
cognitive processes play in supporting training transfer,
we suggest that training cognitions will mediate the
relationship between the individual factors and training
transfer.
Hypothesis 5: Training cognitions will mediate the relationships between (a) training self-efficacy, (b) learning
goal orientation, and (c) motivation to transfer and
training transfer.
2. Method
2.1. Survey design and procedure
We conducted the longitudinal field study in a large
organization in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United
States. Employees attended training as part of changes
related to their positions, as a result of a company effort
to institutionalize a climate of service to external customers and of responsiveness toward other employees
(e.g., colleagues in their and other units) inside the
organization. We surveyed 750 employees, and obtained
372 surveys with usable data at time one, 223 at time
two, and 111 at time three. A total of 111 participants
provided information on all scales. The demographic
profile of these participants is as follows: 79% were
men, 76.8% had some college education, 89% were 30
years or older, and 86.3% had worked for the organization for 41 year. Previously published scales were used
in our questionnaire, with the measures anchored on a
5-point Likert-type scale (from 1 strongly disagree to
5 strongly agree).
We minimized question order effects and common
source measurement biases by following current suggestions (e.g., Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003;
Schwarz, Knauper, Oyserman, & Stich, 2008). When the
sources of predictor and criterion variables cannot be
separated, one available procedural remedy is separating
the measurement of predictor and criterion variables in
time. We did so, by having the participants respond to
our questions at different times. Thus, the social context
and individual factors were assessed at time one (during
the training program). Training cognitions were measured
at time two, 1 month after the training program. Finally,
training transfer was measured at time three, 23 months
after the training took place. Longitudinal designs are also
more appropriate than crosssectional ones for causal
inferences based on preexisting theory and empirical
data.
2.2. Social context predictors

POS was measured using seven items from the POS scale
(Help is available from the organization when I have a

192
problem, a .86, Eisenberger et al., 1986). Supervisor
support was measured using five items (Chiaburu &
Tekleab, 2005; Yarnall, 1998; My supervisor provides
me with the time I need to practice the skills learned in
training, a .78).
2.3. Individual difference predictors

Training self-efficacy was measured with Noe and Wilks
(1993) eight-item scale (e.g., When I take training
courses in unfamiliar areas. I expect to be able to do
well at them, a .84). Learning goal orientation was
measured with Elliot and McGregors (2001) three-item
scale adapted for a training context (e.g., I want to learn
as much as possible from the training, a .84). Motivation
to transfer was measured with five items developed by
Noe (1986) (I believe my job performance will likely
improve if I use the knowledge and skills acquired in
training, a .75).
2.4. Training cognitions

Thinking about skill transfer was assessed using questions
designed to probe how trainees maintain their skills (six
items, Gist et al., 1991), Since the training session, I have
thought about how to achieve the training objectives,
a .83).

able and the dependent variable; (2) a significant
relationship exists between the independent variable
and the mediator, and (3) a significant relationship
exists between the mediator and the dependent variable while holding the independent variable constant. In
case of full mediation, the independent variable has no
significant relationship with the dependent variable
when the mediator is added to the analysis. Sobels
(1982) test for mediation was used to establish the
significance of the mediated effect of the independent
variable on the dependent variable.
3. Results
3.1. Preliminary results
Although we sought to control for age, gender, educational level, organizational tenure and job tenure, preliminary analyses showed that none of the control
variables was significantly related to training transfer.
Therefore, they were not included in the analyses. In
addition, we tested whether respondents and nonrespondents were significantly different in terms of gender,
race, education, age, tenure with the organization, and
time in the current position, with no statistically significant differences found. Table 1 presents the means,
standard deviations, reliabilities, and intercorrelations of
the study variables.
2.5. Training outcomes

We used the training transfer scale (six items, Xiao, 1996;
Using the new knowledge from training has helped my
work, a .76) to determine the extent to which trainees
transferred skills acquired in training into their daily
activities.
2.6. Analyses
Structural equations modeling (SEM) with maximum
likelihood estimation was used to test the hypotheses
and the fit of the overarching model. Multiple fit indices
were used to assess the adequacy of the estimated
model: the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), the comparativefit-index (CFI), and the root mean squared error of
approximation (RMSEA). It is generally suggested that
the TLI and CFI should exceed .90 or even .95 for the
model to be considered of good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999);
similarly, a value of .06 or less for the RMSEA reflects
good fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). Finally, a chi-squared
difference test was conducted for choosing among competing models. These analyses were performed with the
AMOS 6.0 software package (Arbuckle, 2006).
To investigate the mediating effect of training cognitions, we examined whether Baron and Kennys (1986)
three conditions for mediation were met (1) a significant relationship exists between the independent vari-

