Posttraining Interventions to Enhance Transfer: The Moderating Effects of Work Environments

FEATURE Posttraining Interventions to Enhance Transfer: The Moderating Effects of Work Environments Wendy L. Richman-Hirsch The study reported on in this article examined the effectiveness of two posttraining interventions goal-setting and self-management training and moderating effects of the work environment on improving training transfer. The findings indicate that training in goal-setting was effective in improving the extent to which trainees applied their skills to the job. Further, both interventions were found to be more effective in supportive work environments. Implications for training research and human resource practices are discussed. The sine qua non of training is the successful transfer of trained skills to the job. Baldwin and Ford (1988) identified two conditions of transfer: maintenance (that is, the length of time that trained skills continue to be used on the job) and generalization (the application of trained skills to tasks or settings beyond the original training context). It has been argued that transfer of training is a function of the training program itself as well as the work environment (for example, Facteau, Dobbins, Russell, Ladd, and Kudisch, 1995; Ford, Quiñones, Sego, and Sorra, 1992; Tracey, Tannenbaum, and Kavanagh, 1995). It is believed that aspects of the posttraining environment can encourage, discourage, or even prohibit the application of new skills on the job (Tannenbaum and Yukl, 1992). The present study examined the effectiveness of two posttraining interventions goal-setting and self-management training that Note: This research was carried out for my doctoral dissertation at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The study was supported in part by grants from the Center for Human Resource Management (CHRM) and the Office of Human Resource Development, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. I gratefully acknowledge the support and guidance of Charles L. Hulin and Miguel A. Quiñones. HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, vol. 12, no. 2, Summer 2001 Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 105

106 Richman-Hirsch provide trainees with skills to help them overcome potential obstacles and constraints in the work environment and ultimately enhance the application of learned material. Posttraining Interventions Several researchers have examined the effectiveness of posttraining interventions (for example, Frayne and Latham, 1987; Gist, Bavetta, and Stevens, 1990; Gist, Stevens, and Bavetta, 1991; Latham and Frayne, 1989; Wexley and Baldwin, 1986), but few attempts have been made to examine the extent to which contextual variables moderate the effectiveness of posttraining interventions in enhancing transfer. Using several sources of data (self, supervisor, and coworkers) collected over time, this study both replicates and extends previous research. This study attempts to replicate the work of Gist, Bavetta, and Stevens (1990); Gist, Stevens, and Bavetta (1991); Gist and Stevens (1998); Stevens and Gist (1997); and Wexley and Baldwin (1986) by examining the differential effectiveness of goal-setting and self-management in improving maintenance and generalization transfer. In addition, this study extends previous research by investigating the moderating effects of work environments; to the authors knowledge, this study is the first to investigate the moderating effects of the transfer work environment on posttraining intervention effectiveness. Goal-Setting Training. Locke, Latham, and their colleagues have gained considerable support for the assertion that specific, challenging goals lead to higher performance than easy goals, do-your-best goals, or no goals (Locke and Latham, 1990). Goals are believed to lead to higher performance because they direct attention, mobilize effort, and encourage persistence on a task (Locke, Shaw, Saari, and Latham, 1981). With respect to training efforts, several studies have investigated the motivating effects of goal-setting as a posttraining intervention to enhance transfer and have reported positive findings. For example, Wexley and Nemeroff (1975) investigated the effects of introducing goal-setting following a management development training program for hospital supervisors. Their results indicate that trainees with assigned performance goals (that is, to ask subordinates opinions and ideas and try them whenever possible) were better at applying their trained skills than trainees who had no goals. (See also Wexley and Baldwin, 1986.) Self-Management Training. In its original form, self-management training developed to aid people who had relapse problems with addictive behaviors, such as smoking and alcoholism (Kanfer, 1980). It is believed that a set of generalizable coping skills helps individuals avoid or effectively handle problems they encounter after therapy. Self-management techniques have been found to be effective in helping people stop smoking (Kanfer and Phillips, 1970), lose weight (Mahoney, Moura, and Wade, 1973), and improve study habits (Richards, 1976).

Posttraining Interventions to Enhance Transfer 107 Marx (1982) brought these ideas into the workplace by developing a relapse prevention model for managerial training. Self-management training, as it is called now, involves teaching people to assess potential obstacles to performance, monitor ways in which the environment facilitates or hinders performance, plan coping responses when faced with those obstacles, and administer rewards upon successfully avoiding or overcoming obstacles (Gist, Bavetta, and Stevens, 1990; Noe, 1986; Wexley and Baldwin, 1986). Research examining self-management training as a posttraining intervention indicates that it is effective in enhancing transfer (for example, Frayne and Latham, 1987; Gist, Bavetta, and Stevens, 1990; Gist, Stevens, and Bavetta, 1991) and may have long-term effects (Latham and Frayne, 1989). Several researchers have compared the effectiveness of goal-setting and self-management interventions in enhancing transfer (Gist, Bavetta, and Stevens, 1990; Gist, Stevens, and Bavetta, 1991; Stevens and Gist, 1997; Wexley and Baldwin, 1986). These studies have found that goal-setting is essential to the success of self-management training. For example, Wexley and Baldwin found that, for improving time management skills, self-management training (without goal-setting) was inferior to goal-setting training (that is, monitoring achievement toward either assigned or participatively set goals); goal-setting trainees demonstrated greater maintenance of their time management skills over a two-month period. Gist and associates (Gist, Bavetta, and Stevens, 1990; Gist, Stevens, and Bavetta, 1991) discovered that, following a negotiation skills training program, trainees who were taught goal-setting and self-management principles demonstrated greater transfer than did trainees who were taught only goal-setting principles following training. Consistent with previous findings, it is expected that goal-setting and selfmanagement training (with goal-setting components) will have different effects on the maintenance and generalization of trained skills. Because selfmanagement techniques involve identifying obstacles to performance and planning coping responses, self-management trainees may acquire the ability to apply learned material to new situations. Gist, Bavetta, and Stevens (1990, p. 506) suggest that in contrast to training that emphasizes goal-setting alone, self-management training may focus attention on the learning and orchestration processes involved in performing a complex task, as well as the desired outcome. They found that following a negotiation skills training program, a self-management posttraining intervention resulted in greater generalization than did a goal-setting posttraining intervention. In addition, Gist and Stevens (1998) found that when participants experienced stressful practice conditions, supplemental training in self-management after negotiation training led to improved generalization. This study hypothesizes that self-management trainees will exhibit the greatest generalization transfer. HYPOTHESIS 1. Self-management trainees will exhibit greater generalization than either goal-setting trainees or trainees receiving no posttraining intervention.

108 Richman-Hirsch Although Gist, Stevens, and Bavetta (1991) concluded that self-management training results in greater maintenance than goal-setting training, their dependent measure was a self-report inventory of the self-management and goal-setting techniques that trainees had used since training (reflexive and active maintenance activities); the maintenance measure did not assess the maintenance (over time) of the negotiation skills taught in the negotiation skills training course. In contrast, Gist, Bavetta, and Stevens (1990) used a measure of repetition (the total number of times any negotiation strategy was used divided by the total number of strategies used) that seems to be a better assessment of the extent to which trainees continued to use their negotiation skills following training (that is, maintenance). In that study, Gist and colleagues found that, compared to self-management trainees, goal-setting trainees tended to use their skills more repeatedly on the transfer task. In the present study, using a maintenance measure of the frequency with which trainees were observed (by their colleagues) engaging in the behaviors taught in training, it is expected that goal-setting training will lead to greater maintenance transfer. Self-management training is expected to help trainees focus on how to apply their training to novel tasks and settings (that is, generalization), whereas goal-setting is expected to enhance effort and persistence toward transfer; this enhanced effort and persistence is expected to result in greater maintenance of trained skills over time. HYPOTHESIS 2. Goal-setting trainees will exhibit greater maintenance than either self-management trainees or trainees receiving no posttraining intervention. Work Environment Current reviews of the training literature, as well as empirical studies on transfer, have suggested that work environments are important with regard to transfer of training (for example, Baldwin and Ford, 1988; Facteau, Dobbins, Russell, Ladd, and Kudisch, 1995; Rouiller and Goldstein, 1993; Tracey, Tannenbaum, and Kavanagh, 1995). For example, Ford, Quiñones, Sego, and Sorra (1992) demonstrated that trainees who perform similar jobs may be given different opportunities to perform their trained skills on the job depending on their work environment; the work environment was found to limit trainees ability to transfer the learned material to the job. Tracey, Tannenbaum, and Kavanagh (1995) found that behaviors that send a message that learning and the application of learning are important and valued encourage the application of newly trained skills. The present study extended this research by examining the extent to which the work environment moderates the effectiveness of posttraining interventions. Previous research examining the effectiveness of posttraining interventions on transfer of training have not explored potential moderating effects of work environments. Because trainees perceptions of the work environment have

Posttraining Interventions to Enhance Transfer 109 been found to influence transfer of new behaviors to the job (for example, Ford, Quiñones, Sego, and Sorra, 1992; Rouiller and Goldstein, 1993; Tracey, Tannenbaum, and Kavanagh, 1995; Tziner and Falbe, 1993), one might also expect that trainees ability to make use of posttraining interventions depends on the type of work environment in which they work. In a work environment that supports the application of trained skills and values learning and development activities, for example, goal-setting trainees may be better able to apply their new skills because they have the resources, support, and encouragement needed to translate their goals into effort and performance. In addition, self-management trainees may be better able to focus on transfer constraints (personal or organizational) present in their work setting when they work in a supportive environment. Goal-setting and selfmanagement training are expected to help trainees overcome barriers to transfer and enhance the application of trained skills, yet the efficacy of the interventions may be hindered in a work environment that is fraught with transfer constraints. Therefore, it is hypothesized that goal-setting and selfmanagement training will be more effective at enhancing the transfer of learned material when trainees work in supportive environments. HYPOTHESIS 3. Posttraining interventions will interact with trainees perceptions of the transfer work environment to affect transfer. Specifically, trainees in the goalsetting and self-management interventions who work in a supportive work environment will exhibit greater transfer than either trainees in the no posttraining condition who work in a supportive work environment and all trainees who work in unsupportive work environments. No differences in transfer across interventions are expected in unsupportive work environments. Method The study method was as follows. Participants. Data were collected from 267 employees at a large midwestern university. Participants were enrolled in a customer service skills training course offered by the university s human resource office. Course participation was voluntary; supervisory evaluations were not expected to affect enrollment. The average response rate in training was 74 percent (a total of 360 trainees were enrolled in the course) and the return rate for the followup questionnaires was approximately 76 percent for the trainees and 44 percent for trainees colleagues (138 supervisors and 458 coworkers responded). Approximately two surveys per trainee were received from trainees colleagues. (A total of 1,335 surveys were sent to trainees colleagues, however, it was anticipated that only three completed surveys per trainee were necessary for analysis corresponding to a response rate of only 60 percent.) Design. An experimental design containing three levels of a betweensubjects variable was used. The manipulated variable was the posttraining

110 Richman-Hirsch intervention to which trainees were randomly assigned (goal-setting versus self-management versus placebo, or no intervention). There were approximately ninety trainees per condition. Procedure. Following the customer service skills training, participants completed a questionnaire assessing their perceptions of the transfer environment in their workplace and a declarative knowledge test on the training content. Participants were then randomly assigned to one of the three posttraining conditions. (Kanfer and Ackerman, 1989, assert that motivational interventions are more effective during later stages of skill acquisition; therefore, the training interventions were conducted after training was completed.) The two posttraining interventions consisted of a training session lasting approximately one hour. Following these sessions, participants completed a short manipulation check. Participants in the control condition completed the knowledge test and manipulation check immediately after the initial training was completed and were excused. All questionnaires were returned directly to the researcher. To diminish the diffusion of treatment effects, trainees were encouraged not to discuss the content of the posttraining intervention with colleagues who may have been in the other posttraining groups. If they did, they were asked to focus only on the techniques taught in their intervention and to avoid attempting the techniques taught in the other groups. Approximately four to six weeks after training, the trainees colleagues were asked to complete two assessments of the trainees transfer behaviors: maintenance and generalization. As before, all questionnaires were returned directly to the researcher. Training Courses. The customer service skills course focused on service skills, teamwork, communication skills, and the prevention of common university student problems. It was a full-day program lasting eight hours. Eight sessions of the course, with approximately forty-five trainees per session, were evaluated. Goal-Setting Intervention. Modeled after Gist and others (Gist, Bavetta, and Stevens, 1990; Gist, Stevens, and Bavetta, 1991), the training included a discussion of why goal-setting is important (definition of goals), a description of the goal-setting process, characteristics of effective goals (for example, challenging and specific), an explanation for the effectiveness of goals, examples of how goal-setting has been used in other organizations, and a discussion of how goal-setting could be effective in one s own organization or department. After a discussion and demonstration of how to set difficult, specific goals, each trainee developed a goal-setting plan. Each person received a worksheet to use to personalize his or her goal to meet individual needs and strengths. The trainees were instructed to fill out the worksheet by (1) indicating the interim steps they intended to take to achieve their goal and (2) writing down the date by which they intended to achieve each step. They were given extra

Posttraining Interventions to Enhance Transfer 111 blank goal-setting sheets to encourage them to use the goal-setting techniques back on the job. Self-Management Intervention. Self-management training included an overview of Marx s (1982) relapse prevention (self-management) model, listing of the newly trained skills that trainees wished to apply to the job, examination of potential obstacles to effective transfer of those newly learned skills, development of potential coping responses to handle unfavorable environmental influences, and instruction on how to experience a sense of accomplishment after attempting to use a coping skill in a problematic situation (Marx, 1982; Noe, 1986; Wexley and Baldwin, 1986). Examples of effective self-management programs used in other contexts were provided (Gist, Bavetta, and Stevens, 1990; Gist, Stevens, and Bavetta, 1991). Trainees were also reminded that temporary difficulties and slips were to be expected and that they should revise and add new coping strategies as they encountered new situations that caused additional difficulties on the job (Wexley and Baldwin, 1986). Consistent with the goal-setting intervention, all of the self-management trainees received a self-management plan worksheet to help them personalize the self-management process according to their individual needs and strengths. They were instructed to fill out the worksheet by (1) focusing on the specific skills taught in training that they wanted to apply to their job, (2) listing potential obstacles that might hinder their ability to apply their newly learned skills to the job, (3) describing specifically how they would cope with or avoid each of those obstacles, (4) determining how they would monitor their performance toward avoiding or overcoming each obstacle, and (5) deciding how they would reward themselves for successfully avoiding or overcoming each obstacle. They were given extra blank selfmanagement worksheets to encourage them to use the self-management techniques back on the job. Measures. The measures were as follows. Work Environment. A twenty-five-item scale was used to assess the transfer work environment. The content of the items was adapted from Tracey, Tannenbaum, and Kavanagh (1995) and Tracey (1998). To determine the extent to which the environment reinforced or blocked transfer behaviors, each item assessed a contingency between performing transfer behaviors on the job and organizational responses. Trainees were asked to indicate their beliefs about the likelihood of organizational reactions when supervisors and coworkers facilitate (or fail to facilitate) transfer of training, and when they support (or fail to support) knowledge, skill, and behavior acquisition and application. (For example, Do you think it would be noticed if a newly trained employee in your department was not performing his or her job as taught in training? ) (See Exhibit 1 for additional examples.) Each question used a fourpoint Likert response scale, with higher scores indicating perceptions of a supportive transfer of training climate.

112 Richman-Hirsch Exhibit 1. Sample Survey Items Work Environment 1. Do you think it would be noticed if a newly trained employee in your department was not performing his or her job as taught in training? 2. Do you think a newly trained employee would be praised for using his or her new skills on the job? 3. How likely is it that a supervisor would give recognition and credit to those who apply new knowledge and skills to their work? Maintenance Transfer 1. Remained attentive and focused on a customer while talking with him or her. 2. Asked fact-finding questions to clarify a customer s needs and to check for understanding of his or her problem. 3. Assured a customer that he or she heard and understood the customer s concern. Generalization Transfer 1. Remained attentive and focused on a coworker while talking with him or her. 2. Asked fact-finding questions to clarify a team member s or colleague s needs and to check for understanding. 3. Assured his or her supervisor, boss, or coworker that he or she heard and understood the concern that was voiced. Manipulation Check Self-Management Activities 1. Identified obstacles to successful performance 2. Engaged in coping strategies to overcome obstacles 3. Monitored progress in the use or review of strategies Goal-Setting Activities 1. Thought about how to achieve the goal 2. Monitored progress toward goal attainment 3. Thought about how to maintain persistence toward goal attainment Performance in Training. Following training, a declarative knowledge test was used to assess the extent to which trainees learned the content of training. The test items were multiple choice questions derived from a content analysis of the training course and all relevant training materials. The total number of correct items was used to generate an overall performance measure. Individual performance scores across training sessions were linked by converting performance scores to standardized z-scores within session. Transfer. Transfer maintenance and generalization were assessed approximately four to six weeks after training completion using measures from two sources: the trainees supervisor and two to three of their coworkers. To assess maintenance behaviors, respondents were asked to indicate how often the trainee engaged in specific behaviors taught in the training course. To assess generalization behaviors, respondents were asked to indicate how often the trainee engaged in behaviors that were not directly taught in training but that represented extensions of behaviors taught in the course. For example, trainees

Posttraining Interventions to Enhance Transfer 113 were taught communication skills such as how to remain attentive and focused on a customer while talking to him or her; a generalization item, therefore, was how often the trainee remained attentive and focused on a coworker when talking with him or her. (See Exhibit 1 for additional examples.) For both maintenance (twenty-one items) and generalization (ten items) transfer measures, respondents used a six-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 6 (several times a day). Trainees colleagues were asked to complete the questionnaire only if they felt they had adequate contact with the trainee to observe the transfer behaviors. If not, they were asked to return the questionnaire blank with a note indicating lack of contact. Maintenance and generalization measures were computed by (1) finding the mean response for each item by averaging the responses obtained from trainees colleagues, and (2) taking the mean of the item means computed in the first step. The average reliability across all behaviors for trainees colleagues was found to be.80 and.77 for maintenance and generalization behaviors, respectively, and the average correlation between any pair of raters was.73 and.68 for maintenance and generalization, respectively. Manipulation Check. To ensure that appropriate content was covered in the interventions, trainees were asked what was taught in the posttraining interventions. They indicated the activities taught by using a checklist of selfmanagement and goal-setting activities. They completed this checklist immediately after completion of the posttraining session. (See Exhibit 1 for examples of self-management and goal-setting activities included on the checklist.) Results The results were as follows. Descriptive Statistics. Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, scale reliabilities, and intercorrelations of the study variables. As the table shows, coefficient for each of the scales ranged from.80 to.92. Scores on the knowledge test were positively correlated with colleagues reports of trainees maintenance behaviors (r.14, p.05); this indicates that trainees who learned more during training exhibited the trained behaviors more frequently on the job. The work environment was marginally related to reports of trainees generalization behaviors (r.12, p.10) suggesting that generalization transfer was somewhat greater in supportive work environments. Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations of Study Variables Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 1. Work environment 64.35 11.51.91 2. Knowledge test 0.00 1.00.80.00 3. Maintenance 4.11.58.92.10.14** 4. Generalization 3.62.71.84.12*.08.48** Note: *p.10.; **p.05.; ***p.01.

114 Richman-Hirsch Tests of Posttraining Intervention Hypotheses. There were several tests of the hypotheses. Manipulation Checks. Goal-setting trainees reported that significantly more goal-setting activities were taught in the posttraining session (M 5.48) than did either the self-management trainees (M 3.26) or trainees in the control group (M 1.55), F(2,261) 121.92, p.01, R 2.48. In addition, self-management trainees indicated that significantly more self-management activities were taught in the posttraining intervention (M 5.80) than did either the goal-setting trainees (M 2.77) or trainees in the control group (M 1.36), F(2,261) 179.76, p.01, R 2.58. These results indicate that the appropriate content was covered in the two posttraining interventions and that the content of each of the interventions was viewed as different. Postraining Intervention Analyses. Hypotheses 1 and 2 predicted that goalsetting and self-management training would have different effects on the training transfer; self-management was expected to lead to greater generalization while goal-setting was expected to lead to greater maintenance. Two contrast variables were created to examine the overall effect of posttraining intervention on transfer of training; the contrast variables were created to be consistent with the predictions in Hypotheses 1 and 2. One dummy variable was created comparing goal-setting trainees with all other trainees (Hypothesis 1) and a second dummy variable was created comparing selfmanagement trainees with all other trainees (Hypothesis 2). The two dummy variables were used to predict the two transfer measures. As seen in Table 2, goal-setting trainees were rated by their colleagues as exhibiting more generalization behaviors (M 3.73) than self-management and control group trainees (pooled M 3.55; b.18, p.05). No differences were found between self-management trainees and all other trainees for either measure of transfer. Although these results do not support Hypotheses 1 and 2 predicting differential posttraining effects for different transfer measures, the findings do suggest that goal-setting was more effective in enahancing transfer. Interactions Between Work Environments and Posttraining Interventions. Hypothesis 3 predicted an interaction between type of posttraining Table 2. Standardized Regression Coefficients for the Effect of Posttraining Intervention on Transfer of Training Independent Variables Goal-Setting versus Self-Management versus Dependent Self-Management, and Goal-Setting and Variables R 2 Control Group Control Group Maintenance.01.12.01 Generalization.01.18**.01 Note: *p.10; **p.05; ***p.01.

Posttraining Interventions to Enhance Transfer 115 intervention and the work environment. To predict the two transfer measures, three variables were entered into the regression equation: a dummy variable coding for posttraining intervention, work environment, and the interaction between the dummy variable and work environment. (Note that in order to maintain the variance in the work environment measure, it was entered as a continuous variable.) Examination of the significant interactions shown graphically in Figures 1 and 2 demonstrates that the goal-setting intervention was more effective in enhancing transfer when trainees worked in a supportive environment. More specifically, the interaction between posttraining intervention (comparing goal-setting with the control group) and the work environment was in the right direction in predicting generalization (b 1.09, p.10). The interaction between posttraining intervention (comparing goal-setting with self-management) was significant in predicting maintenance (b.68, p.01) and was in the right direction in predicting generalization (b.86, p.10). To illustrate the nature of the significant interactions, the work environment measure was dichotomized into a supportive work environment group (one standard deviation above the mean) and an unsupportive work environment group (one standard deviation below the mean) and then crossed with the dummy variable coding for posttraining intervention. Trainees in the goal-setting intervention who worked in a supportive environment were rated by their colleagues as enacting more generalization Figure 1. Posttraining by Work Environment Interaction on Generalization Transfer 4 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 3 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2 Generalization Supportive Work Environment Unsupportive Work Environment Goal-Setting Self-Management Control

116 Richman-Hirsch Figure 2. Posttraining by Work Environment Interaction on Maintenance Transfer 5 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.2 4 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 3 Maintenance Supportive Work Environment Unsupportive Work Environment Goal-Setting Self-Management Control behaviors (M 3.75) than goal-setting trainees who did not work in such an environment (M 2.90; Figure 1); no differences were found between self-management trainees or between control group trainees who work in either environment. Trainees in the goal-setting intervention who worked in a supportive environment were also rated by their colleagues as enacting more maintenance behaviors (M 4.42) than goal-setting trainees who did not work in such an environment (M 3.92; Figure 2); again, no differences were found between self-management trainees who worked in either environment. Together, these results lend preliminary support for Hypothesis 3. Trainees perceptions of the supportiveness of the work environment moderated the effectiveness of the goal-setting intervention; goal-setting was more effective in a supportive work environment. Discussion This research examined the effectiveness of two posttraining interventions, goal-setting and self-management training, on improving transfer of training and explored the potential moderating effects of work environments. Posttraining Interventions. The results indicate that goal-setting trainees were rated by their colleagues as enacting more generalization behaviors than self-management and control group trainees. No such advantage, however, was found for self-management trainees. There are two likely explanations for why the goal-setting intervention, in comparison to the self-management

Posttraining Interventions to Enhance Transfer 117 intervention, may have resulted in improved transfer over the control group; one relates to training philosophies of organizations today and the second relates to the operationalization of the posttraining interventions. First, the goal-setting intervention, compared to the self-management intervention, may have resulted in improved transfer over the control group because the use of goal-setting terminology is common in organizations today. Employees are somewhat familiar with the general notion of goal-setting (although not necessarily with all its facets). In contrast, the self-management principles were relatively new. The self-management principles may have been fairly complex for both the trainers and the trainees, and therefore may have affected the face validity of the intervention. Just as face-validity perceptions of selection tests can influence the effectiveness of selection procedures (for example, Arvey, Strickland, Drauden, and Martin, 1990; Chan, Schmitt, DeShon, Caluse, and Delbridge, 1997), the face validity of the self-management intervention may have affected the strength of the manipulation and its subsequent effectiveness on transfer of training. Second, it is well established that goal-setting is an essential element of self-management training (for example, Gist, Bavetta, and Stevens, 1990; Gist, Stevens, and Bavetta, 1991; Locke and Latham, 1990; Wexley and Baldwin, 1986). Goal-setting helps trainees direct attention and mobilize efforts toward translating self-management principles into behaviors. In this study, although the self-management intervention contained some goal-setting components, a full explanation of the goal-setting process was limited because of time constraints. Therefore, the manipulation in this study may not have been an adequate operationalization of self-management training. If such is the case, this study provides further evidence to support the claim that although selfmanagement training adds something more than goal-setting alone, it is not effective without additional explanation of the goal-setting process (Gist, Bavetta, and Stevens, 1990). Moderating Effects of Work Environments. Perceptions of the work environment moderated the effectiveness of posttraining interventions on transfer of training. Interactions between the work environment and posttraining interventions illustrate that the goal-setting intervention resulted in greater transfer when trainees worked in an environment that supports skill acquisition and transfer. The lack of significant differences between self-management trainees in supportive and unsupportive environments may not be surprising. Selfmanagement training may attenuate the differences in transfer between work environments that vary in their degree of supportiveness. For self-management trainees, it may be that the supportiveness of the work environment does not make a difference because self-management trainees are prepared to selfmanage transfer; they have been trained to recognize the potential inadequacies of the work environment and are prepared to cope with them. The work environment may make a significant difference for goal-setting trainees because they are focused on an outcome goal and the means to achieve it; they are not prepared to identify and cope with potential obstacles to transfer. In sum, the

118 Richman-Hirsch results of this study illustrate that researchers must consider contextual factors when examining the effectiveness of posttraining interventions on transfer of training; to the authors knowledge, this study is the first to investigate the moderating effects of the work environment on posttraining intervention effectiveness. Limitations and Directions for Future Research. Some limitations of this study should be noted. First, additional manipulation checks would have helped rule out several rival hypotheses. The manipulation checks used in this study indicated that the appropriate content was covered in the two posttraining interventions. However, a measure of posttraining activities used on the job and a measure of the degree of contact between trainees was not available. Such assessments would have helped to determine (1) if trainees in the interventions were engaging in different cognitive activities than were control group trainees and (2) if there were spillover effects from the different interventions (for example, if trainees talked to one another about the intervention techniques). Although trainees were strongly encouraged not to discuss the techniques with their colleagues, such behavior could not be controlled by the researcher. In addition, it would have been useful to assess trainees cognitions related to goal orientation or self-regulatory activities during the four to six weeks after training; such an investigation might have helped to determine the exact nature of the causal relationship between posttraining intervention and transfer. For example, exploring the extent to which posttraining interventions orient trainees toward either performance or mastery goals (see Gist and Stevens, 1998; Stevens and Gist, 1997) might have helped explain why significant increases in transfer were found for the goal-setting intervention and not for the self-management intervention. Another limitation of this study relates to the potentially weak posttraining manipulations. The time available to implement fully the posttraining interventions was limited. Trainers were often rushed to finish in exactly an hour. Longer and more thorough interventions should be investigated. Future research should also consider gathering objective measures of the transfer work environment. For example, an organization s reward policy regarding training (pay for performance, pay for knowledge, and so on) might prove useful in predicting transfer behaviors on the job. Such information was not available for this research. An advantage of the present study was the collection of transfer measures from trainees supervisor and coworkers. The findings illustrated that the data in this study were not contaminated by the common method variance problem; measures from one source (trainees) significantly predicted measures from an independent source (trainees colleagues). Despite this advantage, objective measures of maintenance and generalization were not available in this study. Future research should attempt to gather objective behavioral assessments of maintenance and generalization.

Posttraining Interventions to Enhance Transfer 119 Implications for Practice. From an applied perspective, the results have implications for current human resource practices as well as organizational policies and procedures. First, the findings suggest ways in which organizations can alter the work environment to enhance training efforts and prepare people for future training endeavors. Human resource professionals might consider making attempts to reinforce the contingencies associated with trainees enactment, or failure to enact, certain types of behavior on the job. For example, organizations should consider reinforcing or rewarding all behaviors that reflect skill acquisition and job-related personal development. Professional development programs that incorporate practices such as skill-based pay, pay for knowledge, and so on, are a few such examples that reward skill acquisition and self-development in organizationally meaningful ways. If trainees fail to apply their training to the job, organizations should identify any organizational barriers that block their ability and motivation to do so. Surveys and interviews with employees in conjunction with training courses are a good way to determine the extent of such barriers. By assessing the existence and impact of these barriers and mitigating them where they do exist, the organization will make it easier for trainees to transfer their new skills and send a message to all employees that training transfer and skill acquisition are valued by the organization. These efforts may have multiplier effects on any skills training that is done and generate information that can be incorporated into future add-on training, as was evaluated in this study. This study also demonstrated that a short posttraining intervention on goal-setting may lead to enhanced transfer of training. This effect, however, was moderated by characteristics of the work environment. Goal-setting reaped the greatest benefits in transfer when trainees worked in a supportive environment. Organizations, therefore, need to consider employees perceptions of the work environment when implementing methods to enhance transfer; before spending the added investment on innovative posttraining interventions, it is imperative that human resource professionals first assess and improve employees perceptions of the supportiveness of the work environment. References Arvey, R. D., Strickland, W., Drauden, G., & Martin, C. (1990). Motivational components of test taking. Personnel Psychology, 43, 695 716. Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41, 63 105. Chan, D., Schmitt, N., DeShon, R. P., Clause, C., & Delbridge, K. (1997). Reactions to cognitive ability tests: The relationship between race, test performance, face validity perceptions, and test-taking motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 300 310. Facteau, J. D., Dobbins, G. H., Russell, J. E., Ladd, R. T., & Kudisch, J. D. (1995). The influence of general perceptions of the training environment on pretraining motivation and perceived training transfer. Journal of Management, 21, 1 25. Ford, J. K., Quiñones, M. A., Sego, D. J., & Sorra, J. S. (1992). Factors affecting the opportunity to perform trained skills on the job. Personnel Psychology, 45, 511 527.

120 Richman-Hirsch Frayne, C., & