Leadership Development Training Transfer: A Case Study Assessment of Exterior Post-Training Factors of a Year Long Leadership Development Program

Transcription

1 Leadership Development Training Transfer: A Case Study Assessment of Exterior Post-Training Factors of a Year Long Leadership Development Program by: Yabome Kanu BBA Simon Fraser University, 2002 PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION In the Faculty of Business Administration Yabome Kanu 2003 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY December 2003 All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or by other means, without the permission of the author

2 APPROVAL Name: Degree: Title of Project: Yabome Kanu Master of Business Administration Leadership Development Training Transfer: A Case Study Assessment of Exterior Post-Training Factors of a Year Long Leadership Development Program Examining Committee: Dr. Gervase Bushe Senior Supervisor Associate Professor Faculty of Business Administration Simon Fraser University Dr. Roderick Iverson Supervisor Professor Faculty of Business Administration Simon Fraser University Date Approved: ii

3 ABSTRACT This project, in collaboration with the Centre for Excellence in Learning (CEL) at Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA), took a case study approach to assess training transfer in the external post-training environment for leadership development training. The training program, called Leading in a Learning Organization (LILO) is being rolled-out to managers, supervisors and leaders at VIHA. At the time of this study a total of 93 leaders had been through the LILO program. Twenty-one trainees were interviewed and surveyed, based on a five-factor theoretical framework of categories affecting training transfer in the post-training environment. These category constructs were power/empowerment factors, adoption environment factors, continuity factors, situational factors and system/structural factors. In addition, an observer (an individual who had worked with trainees before and after they went through the LILO program) was interviewed for each trainee to assess the organizational impact of the training. A total of 20 observers were interviewed, as one observer could not be reached. The results of the study suggest that there has been substantial transfer of training from the LILO program, with an average trainee transfer rating of 4.38 on a 5-point scale. Two different sets of conditions affected the extent to which trainee s experienced personal value from the training and the extent to which they transferred the training back to the workplace. Finding personal value had mainly to do with being confident enough to use the training in the work environment, having more staff trained and having organization iii

4 support, while transfer of skills to the workplace was influenced by observing others use the training, having time, incentives to apply and opportunity to transfer the training. Having a trained boss and being comfortable in using the language at work impacted both transfer and personal value outcomes. iv

5 DEDICATION (To the ones who take us to the finish line, though we sometimes forget and even trample over them as we chase our dreams...) To God Be All The Glory! Dedicated especially: to my wonderful family in Vancouver, Musu Taylor-Lewis, Steven Taylor-Lewis, Adetunji, Adeyemi and Adesimi, who supported me and let me skip many a family dinner or occasion and all those soccer games, as I worked towards this degree and this project. I could not have accomplished all that I have in the last four years without your love and support. I thank God for you always and do not for a moment take for granted the blessing that you are to me. Thank you! Also dedicated: to my Dad who never got to see me graduate, to my wonderful Mummy ( Yayo! ), who always let me follow my dreams, to the rest of my gregarious family (Nima, Kadi, Abas, Memuna, Isata and Foday), who are all very supportive, to my wonderful Church family who prayed with me through this, to all my dear friends, who supported and encouraged me, and to the love that every woman hopes to find and I have been blessed to know. To my fiancé Adelana, who believes in me more than I believe in myself. v

6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project has my copyright on it, but I was able to write each page and each chapter because of the academic, industry, financial and encouragement support from those I acknowledge here. I am grateful to all of you. My Supervisory Committee, Gervase Bushe and Roderick Iverson: -Gervase Bushe inspired this project by fuelling my interest in leadership and training and by putting me in contact with the Centre for Excellence in Learning (CEL) at the Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA). He was a very supportive senior supervisor. -Rick Iverson, my second supervisor provided sound academic advice and direction. The Team at CEL and VIHA -Terrie Conway at CEL championed this impact study within VIHA, gave me all the information I needed whenever I needed it and put me in contact with the network of people within CEL and VIHA whose help was necessary. -Michele Radomsky at CEL provided logistics and day-to-day help, including driving me from CEL to wherever my next appointment was. -Barb Smith and Dean Homer at CEL gave me administrative and informational assistance -The administrative staff at the Aberdeen site booked rooms for the many interviews I did there and gave me an office to work out of on days I spent there. You made this experience enjoyable and painless thank you! The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) -SSHRC funded the last 4 months of this research and my graduate studies. vi

7 The Lansana Family and Harold Williams -My friend Staphae and his family (Aunty Margaret, Moinya, Sudie and Nabieu) hosted me on my trips to Victoria to do the interviews, gave me directions to the various VIHA sites and showed me around. -Harold, my friend (and brother-in-law s brother) Thanks for all the ferry pick-up and dropoffs and for listening to me go on and on about this project and school stress! The Participants -You took part in this research at a time when all of you at VIHA were extremely busy. Some of you worked around your summer holidays to fit me in for an interview, some of you scheduled and rescheduled, some of you met me at Aberdeen, some of you even gave me rides to my next interview appointment! There could have been no study without your voluntary and enthusiastic support Thank you! vii

8 TABLE OF CONTENTS APPROVAL... ii ABSTRACT...iii DEDICATION... v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS... vi TABLE OF CONTENTS...viii LIST OF FIGURES... x LIST OF TABLES... xi CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION LEADERSHIP TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT FOCUSING ON EXTERNAL POST-TRAINING TRANSFER... 5 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW EVALUATING TRAINING TRANSFER CONSTRUCTS OF TRANSFER CLIMATE Power/Empowerment Factors Adoption Environment Factors Continuity Factors Situational Factors Systemic Factors CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY LEADING IN A LEARNING ORGANIZATION DESIGN PARTICIPANTS INSTRUMENTS DESIGN INSTRUMENTS ANALYSIS CHAPTER 4 RESULTS DATA REDUCTION LEVEL OF TRANSFER WHAT WAS TRANSFERRED WHAT FACILITATES TRANSFER Factors Influencing Personal Value Factors Influencing Training Transfer ORGANIZATION OUTCOMES OF TRANSFER CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION SUMMARY DISCUSSION Power/Empowerment Factors Adoption Environment Factors viii

9 5.1.3 Systems/Structural Factors Personal Value Factors CASE DISCUSSION WHY TRANSFER WAS HIGH LIMITATIONS REFERENCES APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 - RESEARCH ETHICS APPROVAL APPENDIX 2 LEADING IN A LEARNING ORGANIZATION MODEL APPENDIX 3 INTERVIEW GUIDES APPENDIX 4 - LETTER TO TRAINEES AND SURVEY ix

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - Summary Model of Training Transfer Process...6 Figure 2 - Summary Model of Positive Post-training Transfer Climate...18 Figure 3 - Derived Model of Training Transfer (based on significant results)...43 x

11 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 - Hypotheses and Sub factor Measures...23 Table 2 - Correlation Matrix for Initial Model...26 Table 3 - Factor Combinations for Scales...27 Table 4 - Reduced Data Set Variables...29 Table 5 - Descriptive Statistics for New Model...30 Table 6 - Correlation Matrix - Revised Data Set...33 Table 7 - Observers Feedback on Impact of LILO...41 xi

12 CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION Training and development is a cornerstone of Strategic Human Resource Management Practice. Starting from employee orientation and socialization into an organization, training and development is the one Human Resource Practice that must ideally be carried out throughout employees tenure in organizations. With the move of the global economy toward service industries and knowledge work, human capital is increasingly seen as organization assets, which in turn has made training and development a key strategy for retention and competitive advantage. Training, therefore, can no longer be seen as a standalone Human Resource Practice that exists in a silo, but as the continuous process of socialization and learning integrated into the long-term strategy of organizations (Ford 1997; Sims 1998). This reality, at both the organizational and even at national levels was adequately summarized in a Workforce 2000 study, which stated, the foundation of national wealth is really people the human capital represented by their knowledge, skills, organizations, and motivations... education and training are the primary systems by which the human capital of a nation is preserved and increased (Johnston and Parker as cited in Broad and Newstrom, 1992, 3). Peters (1988, 322) also emphasized that workforce training and constant retraining... must climb to the top of the agenda of the individual firm and the nation... only highly skilled - that is, trained and continuously retrained-people will be able to add value. Indeed, Analoui (1993) argues that successful companies will be the ones that stress training as a way to push their organizations towards high performance and excellence. 1

13 North American organizations have responded to this call for training by making large investments into the training function. In 1992, it was estimated that companies in the United States spend at least $50 billion on direct formal training costs annually (Sims, 1992). By 1999, researchers Elangovan and Karakowsky (1999) cited an estimated US$100 billion as annual spending on organizational training programs. A report on adult education and training in Canada showed that employers generally paid 55% of fees and tuition for employees in programs and 85% of the expenses for employees who go on a course (Statistics Canada, 2001). As well, a 2001 Conference Board of Canada Survey reported that Canadian organizations have been spending $800 - $850 per employee, per annum on training. The report also stated that companies rated as learning organizations are 50 percent more likely to report higher profitability than other companies and they provide training to 20% more of their employees and spend $474 more per capital on training and development (Conference Board of Canada 2001, 1). However, to achieve the goal of competitive advantage, training programs require more than just spending. Even where it is seen as a strategic continuous process, many authors have contended that training programs and strategies are ineffective without the generalization of the skills, concepts and knowledge acquired being transferred back to the workplace (Baldwin and Ford, 1988; Kozlowski and Salas, 1997; Tannenbaum and Yukl, 1992). The essence, then, of a training and development strategy, is not only whether trainees learn, but whether what is learned is transferable and generalizable to the work context (Baldwin and Ford, 1988). Where training is not transferred, both the employees and the organization lose. 2

14 Therefore, the use of training and development in organizations must be seen as a function of the effectiveness of training transfer (Elangovan and Karakowsky, 1999). Unfortunately, since the 1950 s, there has been growing evidence that training makes little or no difference in job performance (Mosel, 1957). Researchers generally agree that training fails to have significant impact as it either fails to transfer or is lost with time (Broad and Newstrom 1992; Foxon, 1993; Georges, 1988; Grabowski, 1983; Kelly, 1982). This problem appears to be a persisting one (Burke and Baldwin, 1999). Tannenbaum (2002) summarizes findings from research, which suggest that only about 20 percent of dollars spent on training result in on-the-job transfer. In addition, it is commonly cited that only 10 percent of training actually translates into job performance (Cheng and Ho 2001; Elangovan and Karakowsky 1999; Kupritz 2002). Although there appears to be no empirical evidence supporting this estimate, there is enough evidence to show that transfer of training is generally very low (Kupritz, 2002) and managers attest that even with high quality training, training transfer outcomes among employees are highly variable (Marx, 1982). 1.1 LEADERSHIP TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT Marx (1982) states that management training and development is not exempt from training transfer problems, despite the range of management and leadership courses, conferences and consultant programs that are said to be effective. As literature and books on effective management and leadership in organizations abound, management development training for soft skills ranging from communication skills to using power and influence in organizations are becoming more common. However, a recent study by Santos and Stuart (2003) revealed that 64 percent of managers returned to their previous work styles after training and that 3

15 managers are less likely than other staff to immediately apply training at work especially for developmental or soft skills training. These results are very significant, given that a large portion of the dollars spent on training is on management training and development. According to Sims (1998), 25 percent of training budgets are spent on management training. This can be attributed to the fact that managers are more likely to request training and choose to participate in development programs (Kane, Abraham and Crawford 1994; Thompson, Mabey and Storey 1998). Increased management training can also be attributed to the rising awareness of the need for learning organizations. In an increasingly complex economy characterized by rapid change, organizations have had no choice but to develop strategies to deal with the pace of change in order to remain competitive and survive in their industries (Harvey and Brown, 2000). Many innovative strategies and models have been developed for coping with change, but for those organizations that want to go beyond coping to becoming industry leaders, they must become learning organizations (Harvey and Brown, 2000; Noe and Colquitt, 2002). The concept of learning organizations arose in the 1970s through the work of Chris Argyris, who coined the term learning organizations. Argyris and other organization learning theorists centred on moving organizations from traditional designs and management into organizations that are open, holistic and systemic in their processes and decision-making (Denton, 1998; Flood 1999). This concept of learning organizations has been popularized by Peter Senge, who defined learning organizations as places where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of 4

16 thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together (1990, 3). Senge further describes learning organizations in terms of his famous five disciplines of systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision and team learning. Management and leadership are seen as key in creating learning organizations. Jeppesen (2002) states that leadership must be redefined for long-term business advantage and emphasizes leadership, not only at the top, but also throughout the organization, as a necessary requirement for learning organizations. As Sims (1998, 74) summarizes it, management development effort[s]...[are] designed to transform... traditional organizational culture into one that emphasizes continuous improvement [and] organizational learning... As such, management development is being used as a catalyst for the change to learning organizations and increased organizational effectiveness (Bramley, 1990). This use of management and organization training as a means to cope with the constantly changing environment and as a part of strategy in learning organizations makes the problem of training transfer even more significant. 1.2 FOCUSING ON EXTERNAL POST-TRAINING TRANSFER Examining the problem of training transfer requires an understanding of the factors that affect it. A review of comprehensive models (Baldwin and Ford, 1988; Colquitt, LePine and Noe 2000) show that training transfer is influenced at three levels; by the trainees characteristics (for example personality, motivation, self-efficacy, intelligence, age, attitudes etc.), the learning process (training delivery) and the characteristics of the organization environment. These models illustrate that trainees internal and external organization characteristics affect motivation, learning, transfer and job performance and are therefore 5

17 critical both before and after the training delivery (Noe and Colquitt, 2002). Training transfer can thus be summarized at a simplistic high level in the model shown in figure 1 below: Figure 1 - Summary Model of Training Transfer Process Trainee Characteristics Pretraining Factors Process (learning, motivations, reactions) Posttraining Factors Training Transfer (behaviour outcomes results) Organization Characteristics Model created by author based on review of training transfer literature From the perspective of this generic transfer model, Elangovan and Karakowsky (1999) state that traditional training transfer research has focused mostly on the design of the training instrument and on the training process. They further state that though both trainees internal and external organizational characteristics have received less attention, research on organizational characteristics that affect training transfer have been the least examined at the various levels. Cheng and Ho (2001, 103) also observed that there is a lack of attempts made to conceptualize and operationalise work-environment factors that can influence transfer. 6

18 In addition to a lack of research on organizational characteristics affecting training transfer, there have been a number of calls for more rigorous examination of the post-training environment (Baldwin and Ford 1988; Noe and Ford 1992; Tannenbaum and Yukl 1992). While designing for transfer before and during a training program is important, it is the posttraining environment that facilitates continued transfer (Elangovan and Karakowsky, 1999). In their studies of how employee perceptions influence training transfer, Santos and Stuart (2003) were surprised to find that post-training activities were viewed as more influential than the actual training in facilitating transfer. Not only does it appear that the organizational characteristics in the post-training environment must be examined, but also that studies are needed with management samples. As Cheng and Ho (2001) note, available research on training transfer has mostly been conducted with employee samples representing tangible technical skills training. Only two significant training transfer studies are available representing soft behavioural and management skills transfer, even though these management skills are believed to have higher value for training transfer research (Cheng and Ho, 2001). One of the studies, by Rouiller and Goldstien (1993) was conducted on a sample of managers in the fast-food industry, while the other by Tracey, Tannenbaum and Kavanagh (1995) was conducted on a sample of supermarket managers. Cheng and Ho (2001) urge that additional managerial studies on the post-training environment must be conducted in other contexts, to identify key factors for transfer of managerial skills in corporate environments. Cheng and Ho (2001) also call for studies that go beyond trainee self-reports to include other measures of transfer such as feedback from supervisors and peers or on-site observation. 7

19 This report will use the case study of a leadership development program at Vancouver Island Health Authority to examine whether training from the program transferred and what organizational characteristics in the post-training environment facilitated or inhibited transfer. Training in the program covers soft leadership skills and strategies around communication, personal mastery and systems thinking. Following the advice of Cheng and Ho (2001), the research will include feedback from observers of trainees that may be supervisors, peers or subordinates. This research may help fill the existing gaps in training transfer literature with regard to organizational characteristics affecting transfer in the post-training environment. As Burke and Baldwin (1999) state, there is limited literature available for practitioners on how to best design training and manage the process for optimal transfer. Furthermore, Marx (1982, 433) warns that in a period of increasing accountability and diminishing resources, training personnel will need to be able to justify the efficacy of training and make improvements when necessary. In this attempt to show the effectiveness of training programs, practitioners will need to demonstrate that training imparted has been transferred back to the workplace. The findings of this study may assist in designing post-training environments and interventions in a way that facilitates transfer of training. 8

20 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Transfer of training has been defined as the extent to which trainees apply the knowledge, skills, and attitudes gained in the training context of the job (Wexley and Latham as cited in Elangovan and Karakowsky 1999, 268). This definition, however, focuses on the traditional view of training transfer as the process of learning effectively within the context of a training program (Cheng and Ho, 2001). As the post-training environment is assessed in this paper, the effective definition of training transfer implied here is the broader definition that includes effective and continual application of the learning trainees acquire from formal training back to their workplaces (Noe, 2002). The most popular of these definitions is the one by Baldwin and Ford (1998). Baldwin and Ford s definition can be summarized as the generalization of the skills acquired during the training phase to the work environment and the maintenance of these acquired skills over time (Elangovan and Karakowsky, 1999, 268). This definition not only emphasizes continued training transfer in the post-training environment, but also highlights the important concepts of generalization and maintenance of training. Generalization of training refers to a trainee s ability to apply learned capabilities (verbal knowledge, motor skills etc.) to on-the-job work problems and situations that are similar but not completely identical to those problems and situations encountered in the learning environment. (Noe 2002, 5) This, in effect, determines whether the training concepts are operationalized in a way that makes them applicable in the workplace and is an important determinant of whether trainees will attempt to use the training in their work environment at all. However, 9

21 maintenance, the process of continuing to use newly acquired capabilities over time (Noe 2002, 5) is an essential component of post-training transfer. Transfer based on this broad definition will here be referred to as positive transfer. Burke and Baldwin (1999) have found that interventions to facilitate positive transfer influence trainees use of the intervention strategies depending on the nature of the posttraining environment. In some early management development studies by Baumgartel and Jeanpierre (1972, as cited in Burke and Baldwin, 1999) and Baumgartel, Reynolds and Pathan, (1984), it was found that managers were more likely to apply learned capabilities from training if they worked in favourable environments environments that encourage trainees to use and maintain their learned capabilities. Following these studies, Noe (1986) coined the term environmental favourability in his/her study of favourable work environments. More recent studies by Rouiller and Goldstein (1993) and Tracey et al (1995) refer to this phenomenon as transfer climate and attribute post-training transfer to organizations with positive transfer climates and learning cultures (Burke and Baldwin, 1999). Thus, transfer climate or favourability can be seen as the collective atmosphere of a workplace created by the attitudes, perceptions, and dynamics that influence how workers and the organization perform on a daily basis (Childre and Cryer as referenced in Burke and Baldwin 1999, 429). Whether the transfer climate is seen as supportive or unsupportive (Burke and Baldwin, 1999) depends on trainee s perceptions about a wide variety of characteristics of the work environment that facilitate or inhibit use of the trained skills or behaviours (Noe 2002, 160). Evaluating transfer requires an understanding of what these 10

22 characteristics are in the post-training climate. Characteristics of the post-training environment that have been found to facilitate transfer (and conversely inhibit it) will be presented here later. 2.1 EVALUATING TRAINING TRANSFER Evaluating training is arguable the most important stage of the training process given that the objective of training is to impact organizational results (Santos and Stuart, 2003). However, this is the stage of training that is often disregarded. What is called evaluation of training is often a measure of employees reaction to and enjoyment of the training delivery (Bramley, 1996). Sims (1998) states that the greatest emphasis, 84 percent, of training evaluation is placed on measuring reactions to training. Conversely, an example of an estimate showed that only 3 percent of organizations in the UK conducted value-added training evaluation in This trend is despite the fact that models for training assessment exist that incorporate evaluation of the post-training environment. The most popular and influential model for training evaluation is that developed by Kirkpatrick (Santos and Stuart, 2003). This model has been used in many variations for training evaluation and Kirkpatrick (1998) himself has used it to evaluate a leadership program. Kirkpatrick s levels for training evaluation proposed since the 1950s involves measuring training reaction, learning, behaviour and results (Kirkpatrick, 1994). Reaction evaluation is the measure of customer satisfaction as discussed above. Learning measures the extent to which participants internalized trained capabilities as a result of the program. It is specifically measured as change in attitudes, increase in knowledge or improvement in skill (Kirkpatrick, 1994). 11

23 The last two levels of evaluation are of particular interest to this evaluation of post-training organization factors. Kirkpatrick (1994) describes the behaviour stage of training evaluation as the determination of the extent to which trainees generalize training to the workplace given the conditions of individual motivation to change and the right climate (Kirkpatrick, 1994). The continued use of behaviours leads to results the final level of transfer that Kirkpatrick proposes. Results become manifest in such changes as increased production, improved quality, increased sales, higher profits, decreased costs etc (Kirkpatrick, 1994). Evaluating results relies on the transfer construct of maintenance to achieve long-term results. Although Kirkpatrick s model has been often used and modified especially by Hamblin (1974) and Warr, Bird and Rackham (1970) (as illustrated in Bramley, 1996 and Rae, 1997), all modifications to this model have retained and even expanded on the necessary measures for behaviour and results that they propose. This further reinforces the need to understand factors of the post-training environment that impact continued use of behaviours to achieve results from training. 2.2 CONSTRUCTS OF TRANSFER CLIMATE Factors that facilitate positive transfer in the post-training environment can be derived from available models and studies on training transfer and transfer climate. The most common factors that have been studied as well as some derivations of possible factors from theories in other disciplines will be combined for further study here. Deriving theories and constructs from other disciplines is commonplace in training transfer research. 12

24 2.2.1 Power/Empowerment Factors Studies on the effect of the work environment on training transfer have widely discussed support as a major factor necessary for positive transfer (Baldwin and Ford 1988; Huczynski and Lewis 1980). Support has been operationalized for training transfer studies as managersupervisor support and/or peer support (Burke and Baldwin 1999; Noe and Colquitt 2002; Kupritz 2002; Santos and Stuart 2003;). Huczynski and Lewis (1980) found that employees described support from others as the situation in which the environment allowed for discussing course goals, listening to and backing new ideas... (Burke and Baldwin 1999, 229). This characteristic is generalized in Tracey and Tews (1995, 40) as the strength of social networks that occurs when managers or peers openly encourage the use of newly acquired knowledge and skills. Research has shown that this atmosphere of encouragement from others in organizations influences trainees motivation to apply trained capabilities (Colquitt et al. 2000; Tracey et al. 1995). The underlying construct for support is empowerment in relation to political structures in organization and position in the organization hierarchy. For organization designs in which there is a significant proportion of middle management (as in the case study to be analyzed), encouragement may be limited as a result of conflicting cues that the middles receive from top management and front-line employees below them (Oshry, 1980). At the same time, middle managers are typically seen as change agents in organizations. As a result, middle managers in power structures have the potential to either be highly empowered if they receive cues that are aligned throughout the organization or to be highly dis-empowered by conflicting signals that create confusion, and sap their energy to create change (Oshry, 1980). 13

25 As such, factors of the post-training transfer climate that have been referred to as support characteristics in previous studies will be called power/empowerment factors in the context of this case study Adoption Environment Factors Studies on transfer have also reviewed several characteristics of the post-training climate that can be paralleled to factors necessary for the diffusion of innovation in organizations. Indeed, climates dubbed as favourable for transfer of training have been described as environments in which there is an appreciation for performance and innovation (Burke and Baldwin 1999, 229). A study by Ford, Quinones, Sego and Sorra (1992) found that trainees were more likely to apply difficult and complex trained skills when they were in post-training environments that they described as supportive. This characteristic directly corresponds to the complexity criterion that affects the rate of adoption of innovations in organizations (Rogers, 1983). Rogers (1983) defines complexity for innovation adoption as the extent to which the innovation is perceived to be difficult to use and understand. He hypothesizes that complexity, as it is perceived by members of a social unit, will be negatively related to adoption. In terms of training transfer, complexity relates to trainee s perceptions that applying the skills in their work environment will be complicated. By inference therefore, it appears that complexity may be negatively related to adoption and training transfer in unsupportive transfer climates but positively related to transfer in supportive environments. 14

26 Other factors from diffusion of innovation that may be relevant for training transfer are trialability, observability and relative advantage. Rogers describes trialability as the extent to which innovation can be experimented with. Huczynski and Lewis (1980) found that trainees in supportive environments that encourage experimentation had increased training transfer. Observability as defined by Rogers is the degree of visibility of the results when training is applied. Given the importance of peer support in transfer, it can be assumed that transfer results will be visible in supportive transfer climates. Relative advantage for diffusion of innovation is defined as the strength of outcomes received as a result of adoption of an innovation (Rogers, 1983). In terms of training transfer, the parallel definition for relative advantage can be the benefits that accrue to the trainee as a result of using the training at work. Relevant examples for transfer from Rogers (1983) list of benefits that describe relative advantage are, a decrease in discomfort, time and effort savings and immediacy of rewards. As such, Rogers relative advantage dimension more adequately describes outcomes of applying training and represents personal value from the environment for doing so. Overall, if training is viewed as an innovation, diffusion of innovation characteristics that will be categorized here as adoption environment factors, are likely to be in post-training climates where transfer occurs. It will also be interesting to investigate whether training adoption in the work environment (increased diffusion of training through the organization) is positively related to increased training transfer. 15

27 2.2.3 Continuity Factors Another group of characteristics that have been said to facilitate transfer are those that will be called continuity factors. Continuity factors describe characteristics of the post-training environment that support long-term maintenance of the learned capabilities. This category of factors parallel what training transfer research refers to as relapse prevention strategies designed to ensure that behaviour change from training is maintained (Marx, 1980). In the post-training environment, recommended post-training strategies for continuity are goalsetting and feedback mechanisms (Noe 1986; Richman-Hirsh 2001; Santos and Stuart, 2003; Thayer and Teachout 1995). Richman-Hirsh (2001) found that trainees motivated to set goals in the post-training environment will transfer training more than those that do not set goals. Goal setting and feedback implies having accountability for transfer built into the post-training environment (Noe, 2002). In their qualitative study of organizational factors affecting transfer, Tracey and Tews (1995) got feedback from 21 training professionals who emphasized the need for accountability if learned capabilities are to be maintained. Tracey and Tews (1995) also found that continued learning and external professional development opportunities facilitate transfer Situational Factors The situation surrounding possible transfer events in the work environment are also likely to affect the extent of training transfer. Indeed, whether opportunities even exist for applying training in the workplace is often cited as a condition for training transfer (Cheng and Ho 2001; Noe and Colquitt, 2002; Noe 2002). Opportunity to transfer refers to breadth (the number of trained tasks performed on the task), activity level (frequency of use) and task type (the difficulty and criticality of the trained task) (Noe and Colquitt, 2002; Noe 2002). It 16

28 can be inferred from this, that the first instance of training application at work may affect continued opportunity to transfer. For example, do trainees transfer the activity type that was first tried in their environment the most and how is task type affected by the successes or failure of the task type used on first attempt? Though this study will not focus on these questions, first attempt will be included for analysis as a post-training factor that may affect transfer. As well, Kupritz (2002) emphasized the importance of contexts including the physical design or proximity of equipment, management and employees on trainees motivation to transfer. Accordingly, the extent to which trainees begin to see opportunities for transfer in various situations may be a function of their being able to observe others who are located physically close to them apply the training at work. These situational factors surrounding transfer will be considered here Systemic Factors Finally, several organizational system/structural factors have been discussed as necessary conditions for training transfer in the post-training climate. Elangovan and Karakowsky (1999) conclude that training transfer is directly related to continuous learning cultures that engage in training and development and encourage employee improvement and initiative. This is implied in post-training studies, which have shown that organizational support has a positive effect on training transfer. Other cultural measures such as employees reactions when training is applied, language use and congruence of the training with the organization s cultural norms and structure are also 17

29 likely to affect transfer. Reward systems that reflect behaviour change may also be necessary for continued transfer (Mathieu and Martineau, 1997; Machin, 2002; Tracey and Tews 1995). Furthermore, the availability of resources such as budgets, technology and personnel to support training are often cited as factors that facilitate transfer (Mathieu and Martineau, 1997; Kupritz 2002; Noe 1986). Another significant characteristic of the organization that affects transfer is system pressures and their impact on time (Mathieu and Martineau, 1997). Santos and Stuart (2003) found that a primary reason cited by managers for low transfer of training is lack of time due to fast-paced work environments and contexts. In these situations, managers typically fall quickly back on old patterns and habits. In summary, the literature reviewed here suggests that a positive transfer climate consisting of positive power/empowerment cues, adoption environment factors, continuity factors, situational factors and system or structural factors will lead to the outcomes of personal value and training transfer. The derived summary model is illustrated in figure 2 below. Figure 2 - Summary Model of Positive Post-training Transfer Climate Transfer Climate Characteristics 1. Power/Empowerment Factors 2. Adoption Environment Factors 3. Continuity Factors 4. Situational Factors 5. System/Structural Factors Dependent Variables *Transfer *Personal Value This model and the five transfer climate factors form the basis for the study that follows. 18

30 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Exploratory research through case study analysis was used to further examine the five broad clusters of possible training transfer predictors identified in the literature review. In collaboration with the Centre for Excellence in Learning at Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA), the preliminary impact study of their management development program Leading in a Learning Organization was used as the basis for this study. 3.1 LEADING IN A LEARNING ORGANIZATION The Leading in a Learning Organization (LILO) training program was designed for leaders, managers and supervisors at VIHA, as part of the organization s move toward becoming a learning organization. The program was based on Senge s (1990) five disciplines for creating learning organizations systems thinking, personal mastery, shared vision, mental models and team learning. The goals of the program include: to help get results, shape culture, build leadership depth and improve leader effectiveness. The resulting program, developed with external university and industry experts, was made up of six modules called, Laying the Foundation, Clarifying Aspiration, Developing Clear Leadership, Dealing with Complexity, Creating Shared Vision and Back at Work and Celebration (see Appendix 2). The program delivery was spread over nine months, including pre-work, 70 in-session hours, personalized coaching between course sessions and post- 19

31 session assignments. After running a pilot group, the program was made available to Senior and Middle Managers and then rolled out to the Supervisor-level. Given that the program was researched and developed with experts in the field of Leadership and Organization Development, it is reasonable to assume that the factors affecting training transfer in the pre-training and delivery process were adequately addressed and built into the program. As a result, the LILO program presented a prime case for posttraining transfer assessment with pre-training and process interferences controlled. 3.2 DESIGN As an exploratory study, the research approach was to interview trainees who had completed the LILO program, as well as an observer for each trainee interviewed. Observers were defined as individuals who have worked long enough with the trainees (both before and after the trainee went through LILO), to be able to observe any changes in their work behaviours. The purpose of interviewing observers was to go beyond trainee self-reports, to assess whether the trainees have been able to impact their work environment as a result of their LILO training. In addition to the interviews, trainees were given a short survey for increased depth and understanding of trainee and organization outcomes. As Kupritz (2002) emphasizes, using such a triangulation approach allows for stronger results as the qualitative and quantitative data allows for confirmation and corroboration of the research findings. 20

32 3.3 PARTICIPANTS At the time of the study, the researcher was given access to the available list of 93 trainees who had graduated from LILO. Out of this list, a total of 21 participated in the study, representing 23 percent of trainees who had completed the program. These participants were the ones who responded to an sent to the list of 93 potential subjects. The sample included four leaders at the Regional Director level, eight at the Management level and nine at the Supervisor/ Coordinator level. The interviews conducted with trainee participants lasted between 75 and 90 minutes. The survey with a letter detailing confidentiality was ed to trainees prior to the interview. Surveys were returned to the researcher at the start of the interview. To recruit observers, each trainee was asked to nominate two people that fit the definition of observers for this study. An was then sent out to both individuals, briefly describing the study and requesting their participation. One of two individuals was then randomly selected to be interviewed, based on who responded first to the and scheduling convenience. A total of 20 observers were interviewed. Observer interviews took between 45 minutes and an hour. Due to scheduling and availability issues, an observer was not interviewed for one of the trainees. In addition, four of the observers stated that their working knowledge of trainees prior to LILO was somewhat limited, as a result of a change in the trainee s role or position just before or during their LILO training. In these cases, the caveat was to interview the observer who had known or worked with the trainee the longest. In one case, the nominated 21

33 observer recommended someone else more likely to provide valid data for the study. As the only person suitable and available for interview, one individual participated both as a trainee and an observer for another trainee. The sample of observers consisted of four individuals at the frontline level, thirteen individuals at the Supervisor/ Coordinator level, and three at the Management level. Four of the observers had completed the LILO program, one was in the process of completing it and three were registered to start the program with the next cohort. Of the total 41 interviews, 30 were conducted in-person in Victoria and one in-person in Vancouver. The remaining 10 were telephone interviews, split between three trainee and seven observer interviews. 3.4 INSTRUMENTS DESIGN Based on the summary model of factors affecting training transfer in the external posttraining environment and the resulting five factor categories of power/empowerment, adoption environment, continuity, situational and system/structural factors, the transfer hypotheses and items identified as measures for each factor category were developed as detailed in table 1 below. These categories and item measures were then used to develop the structured interview guides for trainees and observers (see Appendix 3). The survey was then developed following the category clusters and interview guides (see Appendix 4). In addition to the 22

34 Table 1 - Hypotheses and Sub factor Measures Power/Empowerment factors (If trainees feel empowered (able and allowed) to use training given organization power dynamics, training is likely to be transferred) power structure (impact of place in organization hierarchy) management support peer support follower support Adoption environment factors (If factors exist to encourage training adoption, training is likely to be transferred) complexity of using training in environment trialability (extent to which training can be experimented with in environment) observability ( extent to which results of application are visible in the organization) diffusion into the organization (training rolled-out in organization) Continuity factors (If trainees have continued accountability, training is likely to be transferred) goal setting and feedback (relapse prevention);accountability additional training availability succession planning, career, future job opportunities after-training activities to support learning Situational factors (If situational factors occur in a way that creates a positive training application experience, training is likely to be transferred) perceived opportunity to transfer (to other trainees and non-trainees) proximity to other trainees early success experience (1 st attempt) System/Structural factors (If organization structure and systems provide incentives/ support cues to trainees, training is likely to be transferred) system pressures time and resources congruence with culture impact of training language reward systems training support cues (task and social (peer support) cues) other employee reactions to training application dependent measure of transfer, the survey included a measure for personal value as an outcome of a post-training environment that facilitates transfer. Personal value was measured using the same constructs for transfer detailed above and it was hypothesized that 23

35 a positive transfer climate will facilitate the outcome perception of personal value, which will be correlated to transfer. The 20-question survey included two questions measuring power (questions 3 and 4), four measures for adoption (questions 5, 7-9), three measures for continuity (questions 10-13), two measures for situation (question 6, and 13) and seven measures for system and structural factors (questions 14-20). These independent variables were measured on a five-point likert scale with 1 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree. A box was also provided for not applicable responses. 3.4 INSTRUMENTS ANALYSIS The interviews were analyzed using thematic trend analysis. Ordered by factor category, each interview transcript was reviewed and responses to each question summarized into phrases or, where applicable, yes/no responses. The factor categories and sub-factors were used as the guide for the choice of phrases to develop themes. Where common themes appeared, a frequency count was done for the number of respondents following the identified theme. In addition, trainee themes were paralleled to observer themes to analyze areas of overlap. Opposing views to the identified themes were flagged. All 21 of the surveys returned were useable. The not applicable box was only used once. The survey responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and correlation matrices. Two-tailed correlation tests were used to assess association among the independent variables while one-tailed tests were used for the correlation tests between the dependent variables and the independent variables. Regression and measures of causality were not conducted because of the exploratory nature of the study and the small sample size of

36 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Before looking at the results the final set of variables used in the study need to be discussed. As such, the data reduction method is first described below, followed by a description of the level of transfer, what was transferred, what facilitates transfer and organization outcomes of the resulting transfer and trainee personal value. 4.1 DATA REDUCTION As is common with new surveys, there were significant overlaps in the meaning respondents made of different measures. The two-tailed correlation matrix for all the 20 items in the survey is shown in Table 2 and shows significant correlations among the variables. In order to ensure that separate variables were being used in the study, scales that had correlations greater than 0.5 were created and tested using Cronbach s alpha. This exercise yielded two clusters of variables, two simple combinations, and a handful of separate items, which didn t fit neatly with the transfer model used to define the study. The first cluster, consisting of the measures for system recognition, accountability, encouragement and employee reactions to the training (survey questions 19, 12,18 and 16 respectfully), was combined into a variable called organization support. 25

37 Table 2 - Correlation Matrix for Initial Model 1.Transfer Boss support 0.40* Power 0.41* 0.67** Personal value 0.51** Confident ** Opport Creative 0.51** ** Observed 0.55** * All Staff * Further training ** 0.64** ** Career * ** Account * * First Attempt * Systems/ Structure * 0.59** * -0.44* Time 0.47* * ** * Reactions * * ** Comfort * 0.44* 0.53**0.38* * Encouraged * ** ** Recognized 0.46* 0.57** * ** * 0.49* ** Overall ** 0.39* * ** * *p 0.05 level and ** p 0.01 level (2-tailed) The second cluster, consisting of the measures for boss support, position power, and further training (survey questions 3,4, 10 respectfully), was combined into a scale called application incentives. Cronbach s alpha tests were run to check the reliability of these combinations of variables. Both of the scales had alphas greater than 0.8. The items in each scale are shown in Table 3. There is fairly good face validity to the combination and labeling of organization support. Application incentives however, requires more explanation. Within this variable, the measure for position power ( my position in the organization hierarchy makes it easy for me to apply what I learned ) implies the extent to which one s place in the organization hierarchy and the resulting dynamics 26

38 provide encouragement incentives to apply training in the organization. Boss support implies having the incentive to apply training skills and concepts because of the support trainees receive from those senior to them in the organization hierarchy. The measure for further training also represents motivational incentive to learn and transfer training, as continued training and learning become part of the culture of the organization. Table 3 - Factor Combinations for Scales Organization Support Accountable Q12. I have been held accountable for applying what I learned Reactions Q16. Employees reactions when I apply skills and concepts from the program have been positive Encouraged Q18. I have been encouraged to use the training I acquired from the program Recognized Q19. I have been recognized and encouraged to apply what I learned Application Incentives Boss Support Q2. My boss and others senior to me have supported me in applying the training Position Power Q3. My position in the organization hierarchy makes it easy for me to apply what I learned Further Training Q10. Further training opportunities are available to me in this organization Organization Structure System and Structure Q14.The organization systems and structures allow me to apply what I ve learned Overall Q20.The organization culture, structure, policies and procedures have supported me in applying the training Opportunity Opportunity Q6. I have had opportunities to apply the skills and concepts learned from this training Creative Q7. I have had opportunities to use what I learned creatively A review of the observer interviews also showed that all the line staff, one manager and one supervisor stated that training opportunities are available to managers and leaders at VIHA. These respondents emphasized that the leaders at VIHA not only have access to training opportunities but have the incentive to pursue these opportunities because the organization will usually pay for its leaders and managers to go on training. This shows that managers and leaders at VIHA have both financial and time incentives to pursue training. The application incentive variable can therefore be defined as the degree to which the organization power structure provides incentives for individuals to apply learned capabilities at work. 27

39 Two additional variables organization structure and opportunity were created. Organization structure was created by combining two measures for the system and structure factor category (survey questions 14 and 20) that had a correlation of Opportunity was created by combining the continuity measure of opportunity and the adoption measure of creative use of the training (survey questions 6 and 7), which had a correlation of Given that the scaled variables were created by combining measures from different factor categories, the factor categories were ignored for the rest of the analysis and the focus was on variables rather than the previously assigned categories. The trend analysis of the trainee interviews revealed that peer and boss support, in terms of whether or not boss and peers had completed the LILO program, consistently emerged as an underlying factor affecting trainees willingness to transfer the LILO skills and concepts. As a result, two variables were created from the interview data, called boss taken and colleague taken. Each trainee interview was coded into yes / no for both variables. No responses were assigned the value 1, while yes responses were assigned the value 2. The survey data reduction and the creation of the new variables resulted in a total of 13 variables on which further analyses were performed. The resulting 13 variables and their brief descriptions are listed in table 4. 28

40 Table 4 - Reduced Data Set Variables VARIABLE DESCRIPTION 1. Training Transfer Apply LILO skills and concepts in the workplace 2. Personal Value Has perceived personal value from the training 3. Boss Trained Have boss who s taken the LILO training 4. Colleague Trained Have colleagues who ve taken the LILO training 5. Confident Is Confident to using skills and concepts at work 6. Observed Others Seen others use LILO skills and concepts at work 7. All Staff Have training rolled out to all employees 8. Career View LILO skills as useful for career development 9. First Attempt Had a successful first application experience 10. Time Has had time to apply LILO training 11. Comfort Is comfortable using language from LILO at work 12. Organization Support Has support to transfer from recognition, accountability, reactions and encouragement to LILO training at work 13. Application Incentives Has support of boss, opportunities for further training and power from position in hierarchy to apply LILO training 14. Organization Structure View organization culture, systems and structure as supportive of LILO training 15. Opportunity Has opportunities to use LILO skills and concepts and do so creatively The working definitions for training transfer and personal value are also included in the table. This revised data set was used for all further analysis of the data. 4.2 LEVEL OF TRANSFER The descriptive statistics from the survey are shown in Table 5. Trainees describe having received a high level of personal value and transferring the skills and concepts they learned from the LILO program back to the workplace. On the five point Likert scale, the average transfer score for the sample was 4.38 with a standard deviation of Personal value was rated even higher at 4.86 with a small standard deviation of

41 Table 5 - Descriptive Statistics for New Model Variables Mean Standard Deviation N Training Transfer Personal Value Boss Trained Colleague Trained Confident Observed Others All Staff Career First Attempt Time Comfort Organization Support Application Incentives Organization Structure Opportunity All 5-point scales except boss trained and colleague trained which are 2-point scales This highly positive response to transfer was reflected during the trainee interviews. Asked whether they have applied the skills and concepts they acquired from the LILO program, 19 of the 21 participants gave a strongly positive response, with specific examples of where or how they had applied skills and concepts from the training. This was echoed during the observer interviewees, with 16 of the 20 respondents giving specific examples of where they had seen changes in trainees work behaviour after the LILO program. 4.2 WHAT WAS TRANSFERRED The qualitative analysis showed that training from the Developing Clear Leadership module was the most transferred. The frequency count showed that 18 out of the 21 trainees interviewed made direct references to having used concepts that they learned as part of the clear leadership training module. For example, the clear leadership module included the concept of the experience cube to describe and analyze how we experience interactions with others. Twelve of the trainees made direct references to having used the experience cube to achieve positive results. Several trainees noted that by using the experience cube, 30

42 conversations within the organization were easier. As one person put it, using the experience cube had facilitated having dialogue with people who I would not have had a conversation with before...[the conversation] went better than it would have before. Another stated that in a difficult interpersonal situation, using the experience cube had led to amazing feedback the next day. Yet another stated that using the experience cube to deal with a situation that normally was confrontational resulted in lots of clarity and understanding of what the other party wanted, something that the trainee would never have sought to understand before. Other references that were made to concepts from the clear leadership module included learning conversations, a technique for changing unproductive patterns in work relationships. Trainees also described the impact of the clear leadership module as having increased their ability to effectively articulate thoughts and as having increased confidence in communication. Overall, as one participant put it, the impact of using clear communications has increased awareness of interpersonal problems because [I] can detect that there might be a problem and deal with it right away rather than let it slide as I would have done before...things tend to fester less. This fulfilled one of the objectives of the clear leadership module, which is to reduce interpersonal mush in organizations. As Bushe (2001) defines it, interpersonal mush is the work-debilitating result that occurs when individuals in a team or organization engage in sense-making and make up stories about events that are important to them, without confirming their story with others involved and then act toward others as if their stories are the truth. 31

43 The other components of the training program that appeared to have impacted trainees and led to changed behaviour at work were the Self-Awareness and the Systems Thinking component of the training. There were six direct references to self-awareness module resulting in changed behaviour, though many of the trainees implied that the entire program had resulted in an increased understanding of themselves or an aspect of their behaviour patterns. Five of the interviewees discussed the potential usefulness of the systems-thinking component of the training, given a current situation of constant change facing the organization. Among the rest of the trainees, there is clear interest in systems thinking as a tool for dealing with the complexity and managing the interdependencies in the organization. However, 11 of the trainees also reported that the systems thinking component was the most challenging part of the training to understand and apply and were either planning to retake or were in the process of retaking this part of the training. The systems thinking part of the LILO program had been recently redesigned though data was not collected that would help untangle the impact of the prior course versus the current course. The impact of this training transfer was clearly evident in the observer interviews. Before presenting those findings, the results of the survey analysis and discussion of the factors facilitating transfer are discussed below. 4.3 WHAT FACILITATES TRANSFER The combined results showing the one-tailed correlations between transfer, personal value and the thirteen independent variables and the two-tailed correlations among the independent variables are shown in table 6 and discussed below. Some of the items that 32

44 correlated with outcomes also significantly correlated with each other. Because the data set is too small for regression analysis, in each case partial correlations were used to assure that each was contributing separate, significant variance to the outcomes. In only two cases, as described below, did items that correlated significantly with training transfer or personal value have all of its significant variance explained by another variable. As predicted, there was a significant 0.51 correlation between personal value and transfer. However, although personal value is correlated with transfer of training, the factors that effect personal value are, for the most part different from those that directly effect transfer. Only two variables affected both personal value and transfer. Table 6 - Correlation Matrix - Revised Data Set Transfer Personal Value 0.51** Boss Trained 0.47* 0.43* Colleague Trained Confident ** Observed Others 0.55** All Staff * Career * ** First Attempt Time 0.47* Comfort 0.67** 0.44* * Organization Support * * Application Incentives 0.39* * Organization Structure * * Opportunity 0.46* * Column 1 & 2=1-tailed (* p 0.05 level, ** p 0.01 level), Column 3-15 = 2-tailed (* p 0.05 level, ** p 0.01 level) As had been suspected from the qualitative research, boss trained was significant with both transfer and personal value. The qualitative analysis supporting this also showed that trainees transferred their training when their bosses had both been through the LILO program and 33

45 were actively engaged in practicing the LILO skills and concepts. It appears therefore that trainees derive personal value and transfer their training when their bosses have taken the LILO program and are actively engaged in discussing and facilitating training transfer. The other variable which effected both was comfort. Comfort with using the specific language from the training had the highest correlation with training transfer (0.67). Analysis of the qualitative findings showed that 14 of the trainees who reported using some or all of the language from the LILO program had either a boss and/or colleagues who have been through the training. This shows that the majority of the LILO trainees are comfortable with using the LILO language at work, especially when there are others around who have been through the training. On the surface, there seemed to be little from the available data to provide some explanation or support for the correlation between comfort and personal value. However, when a partial correlation was run between comfort and personal value controlling for confidence, it became evident that confidence explains the relationship between them. The original correlation between the variables was When the partial correlation between them was run controlling for confidence, the relationship went down to 0.25, while the correlation remained significant when the partial correlation between personal value and confidence was run controlling for comfort. This shows that being comfortable with the language came when trainees are confident enough to use the training at work, resulting in the outcome of personal value. 34

46 4.3.1 Factors Influencing Personal Value Being confident enough to use the LILO skills and concepts at work was not correlated to transfer but was correlated to personal value. There was strong consensus among trainees with regard to confidence. Twenty of them stated that they were confident in applying the LILO skills and concepts, especially at their own level and below. Exploring this phenomenon of confidence with peers and subordinates further during the interviews, most of the trainees stated that they are concerned that the organization is still very hierarchical with traditional management built into the organization systems. As such, it appears that trainees may be deriving personal value because they are confident in using the LILO skills and concepts with the people they know. This is consistent with Clear Leadership theory that we create our own experience. The all staff variable (rolling the training out to all employees) was correlated with personal value. This was evident in the interviews. As managers and leaders in the organization, trainees see the potential outcomes of rolling out the training of direct benefit to them, in terms of making their work easier as illustrated in the following trainee responses:... it would be great for front-line staff, I don t think it should be limited to [the top] of the hierarchical structure. As manager, I feel that interpersonal conflict among and between staff will decrease. Conflicts take organization time and negatively impact patient care; sometimes one staff member will be annoyed at another and come to me when it is better for them to talk to each other... feel it would be extremely helpful to roll out to entire staff; 35

47 I feel that there will be a dramatic fall in the number of [patient] complaints if all staff go through the program. This third trainee went on to describe how a simple misunderstanding between nurses and a patient that had carried on for days was solved in a few minutes when the trainee mediated the conflict and asked a few questions to clarify both sides of the story. This conflict will not have carried on and the trainee need not have been involved, the trainee continued, if frontliners had the clear leadership training. Eleven other trainees also cited personal benefits such as increased job satisfaction, decreased discomfort and stress, less wasted time and energy, increased ability to work with others and increased ability to focus, as likely outcomes of all staff levels receiving the training. In addition to personal benefits, 11 trainees cited benefits to the organization related to everyone having a common language, including a general increase in the ability to work together, better communications and less interpersonal mush. Organization Support was correlated with personal value. Recalling that this support variable included receiving recognition, accountability, encouragement and positive reactions from the system, this result was compared to the qualitative findings for these questions. Trainees in this case reported that the reactions to use of the training skills and concepts have generally been positive, though six of the trainees also reported that initial attempts at using the training resulted in some surprise or skepticism. Eighteen of the trainees reported being encouraged in their work environment either because of the results they witness or the support they receive from managers and colleagues who have taken the training. However, all but one of the trainees reported having no formal accountability from their managers or 36

48 the organization for applying the training skills and concepts. Six of the trainees emphasized that they had made themselves personally accountable for applying the learned capabilities. Two other trainees went beyond personal accountability, though in different ways. One had extended coaching beyond that required during the LILO program and was accountable to the coach, while another had made himself accountable to his workgroup by posting goals and values and asking for accountability checks and feedback from the team. In addition, all the trainees stated that they had received no recognition or acknowledgement for using the skills and concepts beyond feedback from their workgroups and the personal satisfaction they feel when the training is successfully applied. These qualitative results suggest therefore, that in this case, the correlation relationship that was found between personal value and support may be mainly a result of the positive reactions and encouragement received from others who have taken the program Factors Influencing Training Transfer Observing others was correlated only with transfer. Observing others appeared to have a highly motivational effect on trainees. As one trainee stated, seeing others use the training was great because it made you want to jump on the bandwagon... This trainee further emphasized the importance and necessity of having such encouragement in an environment in which this training represented a change in the cultural norms of the organization. Another stated that watching the training in action reinforces the idea of the need for clarity and speaking out. This reinforcing effect of the training skills and concepts was also echoed by another trainee. The strongest reaction to observing others seemed to come from those trainees who had seen [others] use it successfully. These trainees who have seen positive 37

49 results ensue when the LILO skills and concepts are applied were strongly encouraged by the impact of the process as illustrated in the following examples: I watched others respond to the way one person in a meeting did it [clear leadership concepts] perfectly. It was very powerful. The issue was dealt with in 5 minutes. The impact of this is that when there is clarity, people get the message better and things get done... I ve seen others use it in meetings, not consciously using it, but seen them work around the experience cube and seen the tone of the meeting change... its good, it has reduced the amount of stories by [us] trying to explore what people are thinking, we have cut stories and we are getting the job done quicker In one situation where there was lack of clarity...[we] didn t make headway until we used clear language...[the result] was 40 minutes of interpersonal mush and 5 minutes of clarity. In addition to this feedback, the qualitative research also showed that 16 of the trainees reported that they worked physically close to other trainees who had been through the program. These trainees emphasized that physical proximity to other trainees not only increased their motivation to transfer, but also created an avenue for peer support, the development of mentoring relationships and the fostering of an open and safe environment to share the common language from LILO. The change in working relationships that this has created is clear in the words of one trainee who stated, there s one person who s physically close to me... [and] we are able to talk to each other and understand each other better. It s increased our respect for each other. I think it s increased our openness with each other and safety. I don t think I ve ever worked with anybody in my 20-some odd years of 38

50 working that I ve ever felt safer with as a result of this... I can totally be myself... you can come in and say okay I m just gonna say this and I feel like I m being silly, but I m just gonna say it... and it s nice to be able to do that. Observing and being close to other trainees therefore showed an overall powerful motivational and relationship-building impact on trainees. The interviews provided additional support for the correlation between time and transfer. The qualitative analysis showed that 10 of the trainees gave absolute ( yes ) answers in response to the question of whether they had time to apply their training. In addition, five of the trainees made a point of stating that they had made time to apply the training despite the busyness of their work environments. The remaining six trainees talked about the difficulty of maintaining the training in the current crisis situation the organization was in and emphasized that these conditions made it easy for them to revert to old work habits. Application incentives, the scale made up of trainees perceptions of position power, having boss support and further training opportunities in the organization, was correlated with transfer. As has already been noted, the qualitative research showed that boss support was significant in relationship to transfer. In the interview question asking about position power, trainees implied that the higher up in the hierarchy they go, the more likely it is that they will apply the LILO skills and concepts. This has intuitive validity since management positions are in themselves an incentive to use soft skills necessary to be effective. These trainees will therefore have positional incentive to apply the training. Also, following the previously discussed finding that the higher up in the organization hierarchy you go the more incentive you have to pursue learning opportunities at VIHA, all the trainees thought that further 39

51 training opportunities are available to them in the organization. Several of the trainees made a point of saying that they were motivated to transfer their training because the organization had invested in them and showed commitment to learning even given current difficulties facing the organization. Finally, the relationship between opportunity and transfer was clearly supported in the qualitative analysis. Trainees readily stated that opportunities and applications for the various skills and concepts from the LILO program existed at VIHA. However, partial correlation results showed that the comfort variable explains the correlation between opportunity and transfer, with the correlation between them falling from 0.46 to when comfort is controlled for. This means that it is the variance that opportunity shares with comfort that explains the effect of opportunity on transfer. In other words, if people are comfortable, they will create opportunities to transfer the LILO training. 4.4 ORGANIZATION OUTCOMES OF TRANSFER The observer interviews yielded rich evidence of transfer of the skills and concepts from the LILO program. In concert with the other research findings, the observer interviews confirmed that the concepts from the training that transferred and that have impacted the organization the most are the concepts around the clear leadership and self awareness modules of the program. There was a significant amount of feedback around increased listening and understanding by trainees. Observers generally noticed that trainees seek more information and input from them, which has made observers feel more valued. Table 7 below presents the summary 40

52 phrases from the observer interviews that support this finding. In addition, observers noticed specific behaviour changes in trainees. Specific changes that observers mentioned included: prioritizes more, more relaxed, calm and content, increased patience, increased energy into trying to make things work, takes a softer approach, increased confidence, doesn t take things as personally as used to, doesn t jump in with I m right attitude anymore, seen increased effort and awareness of leadership skills in work behaviour, increased staff coaching, and looks at program changes more globally. Table 7 - Observers Feedback on Impact of LILO SUMMARY PHRASES FOR INCREASED LISTENING AND UNDERSTANDING LISTENING listens more, is more approachable and [we] feel like [we] are participating more listens more, more encouraging to staff listens more, checks different perspectives more curious, more open interactions more sensitive seeking input more tries to listen, explains things better, more engaged UNDERSTANDING understands situations better shows greater understanding for staff X2 more focused on understanding [our] processes and details and so more knowledgeable about them asks more specifically and says what [trainee] wants understands better X 2 more thought into interactions and reactions explains more of what s going on now, increased staff buy-in efforts change in communication style more focused on solving the problem very clear X 2 Accordingly, it can be concluded that the observers feedback matches the findings from the trainee interviews, solidifying support for transfer in this case. 41

53 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION This case has presented strong evidence of transfer. Discussions of the key findings and of the case study are presented here, followed by the limitations of the research. 5.1 SUMMARY DISCUSSION The results of this study provides support for previous research and suggests new findings and areas for further study in the area of training transfer. Reviewing the categories and factors that were found to affect training transfer from the literature review and comparing them to the revised data set revealed areas where this study supports previous research and where new questions or dimensions from the factors studied here have arisen. The summary model of the significant findings and how they fit into the original categories of factors affecting training transfer are depicted in figure 3. As shown, only three categories, defined in this study as power/empowerment factors, adoption environment factors and system/structural factors are significant for this model of training transfer. However the scaled factors organization support, application incentives, and opportunity include measures of the originally defined Continuity and Situation categories of factors affecting transfer. 42

54 Figure 3 - Derived Model of Training Transfer (based on significant results) Power/Empowerment Factors Boss Trained Application Incentives Organization Support Adoption Environment Factors Observed Others Opportunity All Staff Personal value Transfer Confident System/Structural Factors Comfort Time This figure depicts the model of training transfer resulting from this study. As shown, this study has not only highlighted factors that directly affect transfer, but through the correlation between transfer and personal value also presents factors that indirectly affect training transfer. The implications of these results for training personnel and the questions for additional study that arise from this model are discussed further below. 43

55 5.1.1 Power/Empowerment Factors As emerged in this research, having bosses trained was directly correlated with transfer of training. This finding was interesting in that boss trained as operationalized here sheds new light on what type of support matters for transfer of training. Support has traditionally been operationalized as having a boss and peers that are supportive of trainees applying the training (Baldwin and Ford 1988; Huczynski and Lewis 1980). As discussed below in this section, this traditional definition of support was indirectly significant in this study as part of the application incentives scale that correlates with transfer. However, given Burke and Baldwin s (1999) definition of support as the open discussion of knowledge and skills learned, it follows in this case that managers need to be trained to be part of any of the discussions about the LILO training. The finding that having trained bosses facilitates transfer therefore raises questions such as: does type of support (i.e. whether your boss is trained or is just supportive) correlate with organization characteristics or type of training? Does support, as it has been traditionally defined, really facilitate transfer or should other dimensions of support be examined? However, the implication of the finding here for training practitioners in organizations is that attention should be paid to how training is rolled-out. As is generally agreed, having management support is a necessary factor for the successful implementation of organization initiatives. It appears here that trainees perceive that that support is signaled when seniors in the organization also go through leadership development training. Having seniors go through training will further indicate that organizations are committed to and value the training, especially where it represents a change in the organization s culture. 44

56 The scaled factor application incentives was an empowerment factor correlated with transfer. This factor, comprised of the effect of position power, boss support and further training, confirmed the assertions by Oshry (1980) that power dynamics affect managers ability to perform in organizational hierarchies. The importance of boss support emerges here, confirming previous research and studies citing support as a key factor of training transfer. In addition to bringing out the need for seniors to be supportive and trained, this study shows also that in administering training, practitioners should consider the impact of incentives to apply in addition to tangible rewards on transfer. It appears that organizations will get value from management training initiatives when trainees have intangible application incentives such as trained bosses who are supportive and permission to use their training in the hierarchy. These application incentives also point to the need for safe organization environments in which trainees feel able to apply training because the environment reinforces their behaviour. Another consideration this finding raises is the question of how soft skills training can be facilitated for lower level managers and other leaders further down in organization hierarchies, who have less access to application incentives than senior managers Adoption Environment Factors Everett Rogers observability (1983) factor that affects adoption of innovations proved to be significant in affecting training transfer. This also supports the inference drawn from Kupritz s (2002) assertion that transfer is a function of trainees proximity to other people who have been through the training. The implication of this for management training is that value will best be derived where there is a critical mass of people going through the training, 45

57 so that evidence of transfer will be visible to trainees. This finding suggests that training personnel must think of the trade-offs between cost and mass rollout of soft-skills training and the implications for training transfer. Opportunity to transfer (and use the training creativity) was also shown to correlate with transfer. This factor encompassed Everett Rogers trialability dimension of diffusion of innovations and opportunity to transfer as described by Cheng and Ho (2001), Noe and Colquitt (2002) and Noe (2002). Though this study confirms the importance of these factors to training transfer, further research should be done to assess dimensions of trialability that are important for transfer and the individual impact of breadth, activity level and task type dimensions of opportunity on transfer. As has been admonished, training practitioners should ensure that training delivered is the right type of training for which there are transferable opportunities in the workplace. How this can be done is detailed elsewhere in research and findings surrounding pre-training factors necessary to support post-training transfer. In addition, this study reveals another aspect of the opportunity dimension by showing that opportunity is a function of comfort with the use of language from training. This finding raises the question of the extent to which comfort, confidence and opportunity are selfgenerated phenomenon or organizational phenomenon. Do some people see and take opportunities more than others and if so why? These questions provide an avenue for depth in understanding how transfer opportunities are perceived and created. 46

58 5.1.3 Systems/Structural Factors Time was significant in transfer, supporting the finding by Santos and Stuart (2003) that time was the primary reason cited by managers for low transfer. Training practitioners must therefore think of ways of assisting managers in making time to practice the training. For example, practitioners can facilitate after training activities that provide opportunities for further development of trainees. In this case, trainees were asked what after training activities would be useful and interesting to them in applying the training and the majority of them (14) responded that formalized refreshers on the whole or part of the program would be most engaging. Trainees emphasized that it was difficult to make time to attend informal post-training sessions about the LILO program given their busy schedules, but that formalized sessions would be seen as more of a priority and would increase the likelihood of attendance. In addition, as Elangovan and Karakowsky suggest, systems or structural dimensions of learning cultures facilitate training transfer. In this case, the dimension of comfort with language use in the organization environment was shown to facilitate transfer. By inference, it could be argued that comfort with language develops in areas where a critical mass of trainees have taken the training. In addition, the importance of this factor to transfer was demonstrated in the finding that comfort with language use explains the relationship between opportunity and transfer. Given that comfort with language use has to do both with internal trainee characteristics and environmental cues, training personnel do not have full control over how this factor can be manipulated to maximize transfer. However, like observability, this factor can be stimulated by having a mass of people trained and using the 47

59 learned competencies in their environment, so that the language becomes part of the organization culture and develops into positive environmental cues around its use Personal Value Factors Finally, this research raised some interesting findings around personal value as another outcome of a supportive post-training climate and suggests areas for further study. The correlation between personal value and transfer shown here begs the question of which precedes the other. Does transfer depend on trainees deriving personal value from the training or do trainees derive personal value from training because they transfer the training? As has been shown here, deriving personal value from training has an indirect effect on training transfer making further exploration of the relationship between them necessary. As well, apart from having a trained boss and comfort with language use, personal value was correlated with three other factors that indirectly impact training transfer. As shown in figure 3, these factors were confidence in using the training in the environment, diffusion of the training to all staff and having organization support. Confidence with using the training was especially interesting since trainees confidence seemed limited to their level and those below. Would confidence also be correlated with personal value and indirectly with transfer where it applies throughout the levels of organizations? Does this variable have more to do with hierarchical organizations? We saw also that confidence explained the relationship between personal value and comfort. However, like comfort, confidence is an internal trainee characteristic. What is the relationship between internal trainee characteristics and organization characteristics that facilitate transfer and personal value? To date, the effect of these trainee and organization characteristics on transfer have been studied separately. This 48

60 study suggests that exploring the joint effect of these characteristics on transfer and personal value may offer new perspectives and insights into understanding training transfer and uncovering the relationship between personal value and transfer. 5.2 CASE DISCUSSION WHY TRANSFER WAS HIGH Overall, this study presented a case in which management/leadership training has been transferred and that indicates important areas for training personnel to pay attention to in designing training that transfers and provides value given the challenges faced in today s organizations. In addition, an interesting aspect of this case study was the level of transfer. Training transfer and personal value average ratings were extremely high at 4.38 and 4.86 respectively, with relatively small variance in the ratings. This is particularly significant given that it is generally cited that only 10% of training transfers into the workplace. Reviewing the descriptive statistics for the reduced-set variables in table 5 shows that the means for the individual items that affect transfer (boss trained, observed others, time, comfort, application incentives and opportunity) are all higher than the midpoint of the scales they are measured on. As such, the high transfer can be attributed to the high results for the individual factors that affect it. However, in addition to the empirical evidence shown here, this high level of transfer could be attributed to some case-specific factors. First, it could be argued that the high level of training transfer in the LILO program was the result of it being well designed and implemented. As shown in transfer literature and discussed above, transferability of training is a function of the pre-training environment, the implementation process and the post-training environment. Transfer, therefore, is influenced at all three stages of training delivery. Though this study analyzed the case from the 49

61 perspective of the post-training environment, the positive results may be due to the effective pre-training process and implementation of the training. Given that the program was designed in conjunction with industry and academic experts in the field of training and organization development, it can be assumed that the training design and delivery was done in such a way as to maximize transfer. Indeed, evidence that the program was designed to transfer is shown in the fact that the last two hours of the LILO program are spent on planning training application strategies when trainees go back to work (see appendix 2). As is known, such goal setting, self-management and similar interventions that occur at the end of training are effective in creating increased transfer of training into the workplace (Richman- Hirsh, 2001). Second, the high level of personal value trainees have derived from the course might be due to the nature of the course content. The course content was highly personal and was geared towards facilitating a change in leadership at VIHA through the personal growth and development of the leaders. As shown in the model for the LILO program (see appendix 2), the training included components such as personal mastery, a spoon bending exercise in the synergy of a shared vision component and clarifying one s assumptions and triggers in sensemaking in the clear leadership component of the program. This type of intensely personal training is rare and can be called risky to the extent that leadership programs within organizations are usually not as personal as this. As one trainee summarized it I am amazed. I have seen lots of courses given for staff over the years and they are usually much more focused on output or a skill set, but I have never seen a course have such an impact on people at a personal level. It is amazing and life-changing... and an 50

62 unusual experience to get in a work-supported course... This personal development aspect of the course may be one of the strongest reasons why transfer was so high in this case. As the research progressed, it became clearer that trainees were transferring the LILO concepts because they found it was leading to personal development for them. This was strongly evidenced during the interviews in those cases where trainees described the other factors that effect transfer as low for them, but still reported high transfer because the course was personally relevant. The strength of personal relevance to transfer was clear in the extremely high personal value average rating of This high personal value came through in the qualitative results as well. Many of the trainees reported a change in their personal perspectives and attitudes as a result of the program. As one put it it [LILO program] has been highly enlightening, inspiring and motivational. It has changed how I look at my life, which is profound. It is my first conscious step into spiritual awakening... This powerful impact has manifested itself in the changes trainees are making. One trainee reported spending hours after the LILO program reflecting on life and creating a clear personal vision and mission as a result of the values exercise conducted during the program. Several trainees are pursuing further development through continued coaching and two of the trainees explored opportunities to return to school and pursue degree programs to get them closer to their personal vision. Indeed as one trainee stated, two colleagues who took LILO left as a result of the journaling exercise. One trainee reported expanding roles while another reported taking on a more challenging position within VIHA as a direct outcome of clarity of their personal vision after the LILO program. Three other trainees reported 51

63 increased confidence in their abilities and a resulting drive to move into higher management roles. As discussed here therefore, the unusually high level of transfer in this case study may be due not only to the strength of individual factors that affect transfer, but also to a program design, implementation and personally relevant content of the course. 5.3 LIMITATIONS There are a number of sample biases associated with this case study that should be acknowledged. First, the trainees who participated in this study may not be representative of the population that went through the training. They self selected themselves for this study and we don t know what biases are inherent in that. It may be that those who got the greatest value from the program were most eager to talk about it. Second, those who have taken the training to date may not be representative of those who will go through the LILO program in the future. The trainee participants here are for the most part, the early adopters of leadership training. As people who volunteered for this kind of leadership training, they are probably the most willing and motivated to learn and experiment with the LILO skills and concepts during, and as evidenced here, after the program. However, it is unpredictable how subsequent trainees will approach the training; some may be more likely to take the training out of a sense of duty or because they have been urged on by their bosses or others who have taken the course. It is possible, therefore, that the results presented here may have a positive bias because of a sample heavily weighted on innovators. 52

64 In addition, the fact that observers were self-selected by trainees may have introduced some selection bias due to the social desirability phenomenon. Social desirability is the tendency for individuals to appear to behave as they believe society expects them to. Trainees who want to appear to have transferred learning may therefore have been biased towards choosing observers who are more likely to report that trainees had used the LILO skills and concepts. Other observer related limitations include that the one observer who did both the trainee and observer interviews will have experienced the testing effect error of being able to anticipate questions and responses by the second interview. To minimize this error, the trainee interview was done before the observer interview. As mentioned earlier, there was also the issue of the four observers who had more post-lilo than pre-lilo working knowledge of the trainee they were interviewed about. This was unavoidable due to changes and restructuring that had resulted in the trainees in question changing positions just prior to, or at the start of their LILO training. In these cases, it was difficult for the observers to attribute changes in the trainees behaviour solely to the LILO program since they had little knowledge of trainees pre-lilo work styles. Another possible limitation of this study is the timing of the research. The research was done at a time of great change at VIHA. The organization has recently merged to bring together the north, central and south island health services under one health authority. This, significant budget changes and other initiatives came to VIHA as part of provincial changes to make healthcare more patient-centred and sustainable, after a hike in provincial healthcare 53

65 costs from 33% to 39% over the past decade ( As a result of all these changes, some trainees emphasized that it has been very difficult applying the skills and concepts from the LILO program because they have constantly been in crisis mode. Trainees stressed that the current state of crisis makes it easy to revert back to normal work styles and past patterns and has made practicing the LILO skills and concepts of lesser priority. Despite all this, the LILO skills and concepts have transferred. It could therefore be argued that the LILO training transferred because of the current crisis that necessitates that leaders use effective communication and systems analysis tools. As a result, factors that may normally affect training transfer may have been inhibited in this study, given the different organization dynamics that exist during times of crisis. As such, what has been presented here could be factors that affect training transfer during times of crisis as opposed to factors that affect training transfer in more stable environments. As well, this study was exploratory given its qualitative nature and that only the 21 trainees interviewed were also surveyed. The findings and the further questions that this study presents are therefore ripe areas for confirmatory replication and new research. 54

66 REFERENCES Analoui, F. (1993). Training and Transfer of learning. Aldershot, England:Averbury. Baumgartel, H., Reynolds, M., & Pathan, R. (1984). How personality and organizational climate variables moderate the effectiveness of management development programmes: A review and some recent research findings. Management and Labour Studies, 9, 1-6. Baldwin, T.T., & Ford, J.K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41, Bramley, P. (1990). Evaluating Training Effectiveness: Translating Theory into Practice. London: McGraw-Hill Training Series. Bramley, P. (1996). Evaluating Training Effectiveness, Benchmarking your training activity against best practice. 2 nd ed. London: McGraw-Hill Training Series. Broad, Mary L. & Newstrom, John W. (1992). Transfer of Training. Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley. Burke, L. & Baldwin, T. T. (1999). Workforce training transfer: A study of the effect of relapse prevention training and transfer climate. Human Resource Management, 38 (3), Bushe, G.R. (2001). Clear Leadership: how outstanding leaders make themselves understood, cut through the mush, and help everyone get real at work. Palo Alto, California: Davies-Black. Cheng, E.W.L. & Ho, D.C.K. (2001). A review of transfer of training studies in the past decade. Personnel Review, 30(1), 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. Jourmal of Applied Psychology, 85, Conference Board of Canada (2001). Conference Board Survey: Training investment Results Disappointing. Retrieved November 15, 2003 from Denton, J. (1998). Organizational Learning and Effectiveness. London: Routledge. 55

67 Elangovan, A.R. & Karakowsky, L. (1999). The role of trainee and environmental factors in transfer of training: an exploratory framework. Leadership and Developmental Journal, 20, Flood, R.L. (1999). Rethinking The Fifth Discipline: learning within the unknowable. London:Routledge. Ford, J.K., Quinones, M.A., Sego, D.J., & Sorra, J.S (1992). Factors affecting the opportunity to perform trained tasks on the job. Personnel Psychology, 45, Ford, J.K. (1997). Advances in Training Research and Practice: An Historical Perspective. In Ford J.K., Kozlowski S.W.J., Kraiger K., Salas E., & Teachout M.S. (eds.), Improving Training Effectiveness in Work Organizations, Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Foxon M. (1993). A process approach to the transfer of training. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 9 (2) Georges, J.C. (1988). Why soft skills training doesn t take. Training and development, 25 (4), Grabrowski, S.M. (1983). How educators and trainers can ensure on-the-job performance. Strengthening connections between educators and performance. New Directions for Continuing Education, 18. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Harvey, D. & Brown, D.R. (2001). An Experiential Approach to Organization Development. 6 th ed. New Jersey: Upper Saddle River. Health Canada (2003). British Columbia: Provincial submission to the Canada Health Act and Annual Report. Retrieved September 18, Huczynski, A. A., & Lewis, J.W. (1990). An empirical study into the learning transfer process in management training. Journal of Management Studies, 17, Jeppesen, J.C. (2002). Creating and Maintaining the Learning Organization. In Kraiger, K. (ed.), Creating, Implementing, and Managing Effective Training and Development, San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass. Kane, R. L., Abraham, M., & Crawford, J.D. (1994). Training and staff development:: Integrated or isolated? Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 32(2), Kelly, H. B. (1982). A primer on transfer of training. Training and Development, 36(11), KirkPatrick, D. L. (1994). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. 56

68 KirkPatrick, D. L. (1998). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Kozlowski, S.W. & Salas, E. (1997). A Multilevel Organizational Systems Approach for the Implementation and Transfer of Training. In Ford J.K., Kozlowski S.W.J., Kraiger K., Salas E., & Teachout M.S. (eds.), Improving Training Effectiveness in Work Organizations, Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kupritz, V. W. (2002). The relative impact of workplace design on training transfer. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13(4), Machin, M.A. (2002). Planning, Managing and Optimizing Transfer of Training. In Kraiger, K. (ed.), Creating, Implementing, and Managing Effective Training and Development, San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass. Mathieu, J.E. &Martineau, J.W. (1997). Individual and Situational Influences on Training Motivation. In Ford J.K., Kozlowski S.W.J., Kraiger K., Salas E., & Teachout M.S. (eds.), Improving Training Effectiveness in Work Organizations, Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Marx, R.D. (1982). Relapse prevention for managerial training: A model for maintenance of behaviour change. Academy of Management Review, 7(3), Mintzberg, H. (1979). The Structuring of Organizations. The theory of Management Policy Series. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Mosel, J. N. (1957). Why training programs fail to carry over, Personnel, 34(3), Noe, R.A & Colquitt, J.A. (2002). Planning for Impact: Principles of Training Effectiveness. In Kraiger, K. (ed.), Creating, Implementing, and Managing Effective Training and Development, San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass. Noe, R.A. & Ford, J.K. (1992). Emerging issues and new directions for training research. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 10, Noe, R. A. (1986). Trainees attributes and attitudes: neglected influences on training effectiveness. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), Noe, R. A. (2002). Employee Training and Development. 2 nd ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin. Oshry, B. (1980). Middle Power. Boston: Power and Systems. Peters, Tom.(1988). Thriving on Chaos: Handbook for a Management Revolution. New York: Alfred A Knopf. Rae, L. (1996). How to Measure Training Effectiveness. 3 rd ed. Vermont: Gower. 57

69 Rogers, E. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations. 3 rd ed. New York: The Free Press. Richman-Hirsh, W.L.(2001). Posttraining interventions to enhance transfer: The moderating effects of work environments. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(2), Rouiller, J. K. & Goldstein, I. L. (1993). The relationship between organization transfer climate and positive transfer of training. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 4, Santos, A. & Stuart, M. (2003). Employee perceptions and their influence on training effectiveness. Human Resource Management Journal, 13 (1), Senge, Peter (1990). The Fifth Discipline. New York:Doubleday. Sims, Ronal R. (1998). Reinventing Training and Development. Westport, Connecticut: Quorum Books. Statistics Canada Human Resources Development Canada (2001). A Report on Adult Education and Training in Canada. Retrieved October 29, 2003 from Tannenbaum, S. I., & Yukl, G. (1992). Training and development in work organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, Tannenbaum, S (2002). A Strategic View of Organizational Training and Learning. In Kraiger, K. (ed.), Creating, Implementing, and Managing Effective Training and Development, San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass. Thayer, P.W. & Teachout, M.S. (1995). A climate for transfer model (AL/HR-TP ). Brooks Air Force Base, TX: Technical Training Research Division, Armstrong Laboratory. Thompson, A., Mabey, C., & Storey, J. (1998). The determinants of management development. International Studies of Management and Organization, 28(1), 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, Tracey, J. B. and Tews, M.J. (1995). Training effectiveness: Accounting for individual characteristics and the work environment. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 36(6)

70 APPENDICES 59

71 APPENDIX 1 - RESEARCH ETHICS APPROVAL 60

72 APPENDIX 2 LEADING IN A LEARNING ORGANIZATION MODEL Leading in a Learning Organization: Using our Organizational Issues and Struggles to Learn Leadership and Management Development Laying the Foundation Clarifying Aspiration Orientation to 360 and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (1.5 hours) Debrief 360 and MBTI (6 hours) Plus one optional coaching session VIHA as a Learning Organization (1/2 day) And Personal Mastery Introduction (1/2 day) Dealing with Complexity Integrating Learning via - Assigned Reading, Journaling, Reflection & Coaching (5 weeks with 4-5 coaching sessions) Personal Mastery Conclusion (½ day) Applying Systems Thinking Tools, Systems Maps and Archetypes to Current Issues and Challenges (2 days) Developing Clear Leadership Skills Improving Conversations: Using Mental Models in Team Learning Developing the 4 skill sets of Clear Leaders: aware, descriptive, curious and appreciative Using Organizational Learning Conversations to improve clarity Eliminating Interpersonal Mush and Improving Decision Making Meetings (4 days) Creating Shared Vision Molten Metal: The Synergy of Shared Vision Creating a Shared Vision for Leadership (1/2 day) Back at Work: Planning how to incorporate learning into leadership role. Celebrate Program Completion (2 hours) Appreciative Inquiry Heartmath Inner Quality Management Reprinted with permission from the Centre of Excellence at VIHA Systems Thinking Facilitation 61

73 APPENDIX 3 INTERVIEW GUIDES Interview Guide (Trainees) 1. Have you been able to apply what you learned from the leadership training you received? 2. Do you think it has led to tangible positive outcomes for your work area? If so, can you give me examples? 3. Do you think other people notice the difference? If so, what differences are they most likely to have seen? Power/Empowerment factors 4. How, if at all, has your boss and others senior to you supported your ability to apply what you learned? 5. Do your colleagues support the application of the skills and concepts that you learned? 6. Do the people you supervise support your application of these skills and concepts? 7. Do you feel secure in using skills and concepts you learned with all levels in the organization? why/why not? Adoption environment factors 8. What personal value have you received from applying your learning from the training program (probe for recognition, decreased discomfort/effort/ perceived benefits)? Or has the training been useful for you? 9. Have you found it challenging (complicated in any way to apply what you learned?...why/why not? 10. Have you had opportunities to experiment (used in creative ways) with what you learnt?... why/why not? 11. Have you observed others using the training and how has that affected you? 12. How would potentially providing the training to the rest of the staff impact your motivation to transfer training? Continuity factors 13. How and by whom have you been held accountable for applying the skills and concepts. 14. Do you feel that additional learning opportunities exist for you in this organization? 15. How might this training help you in your current and future career 16. What after-training activities (e.g. the breakfast club) would be useful and interesting to you to support your continuous learning Situational factors 62

74 17. What opportunities exist for you to apply what you learned to trainees and nontrainees? 18. Is there anyone you physically work close to who s been through the programs? What has that been like for you? 19. Tell me about the first time you used your training at work System/Structural factors 20. How do organization systems or structure impact your ability to use your training? 21. Have you felt like you have the time to apply what you learned from the program?... why/why not? 22. What reactions have you observed from other employees when you ve applied the skills and concepts you learned? 23. Has it been comfortable using the language from the training? ( e.g. learning conversation, the story I am making up ) Has this language been accepted in your work environment? 24. Do you feel encouraged to use the training skills and concepts you learned?... why/why not? (who/what encourages you to apply the skills) 25. What recognition/acknowledgement have you received as a result of applying what you ve learned? 26. If you were to summarize, what factors have been a) most helpful to you in applying your training at work b) hindrances to you in applying your training at work Interview Guide (Observers) (in each interview the person s name will be substituted for trainee ) 1. Are you aware that trainee has gone through a leadership development program? 2. What are your impressions of this program? 3. Have you seen any change in trainee s work behaviour? What changes have you observed? If yes, 4. In what way, if at all, has the trainee s change in work affected their overall performance? 5. the overall performance of their area? Power/Empowerment factors 6. How have you seen trainee s boss or others senior to him impact trainee s ability to apply what he/she learned? 7. What about others in the organization? 8. How confident has the trainee appeared to be in using their training? Adoption environment factors 9. When trainee uses new skills and concepts does the interaction seem smooth or awkward? Does it make the outcomes easier or harder? 63

75 10. Have you observed trainee take the opportunity to use new behaviours regularly? What about other trainees? 11. If the training had been provided to you and the rest of the staff, how would that have affected your motivation to support trainee in applying skills and concepts learned? Continuity factors 12. Do you feel this organization supports learning opportunities? Situational factors 13. Are there some situations where trainee is more likely to use new skills and concepts? System/Structural factors 14. What system or structural constraints might be getting in the way of trainee s ability to use skills and concepts learned? 15. Have you observed that trainee has time to apply learning from the program?... why/why not? 16. What reactions have you observed from other employees when trainee applied the training skills and concepts? 17. Has it been comfortable when trainee uses language he/she learned in your work environment? (e.g. learning conversations, the story I am making up is)... why/why not? 18. Do you feel trainee has incentives to use the new training techniques?... why/why not? (who/what are the motivators/de-motivators) 19. What recognition/appreciation have you observed trainee receive as a result of this applying the training? 20. If you were to summarize, what factors have been c) most helpful to trainee in applying training at work d) hindrances to trainee in applying training at work 64

76 APPENDIX 4 - LETTER TO TRAINEES AND SURVEY Dear Trainee, SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Faculty of Business Administration Thank you for agreeing to participate in this Research Study on Training Transfer! This research project is being conducted in collaboration with the Centre of Excellence at Vancouver Island Health Authority and will also go towards fulfilling my degree requirements. The goal of the research is to use the Leading in a Learning Organization training program that you went through to evaluate what factors in the external post-training environment helped you transfer what you learned. The interview with you that we have scheduled will be invaluable to this process. As part of the interview and research process, please find attached a brief survey for you to complete. Your participation in this survey is strictly confidential. Your individual responses will be anonymous and will not be made available to the Centre of Excellence. Your responses will provide me a base for greater insight and understanding during our interview. Also, aggregated survey information will be used to determine statistical relationships between training transfer and the external factors that may affect it. Your participation is completely voluntary. This survey should only take about 5 minutes to complete. Please hold on to your completed survey. I will collect it from you just before we begin our interview. If you have any questions regarding this research, please contact me at [email protected] or my supervisor, Dr. Gervase Bushe, at [email protected]. Thank you for helping me complete this project! Sincerely, Yabome Kanu MBA Candidate Management and Organization Studies Faculty of Business Administration Simon Fraser University 65

77 Trainee Pre-Survey (Leading in a Learning Organization: Training Transfer Assessment) Please circle the number/box corresponding to your assessment for each of questions 1 to 20 below. Thank you! Not Applicable Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree 1. I have applied the skills and concepts from the Leading in a Learning Organization Program 2. I have realized value from the training 3. My boss and others senior to me have supported me in applying the training 4. My position in the organization hierarchy makes it easy for me to apply what I learned 5. I am confident enough to apply the skills and concepts 6. I have opportunities to apply the skills and concepts learned from this training 7. I have had opportunities to use what I learned creatively 8. I have observed others applying the skills and concepts from the training 9. Providing the training to all staff would increase my motivation to apply the skills and concepts I learned 10. Further training opportunities are available to me in this organization 11. This training will help my current and future career 12. I have been held accountable for applying what I learned 13. My first attempt to apply training at work was successful 14. The organization system and structures allow me to apply what I ve learned 15. I have time to apply what I learned from the program 16. Employees reactions when I apply skills and concepts from the program have been positive 17. I feel comfortable using the language I learned in my work environment 18. I have been encouraged to use the training I acquired from the program 19. I have been recognized and encouraged to apply what I learned 20. The organization culture, structure, policies and procedures have supported me to apply the training