3.2. Model fit and hypotheses tests

Based on our hypotheses, and especially our mediating
hypothesis, the proposed model showed a modest fit:
w2(df 10) 23.93, po.01; w2/df 2.39; CFI .93;
TLI .86; RMSEA .11. The standardized residuals suggested that model fit might be improved by including
direct relationships between training self-efficacy, motivation to transfer and training transfer. This would imply
that training cognitions would only partially mediate the
relationship between training self-efficacy, motivation to
transfer and transfer. Because previous studies have also
found direct relationships of training self-efficacy (e.g.,
Chiaburu & Marinova, 2005), and motivation to transfer
(e.g., Colquitt et al., 2000) with transfer, a full mediation
model might be too stringent. Therefore, we revised our
model including direct paths from training self-efficacy
(e.g., Chiaburu & Marinova, 2005), and motivation to
transfer (e.g., Colquitt et al., 2000) to training transfer.
Conversely, learning goal orientation is more likely to be
connected to training transfer through employee cognitions (Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2007). The revised model had very good fit: w2(df 9) 12.19, p .20;
w2/df 1.36; CFI .99; TLI .96; RMSEA .05. A chisquared difference test indicated that the extended
model provided a significantly better description of the
data than the original model (Dw2/Ddf 11.74, po.001).
193
transfer (b .49, po.001). The findings fully supported
Hypotheses 2(a)(c).
In the next set of hypotheses, we proposed positive
relationships between training self-efficacy [Hypothesis
3(a)], learning goal orientation [Hypothesis 3(b)], and
motivation to transfer [Hypothesis 3(c)] and training
cognitions. Our data show significant relationships between training self-efficacy (b .16, po.01), leaning goal
orientation (b .31, po.01), motivation to transfer
(b .21, po.05), and cognition. Therefore, all three
components of our Hypothesis 3 were supported.
Finally, we tested whether training cognitions are a
positive predictor of training transfer (Hypothesis 4) and
a mediator of the relationships between training selfefficacy [Hypothesis 5(a)], learning goal orientation [Hypothesis 5(b)], and motivation to transfer [Hypothesis
Based on the existing theory and research, we decided to

use the extended model for testing our hypotheses. The
standardized regression coefficients for this model are
presented in Figure 1.
In the first two hypotheses, we connected our social
context factors (POS and supervisor support) with
trainees self-efficacy, goal orientation, and motivation
to transfer. The results show that POS was significantly
related to training self-efficacy (b .34, po.001) and
motivation to transfer (b .16, po.05), but did not
reach significance in its relationship to learning goal
orientation (b .06, NS). Therefore, Hypotheses 1(a)
and 1(c) were supported. Supervisor support showed
significant relationships with all three individual difference
variables: training self-efficacy (b .42, po.001), leaning
goal orientation (b .32, po.001), and motivation to
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, reliability estimates, and intercorrelations of study variables
Variable
M (N 111)
SD
SD
2a
3a
4a
5b
6b
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
3.06
3.86
3.76
4.17
3.58
3.62
3.61
.84
.58
.60
.73
.51
.66
.59
3.10
3.89
3.78
4.13
3.58
3.67
3.61
.76
.61
.61
.74
.50
.73
.59
(.86)
.20
.42
.00
.24
.23
.26
.15
(.78)
.49
.44
.56
.38
.29
.45
.48
(.84)
.21
.42
.31
.39
.09
.45
.28
(.84)
.56
.46
.30
.31
.38
.41
.42
(.75)
.45
.44
.25
.39
.48
.51
.47
(.83)
.46
.26
.29
.39
.30
.44
.46
(.76)
Perceived organizational support

Supervisor support
Training self-efficacy
Learning goal orientation
Motivation to transfer
Training cognitions
Training transfer
Note. Means and standard deviations in the first two columns and correlations below the diagonal are based on the sample of N 111 used in the
structural equations modeling analyses; for r |.19|, po.05; for r |.23|, po.01; for r |.31|, po.001. Means and standard deviations in the third and
fourth column and correlations above the diagonal are based on the larger samples of N 372 (denoted by a) and N 223 (denoted by b). Reliability
estimates (as) are on the diagonal in parentheses (based on N 111).
INDIVIDUAL
FACTORS
SOCIAL
CONTEXT
Training SelfEfficacy
.34***
.42***
POS
.18**
.06ns
Supervisor
Support
TrainingRelated
Cognitions
.41***
Training
Transfer
.21*
.16*
.49***
.31**
Learning Goal
Orientation
.32***
OUTCOME
PROCESS
.16**
Motivation to
Transfer
.19*
Figure 1. Final model with results. Note. Paths with dotted lines (from training self-efficacy to training transfer, and from motivation to transfer to
training transfer) are part of the revised model. *po.05; **po.01; ***po.001.

194
5(c)], and training transfer. Training cognitions were
indeed a positive predictor of transfer (b .41,
po.001), supporting Hypothesis 4. Sobels test for mediation showed that training cognitions mediated the
effects of the individual factors. The indirect effects
were 2.54 (po.01) for training self-efficacy; 2.82
(po.01) for learning goal orientation; and 2.00 (po.05)
for motivation to transfer. However, in addition to these
hypothesized relationships, the data also revealed direct
relationships for training self-efficacy (b .18, po.01),
and motivation to transfer (b .19, po.05) with training
transfer and indirect relationships from goal orientation
to training transfer (through training cognitions). The fact
that our revised model fitted the data better than the
fully mediated model (as discussed above), leads to the
conclusion of partial mediation, and thus support of
Hypothesis 5(b), but not of Hypotheses 5(a) and (c).
In addition to testing the full model on the responses
of 111 participants, we tested the hypotheses by examining parts of the model with exploratory regression
analysis using the larger samples. Using the full sample
of 372 participants, significant relationships were found
between POS and training self-efficacy (b .38, po.001),
and motivation to transfer (b .26, po.001); the relationship with learning goal orientation did not reach
significance (b .03, NS). Similarly, supervisor support
showed significant relationships with all three individual
difference variables: training self-efficacy (b .43,
po.001), leaning goal orientation (b .44, po.001),
and motivation to transfer (b .34, po.001). Using the
sample of 223 participants, significant relationships were
found between training self-efficacy (b .21, po.01),
leaning goal orientation (b .32, po.001), motivation
to transfer (b .21, po.01), and training related cognitions. In conclusion, these post hoc analyses on the larger
samples confirmed the outcomes of the SEM analyses.
4. Discussion
Few studies have examined the contribution of support
from both supervisors and from the larger organizational
context in the context of training transfer. Much of the
research testing work environment factors as an antecedent to training transfer have focused on the role of
supervisors in providing support, resources, opportunities to perform, and consequences for behavior (Burke
& Hutchins, 2007). Similarly, studies examining the role of
transfer climate (Tracey et al., 2001) or transfer system
(Holton et al., 2000) have grouped various work factors
together as an aggregate assessment of support. Consistent with the idea that various forms of support may
have different magnitudes of relationships with aspects of
the training transfer process (Cheng & Ho, 2001) and
with the need to focus more on aspects of the trainees
work environment (Ford & Weissbein, 1997), we extend


previous research by examining how two forms of social
support influence training transfer. To determine the
influence of social context on skill transfer, we also
examined individual outcomes of support, including
trainee self-efficacy, learning goal orientation and motivation to transfer, and training cognitions both as a mediator between individual factors and training transfer. Our
study revealed several important findings concerning the
role of support within the broader organizational context
and the utility of individual (cognitive and motivational)
factors for training transfer.
4.1. Support from the organization

and the supervisor
As expected, we found that both supervisory support
and POS were positively related to trainee self-efficacy
and motivation to learn, suggesting that influences on
these individual factors could stem from either support
source. An exception was in the relationship between
POS and learning goal orientation. While supervisor
support was positively related to learning goal orientation, organizational support was not. This seems to
suggest that the main drivers of trainees goal orientation
originate from a more proximal source (such as ones
supervisor) rather than from the larger organizational
context. That is, even when trainees perceive rewards
and other support incentives in the organizational setting
(e.g., Chiaburu & Marinova, 2005) that are tied to training
transfer, they may need direct or additional reinforcement from a direct supervisor (or a source close to
them) to influence goal orientation. This finding is consistent with research showing that the quality of relationship with ones supervisor influences subordinates
learning goal orientations (e.g., Janssen & Van Yperen,
2004) and extends prior research where other aspects of
the work environment, including culture and climate
were connected to training transfer (Chiaburu & Tekleab,
2005; Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993; Tracey et al., 2001;
Tziner, Fisher, Senior, & Weisberg, 2007).
In addition, supervisor support positively influences
motivation to transfer and does so to a greater extent
than organizational support. The same is true, to a lesser
extent, for training self-efficacy. When comparing the
more distal and diffuse entity (the organization) and the
proximal and concrete one (the supervisor) aspects of
social support (correlated .20 in our study), supervisors
seem to matter slightly more for their subordinates self-efficacy, goal orientation, and training
motivation. Extending other studies where different
entities forming the social context were compared
qualitatively (e.g., Hawley & Barnard, 2005), or where
other sources of support were compared (e.g., coworkers, supervisors; Chiaburu & Marinova, 2005; van
der Klink, Gielen, & Nauta, 2001), we directly compared
the influence of organizational and supervisor support.
4.2. The importance of training-related cognitions

Our finding that trainee efficacy, motivation, and goal
orientation were related to training cognitions, and that
thinking about how to use training in the work setting
was a strong predictor of training transfer sheds some
light on the interplay between how trainee cognition and
motivational factors influence performance. These findings suggest that trainees are more likely to consider how
they will apply their training on the job when they feel
confident, motivated, and interested in acquiring knowledge, which can lead to enhanced training transfer.
Interestingly, learning goal orientation had the strongest
relationship with training cognitions and was the only
factor mediated by training cognitions in relation to
training transfer (see later discussion). This finding is
not completely surprising: individuals with high levels of
learning goal orientation have been found to engage in
cognitive strategies such as task-oriented practice, rehearsal, and elaboration techniques (Elliot & McGregor,
2001; Ford et al., 1998; Pintrich, 2000; Wolters, 2004).
Although the majority of these studies were based in
educational settings, our study confirms similar findings in
a corporate setting.
Finally, training cognitions also functioned to partially
mediate the relationship between both trainee selfefficacy and motivation to transfer and training transfer.
Our revised model resulted in a direct relationship
between self-efficacy and motivation to transfer and
training transfer, in addition to the direct relationships
between these individual variables and training cognitions; however, training cognitions did mediate the relationship between learning goal orientation and training
transfer. These results suggest that although trainees with
high self-efficacy and motivation to transfer may engage
more in thinking about transferring their skills, their
heightened affective and motivational states could be
sufficient to successfully apply their learning in a work
setting. That is, training cognitions might not be a
necessary step for trainees that are confident in their
task performance and are motivated to apply their
training on the job. However, the predictive power of
learning goal orientation is realized through its impact on
training-related cognitions.
Theoretical arguments exist for the idea that skill
development is continuous and with time trainees develop more elaborate strategies and approaches (e.g.,
Anderson, 1982). Moreover, this result is in line with
several lines of research: trainees with a learning goal
orientation are interested in developing competency
(rather than outperforming others), and thus are more
willing to consider how they may increase their knowledge and ability for a given task (Schmidt & Ford, 2003).
Meta-analytic work also shows that goal orientation is
positively correlated with both learning strategies and
feedback seeking (Payne, Youngcourt, & Beaubien, 2007).
195
According to our results, this type of cognitive elaboration is enhanced through trainees learning goal orientation. It remains to be determined whether other types of
mediators (e.g., of a more affective or motivational rather
than of cognitive nature) would intervene between selfefficacy and training motivation, respectively, and training
transfer.
4.3. Limitations
The results presented above need to be seen in the light
of the study limitations. First, strong causal inferences are
tentative, given the nonexperimental nature of the study,
although the longitudinal nature of the data mitigates this
concern to some extent. Our results can be further
supported by studies replicating the results using other
longitudinal studies, or using (quasi-) experimental designs. Second, we collected the data from one organization, which makes us cautious about proposing broad
generalizations of the findings until the results are
replicated and extended in other settings. Third, we
adjusted the original model to include direct relationships
between some of the individual factors and transfer.
Although direct relationships have been observed in
previous studies (e.g., Colquitt et al., 2000), the decision
for adjustment was also based on the outcomes of
statistical analysis. Therefore, the final model should be
replicated in another sample.
Finally, we collected data from one source: the employees attending training, reporting on their social context,
on individual factors, their cognitions, and engagement in
skill transfer. Despite the fact that single-source bias may
be less problematic than commonly believed (e.g., Spector, 2006), we collected data at three different time
periods and used current best practices (e.g., providing
confidentiality, having respondents complete the questionnaire for the criterion, and predictor variables in
different settings; Podsakoff et al., 2003) to mitigate such
issues. Furthermore, research that has compared selfreport and objective outcome measures have shown
these to yield similar results. In a meta-analysis examining
the relationship between training and organizational outcomes (human resource, organizational performance,
and financial data), Tharenou et al. (2007) found similar
bivariate correlations and effect sizes between training
outcomes and self-report and objective measures of
organizational factors. Even though we recognize that
perceptual scores may inflate the overall effect (as
compared with objective measures), the longitudinal
design of the current study lessens this chance compared
with self-report data collected at a single time. Future
studies, however, may use multisource data (e.g., including data on training transfer obtained from supervisors,
peers, or customers, if these have the opportunity to
observe the employee engaging in the respective skills,
and archival data).

196
4.4. Significance and implications to practice

Despite these limitations, the study has practical implications related to the support of training transfer. First, and
consistent with extant literature, supervisory support
had a strong relationship with individual factors which
then influenced training transfer. Supervisors can show
their support for trainee transfer of training by providing
feedback on performance, opportunities to perform,
consequences and accountability goals, and assistance
with managing workload during training (Burke & Baldwin, 1999; Lim & Morris, 2006; Smith-Jentsch, Salas, &
Brannick, 2001; Taylor, Russ-Eft, & Chan, 2005). However, many managers are either unaware of or not
required to support trainee performance after training,
which supports the myth that the training experience is
sufficient for performance to occur. Broad (2005) suggests that managers be involved before, during, and after
the training experience to influence training transfer,
which may require training professionals to coach managers on how to best support trainee performance.
Although the direct supervisor often represents a central
source of support for trainees, other colleagues to whom
trainees have a closer relationship might also influence
training transfer. In Burke and Hutchins (2007) comprehensive review of transfer literature, several studies
found peer support equal to or more important than
supervisor support to training transfer. Our results
suggest that managers continue to be strong influence
on trainee performance, and thus should understand how
to support training transfer. This is important, when
attempting to apply our findings to practical situations,
especially when considering the difficulties practitioners
can have in determining the main predictors of transfer
(Burke & Hutchins, 2008).
Supervisors also play a major role in influencing trainees goal orientation, which has been found to be a
consistent predictor of training transfer in the transfer
literature (Silver et al., 2006). Our results indicated that
only supervisory support was related to learning goal
orientation, suggesting that the relationship between
supervisors and employees may influence goal orientation. This is consistent with research linking leadermember exchange, goal orientation, and performance.
Specifically, Janssen and Van Yperen (2004) suggested that
supervisors may influence employees learning orientation
though assigning challenging opportunities, delegating
responsibility and autonomy in carrying out tasks, and
assisting individuals with overcoming barriers to performance. Other strategies supervisors can use to influence
learning goal orientation include rewarding employee
effort and task mastery (rather than strictly performance),
encouraging personal development and experimentation,
and supporting enhanced cognitive engagement, including
self-evaluation opportunities to reflect on performance
(Ames, 1992; Stevens & Gist, 1997).


Finally, our study suggests that individual factors may
influence training transfer differently, and thus should be
considered in applying interventions to support training
transfer. Training cognitions mediated the relationship
between learning goal orientation and transfer exclusively, indicating that learning goal orientation operates
through its impact on training-related cognitions. An
exception would be if the trainees already have high
self-efficacy and/or motivation to transfer as evidenced
by their direct relationship with training transfer in our
study. In empirical studies, several authors found that
cognitive or mental rehearsal and behavioral practice
strategies during training are positively correlated with
transfer (Ford & Kraiger, 1995; Holladay & Quinones,
2003; Warr & Allan, 1998). These include cognitive
rehearsal and elaboration (Schmidt & Ford, 2003), goalsetting (Brown, 2005; Locke & Latham, 2002), and other
self-management techniques (such as relapse prevention;
Burke & Baldwin, 1999) that help trainees consider how
they can generalize and apply their training knowledge to
the work setting. In the light of our findings, these are
most beneficial for trainees with high levels of learning
goal orientation, who may benefit from being guided into
engaging in maintenance activities.
4.5. Future research

The current study can also open new venues of investigation. First, we conceptualized POS without differentiating
support originating from the organization, work unit, or
ones team, which may not match the way employees
think about their workplace. Levels of proximity can be
embedded further by distinguishing between support
originating from the organization, unit, and immediate
team. Such differences may help produce more refined
models: it is possible for self-efficacy to be a factor of
work unit or team support, given the importance of
vicarious learning and mastery originating from within the
proximal workgroup (Bandura, 1997). Additional aspects
of support, such as the extent to which training is offered,
employees have autonomy, and are provided the requisite
technology (Salanova et al., 2005) can be tested in future
studies. Along the same line of thought, support can
originate not only from the organization and the supervisor, but also from ones coworkers (e.g., Chiaburu &
Harrison, 2008; Pidd, 2004). These may have an even
stronger effects on proximal outcomes, including focals
employees self-efficacy, motivation, and goal orientation.
Moving from predictors to processes, even though we
uncovered one mediating mechanism in the form of
trainee cognitions, additional explanations may be found
if other processes are explicitly theorized. Considering
their focus on the task to be executed, trainees with high
levels of self-efficacy and motivation to transfer may be
helped in reaching training transfer by reaching high
performance levels in intermediate stages of transfer

(1 month after training) or through motivational rather
than cognitive actions and states, in the light of evidence
suggesting that motivational aspects are more likely to
mediate the relationship between self-efficacy and performance (Chen, Gully, & Eden, 2004).
Finally, it is worth examining how the present model
generalizes to a range of different skills and tasks to be
performed on the job. The current skill set involved
engagement in behaviors directed at internal or external
customers. Skills and their uses may be considered
episodic (Baldwin & Magjuka, 1997), with employees
having periods of time when the skills would not be
used, punctuated by interactions where skill utilization is
necessary. This intermittent structure may have played a
role in enhancing training transfer for employees who
engaged more in training cognitions and maintained their
skills. It could be useful to test the model on skills used in
a more or less permanent manner, to determine whether
the advantage of cognitive engagement remains unchanged. In addition, given existing evidence that selfefficacy has a stronger relationship with performance for
skills of lower complexity (Chen, Casper, & Cortina,
2001), the model can be tested on a variety of skills
varying from simple to more elaborate.
5. Conclusion
Training transfer continues to be a problem for organizations seeking to maximize training effectiveness.
Although research has identified factors at the individual,
training, and work/organizational level as influencing
transfer, the extent to which trainees perceive support
in the work setting continues to be a consistent predictor
of training transfer. Our study contributes to the current
knowledge base by testing a model of social support on
training transfer, and demonstrating how support emanating from supervisors and the organization influence
trainee self-efficacy, motivation, and goal orientation in
different ways. Our results suggest new venues of
investigation, including testing models involving skills
from simple to complex and focus on mediators to
explain the intervening processes. In addition to refocusing on social context factors as predictors of transfer, we
offer targeted suggestions to influence training transfer
optimization in organizational settings.
Note
1.
The authors contributed equally to this paper.
References
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student
motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261271.
197
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students learning strategies and motivation processes.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260267.
Anderson, J.R. (1982). Acquisition of a cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369406.
Arbuckle, J. (2006). Amos 7.0 users guide. Spring House, PA:
Amos Development Corporation.
Aselage, J., & Eisenberger, R. (2003). Perceived organizational
support and psychological contracts: A theoretical integration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 491501.
Axtell, C.M., & Maitlis, S. (1997). Predicting immediate and
longer-term transfer of training. Personnel Review, 26, 201213.
Axtell, C.M., Maitlis, S., & Yearta, S.K. (1997). Predicting
immediate and longer term transfer of training. Personnel
Review, 26, 201213.
Baldwin, T.T., & Ford, J.K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review
and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41,
63105.
Baldwin, T.T., & Magjuka, R.J. (1997). Training as an organizational episode: Pretraining influences on trainee motivation.
In J.K. Ford, S.W.J. Kozlowski, K. Kraiger, E. Salas, & M.S.
Teachout (Eds.), Improving training effectiveness in work organizations (pp. 99128). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A
social cognitive. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New
York, NY: WH Freeman.
Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderatormediator
variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 11731182.
Broad, M.L. (2005). Beyond transfer of training: Engaging systems to
improve performance. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.
Brown, T. (2005). Effectiveness of distal and proximal goals as
transfer of training intervention: A field experiment. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 16, 369387.
Brown, T.C., & Morrissey, L.M. (2004). The effectiveness of
verbal self guidance as a transfer of training intervention: Its
impact in presentation performance, self-efficacy, and anxiety.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 34, 276
285.
Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of
assessing model fit. Sociological Methods and Research, 21,
230259.
Burke, L.A., & Baldwin, T.T. (1999). Workforce training transfer:
A study of the effect of relapse prevention training and
transfer. Human Resource Management, 38, 227243.
Burke, L.A., & Hutchins, H.M. (2007). Training transfer: An
integrative literature review. Human Resource Development
Review, 6, 263296.
Burke, L.A., & Hutchins, H.M. (2008). A study of best practices
in training transfer and proposed model of transfer. Human
Chen, G., Casper, W.J., & Cortina, J.M. (2001). The roles of selfefficacy and task complexity in the relationships among
cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and work-related performance: A meta-analytic examination. Human Performance, 14,
209230.

198
Chen, G., Gully, S.M., & Eden, D. (2004). General self-efficacy
and self-esteem: Toward theoretical and empirical distinction
between correlated self-evaluations. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 25, 375395.
Cheng, E.W.L., & Ho, D.C.K. (2001). A review of transfer of
training studies in the past decade. Personnel Review, 30, 102118.
Chiaburu, D.S., & Harrison, D.A. (2008). Do peers make the
place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of coworker
effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 10821103.
Chiaburu, D.S., & Lindsay, D. (2008). Can do or will do? The
importance of self-efficacy and instrumentality for training
transfer. Human Resource Development International, 11, 199
206.
Chiaburu, D.S., & Marinova, S.V. (2005). What predicts skill
transfer? An exploratory study of goal orientation, training
self-efficacy and organization supports. International Journal of
Training and Development, 9, 110123.
Chiaburu, D.S., & Tekleab, A.G. (2005). Individual and contextual influences on multiple dimensions of training effectiveness. Journal of European Industrial Training, 29, 604626.
Clarke, N. (2002). Job/work environment factors influencing
training effectiveness within a human service agency: Some
indicative support for Baldwin and Fords transfer climate
construct. International Journal of Training and Development, 6,
146162.
Colquitt, J.A., LePine, J.A., & Noe, R.A. (2000). Toward an
integrative theory of training motivation: A meta-analytic
path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85, 679707.
Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.M. (2002). A psychological contract perspective on organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 927947.
Cromwell, S.E., & Kolb, J.A. (2004). An examination of workenvironment support factors affecting transfer of supervisory
skills training to the workplace. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 15, 449471.
Dragoni, L. (2005). Understanding the emergence of state goal
orientation in organizational work groups: The role of
leadership and multilevel climate perceptions. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90, 10841095.
Dupeyrat, C., & Marine, C. (2005). Implicit theories of intelligence, goal orientation, cognitive engagement, and achievement: A test of Dwecks model with returning to school
adults. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 4359.
Dweck, C.S. (1989). Motivation. In A. Lesgold & R. Glaser (Eds.),
Foundations for a psychology of education (pp. 87136). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dweck, C.S., & Leggett, E.L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach
to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256
273.
Egan, T.M., Yang, B., & Bartlett, K.R. (2004). The effectives of
organizational learning culture and job satisfaction on motivation to transfer learning and turnover intention. Human
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P.D., &
Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational
support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 4251.


Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D.
(1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied
Elliot, A., & McGregor, H. (2001). A 2X2 achievement foal
framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501
519.
Elliot, A., McGregor, H., & Gable, S. (1999). Achievement goals,
study strategies, and exam performance: A mediational
analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 549563.
Enos, M.D., Kehrhahn, M.T., & Bell, A. (2003). Informal learning
and the transfer of learning: How managers develop proficiency. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14, 369387.
Facteau, J.D., Dobbins, G.H., Russell, J.E.A., Ladd, R.T., & Kudisch,
J.D. (1995). The influence of general perceptions of the
training environment on pretraining motivation and perceived
transfer of training. Journal of Management, 21, 125.
Fisher, S.L., & Ford, J.K. (1998). Differential effects of learner
effort and goal orientation on two learning outcomes.
Personnel Psychology, 51, 397420.
Ford, J.K., & Kraiger, K. (1995). The application of cognitive
constructs and principles to the Instructional systems model
of training: Implications for needs assessment, design, and
transfer. In C.L. Cooper & I.T. Robertson (Eds.), International
review of industrial and organizational psychology (10, pp. 148).
Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Ford, J.K., Kraiger, K., & Merritt, S.M. (2009). An updated review
of the multidimensionality of training outcomes: New directions for training evaluation research. In S.W.J. Kozlowski & E.
Salas (Eds.), Learning, training, and development in organizations.
Mahwah, NJ: SIOP Frontiers Book Series.
Ford, J.K., Smith, E.M., Weissbein, D.A., Gully, S.M., & Salas, E.
(1998). Relationships of goal orientation, metacognitive activity, and practice strategies with learning outcomes and
transfer. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 218233.
Ford, J.R., & Weissbein, D.H. (1997). Transfer of training: An
updated review and analysis. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 10, 2241.
Frayne, C., & Latham, G.P. (1987). Application of social learning
theory to employee self-management of attendance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 72, 387392.
Gaudine, A.P., & Saks, A.M. (2004). A longitudinal quasi-experiment on the effects of posttraining transfer interventions.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15, 5776.
Gist, M.E. (1986). The influence of training method on selfefficacy and idea generation among managers. Personnel
Gist, M.E., Bavetta, A.G., & Stevens, C.K. (1990). Transfer
training method: Its influence on skill generalization, skill,
repetition, and performance level. Personnel Psychology, 43,
501523.
Gist, M.E., & Mitchell, T.B. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical
analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of
Management Review, 17, 183211.
Gist, M.E., Stevens, C.K., & Bavetta, A.G. (1991). Effects of selfefficacy and post-training intervention on the acquisition and
maintenance of complex interpersonal skills. Personnel Psychology, 44, 837861.
Graham, S., & Golan, S. (1991). Motivational influences on
cognition: Task involvement, ego involvement, and depth of

information processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83,
187194.
Guerrero, S., & Sire, B. (2001). Motivation to train from
the workers perspective: Example of French companies.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12,
9881004.
Hawley, J.D., & Barnard, J.K. (2005). Work environment characteristics and implications for training transfer: A case study
of the nuclear power industry. Human Resource Development
International, 8, 6580.
Hirschfeld, R.R., Thomas, C.H., & McNatt, D.B. (2008).
Implications of self-deception for self-reported intrinsic and
extrinsic motivational dispositions and actual learning performance: A higher-order structural model. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 68, 154173.
Holladay, C.L., & Quinones, M.A. (2003). Practice variability and
transfer of training: The role of self-efficacy generality. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 88, 10941103.
Holton, E.F., Bates, R., & Ruona, W.E.A. (2000). Development of
a generalized learning transfer system inventory. Human
Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus
new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 155.
Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N.W. (2004). Employees goal
orientations, the quality of leadermember exchange and
the outcomes for job performance and job satisfaction.
Academy of Management Journal, 47, 368384.
Kirwan, C., & Birchall, D. (2006). Transfer of learning from
management development programmes: Testing the Holton
model. International Journal of Training and Development, 10,
552268.
Kontoghiorghes, C. (2001). Factors affecting training effectiveness in the context of the introduction of new technology A
US case study. International Journal of Training and Development,
5, 248260.
Kontoghiorghes, C. (2002). Predicting motivation to learn
and motivation to transfer learning back to the job in a
service organization: A new systemic model for training
effectiveness. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 15, 114
129.
Kottke, J., & Sharafinski, C.E. (1988). Measuring perceived
supervisory and organizational support. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 4, 10751079.
Latham, G.P., & Frayne, C.A. (1989). Self-management training
for increasing job attendance: A follow-up and a replication.
Lim, D.H., & Morris, M.L. (2006). Influence of trainee characteristics, instructional satisfaction, and organizational climate on
perceived learning and training transfer. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 17, 85115.
Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (2002). Building a practically useful
theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey.
American Psychologist, 57, 705717.
Machin, M.A., & Fogarty, G.J. (2004). Assessing the antecedents
of transfer intentions in a training context. International Journal
of Training and Development, 8, 222236.
Mesmer-Magnus, J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2007). Inducing maximal
versus typical learning through the provision of a pretraining
goal orientation. Human Performance, 20, 205222.
199
Ng, T.W.H., & Sorensen, K.L. (2008). Toward a further understanding of the relationships between perceptions of support
and work attitudes: A meta-analysis. Group Organization
Management, 33, 243268.
Nijman, D.J.M., Nijhof, W.J., Wognum, A.A.M., & Veldkamp, B.P.
(2006). Exploring differential effects of supervisor support on
transfer of training. Journal of European Industrial Training, 30,
529549.
Noe, R.A. (1986). Trainee attributes: Neglected influences on
training effectiveness. Academy of Management Review, 11,
736749.
Noe, R.A., & Wilk, S.L. (1993). Investigation of the factors that
influence employees participation in development activities.
Orvis, K.A., Fisher, S.L., & Wasserman, M.E. (2009). Power to
the people: Using learner control to improve trainee reactions and learning in web-based instructional environments.
Paradise, A. (2007). U.S. learning and development expenditure
rises to $129.6 billion. T&D, 61, 6066.
Payne, S., Youngcourt, S., & Beaubien, J.M. (2007). A metaanalytic examination of the goal orientation nomological net.
Pidd, K. (2004). The impact of workplace support and identity
on training transfer: A case study of drug and alcohol safety
training in Australia. International Journal of Training and Development, 8, 274288.
Pintrich, P. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of
goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 92, 544555.
Pintrich, P.R., & De Groot, E. (1990). Motivational and selfregulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 3350.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N.P.
(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Pugh, K.J., & Bergin, D.A. (2006). Motivational influences on
transfer. Educational Psychologist, 41, 147160.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational
support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698714.
Richman-Hirsch, W.L. (2001). Posttraining interventions to
enhance transfer: The moderating effects of work environments. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12, 105120.
Rodgers, R., & Hunter, J.E. (1991). Impact of management by
objectives on organizational productivity. Journal of Applied
Rouiller, J.Z., & Goldstein, I.L. (1993). The relationship between
organizational transfer climate and positive transfer of training. Human Resources Development Quarterly, 4, 377390.
Russell, J.S., Terborg, J.R., & Powers, M.L. (1985). Organizational
performance and organizational level training and support.
Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiro, J. (2005). Linking organizational
resources and work engagement to employee performance
and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate.
Schmidt, A.M., & Ford, J.K. (2003). Learning within a learner
control environment: The interactive effects of goal orienta-

200
tion and metacognitive instruction on learning outcomes.
Schwarz, N., Knauper, B., Oyserman, D., & Stich, C. (2008). The
psychology of asking questions. In E.D. de Leeuw, J.J. Hox,
& D.A. Dillman (Eds.), International handbook of survey methodology (pp. 1834). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Seyler, D.L., Holton, E.F. III, Bates, R.A., Burnett, M.F., &
Carvalho, M.A. (1998). Factors affecting motivation to transfer training. International Journal of Training and Development, 2,
1617.
Shore, L.M., Barksdale, K., & Shore, T. (1995). Managerial
perceptions of employee commitment to the organization.
Academy of Management Journal, 38, 15931615.
Silver, L.S., Dwyer, S., & Alford, B. (2006). Learning and
performance goal orientation of salespeople revisited: The
role of performance-approach and performance-avoidance
orientations. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management,
36, 2738.
Smith-Jentsch, K.A., Salas, E., & Brannick, M.T. (2001). To
transfer or not to transfer? Investigating the combined effects
of trainee characteristics, team leader support, and team
climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 279292.
Sobel, M.E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect
effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.),
Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. 290312). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Spector, P.E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research.
Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221232.
Stevens, C.K., & Gist, M.E. (1997). Effects of self-efficacy and
goal orientation training on negotiation skill maintenance:
What the mechanisms? Personnel Psychology, 50, 955978.
Tai, W.-T. (2006). Effects of training framing, general self-efficacy
and training motivation on trainees training effectiveness.
Personnel Review, 35, 6165.
Tannenbaum, S.I., Mathieu, J.E., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J.A.
(1991). Meeting trainees expectations: The influence of
training fulfillment on the development of commitment,
self-efficacy, and motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76,
759769.
Tansky, J.W., & Cohen, D.J. (2001). The relationship between
organizational support, employee development, and organizational commitment: An empirical study. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 12, 285300.


Taylor, P.J., Russ-Eft, D.F., & Chan, D.W.L. (2005). A meta-analytic
review of behavior modeling training. Journal of Applied
Tharenou, P., Saks, A.M., & Moore, C. (2007). A review and
critique of research on training and organizational-level outcomes. Human Resource Management Review, 17, 251273.
Tracey, J.B., Hinkin, T.R., Tannenbaum, S., & Mathieu, J.E. (2001).
The influence of individual characteristics and the work
environment on varying levels of training outcomes. Human
Tracey, J.B., Tannenbaum, S.I., & Kavanagh, M.J. (1995). Applying
trained skills on the job: The importance of the work
environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 239252.
Turnley, W.H., Bolino, M.C., Lester, S.W., & Bloodgood, J.M.
(2003). The impact of psychological contract fulfillment on
the performance of in-role and organizational citizenship
behaviors. Journal of Management, 29, 187206.
Tziner, A., Fisher, M., Senior, T., & Weisberg, J. (2007). Effects of
trainee characteristics on training effectiveness. International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 167174.
van der Klink, M., Gielen, E., & Nauta, C. (2001). Supervisory
support as a major condition to enhance transfer. International
Journal of Training and Development, 5, 5263.
van Merrienboer, J.J.G. (1997). Training complex cognitive skills:
A four-component instructional design model for technical
training. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology
Publications.
Viswesvaran, C., Sanchez, J.I., & Fisher, J. (1999). The role of
social support in the process of work stress: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 314334.
Warr, P.B., & Allan, C. (1998). Learning strategies and occupational training. In C.L. Cooper & I.T. Robertson (Eds.),
International review of industrial and organizational psychology
(pp. 83121). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Wolters, C.A. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory:
Using goal structures and goal orientations to predict students motivation, cognition, and achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 96, 236250.
Xiao, J. (1996). The relationship between organizational factors
and the transfer of training in the electronics industry in
Shenzhen, China. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7,
5573.
Yarnall, J. (1998). Line managers as career developers: Rhetoric
or reality? Personnel Review, 27, 378395.

Social Support

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Social Support

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Tilburg University

Social support in the workplace and training effectiveness

Citation for published version (APA):

Download date: 16. Jun. 2015

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

Volume 18 Number 2 June 2010

Social Support in the Workplace and Training

nsuring that training investments yield performance

generalization, and practice) and instructional methods

& 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.,

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

Dan S. Chiaburu, Karen Van Dam and Holly M. Hutchins

1.1. Theory development

& 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Social Support and Training Transfer

& 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

Dan S. Chiaburu, Karen Van Dam and Holly M. Hutchins

& 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Social Support and Training Transfer

& 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

2.2. Social context predictors

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

2.3. Individual difference predictors

2.4. Training cognitions

Dan S. Chiaburu, Karen Van Dam and Holly M. Hutchins

2.5. Training outcomes

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

3.2. Model fit and hypotheses tests

& 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Social Support and Training Transfer

Based on the existing theory and research, we decided to

Perceived organizational support

& 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

Dan S. Chiaburu, Karen Van Dam and Holly M. Hutchins

4.1. Support from the organization

& 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Social Support and Training Transfer

4.2. The importance of training-related cognitions

& 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

4.4. Significance and implications to practice

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

Dan S. Chiaburu, Karen Van Dam and Holly M. Hutchins

4.5. Future research

& 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Social Support and Training Transfer

The authors contributed equally to this paper.

& 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

Dan S. Chiaburu, Karen Van Dam and Holly M. Hutchins

& 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Social Support and Training Transfer

& 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

Dan S. Chiaburu, Karen Van Dam and Holly M. Hutchins

& 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen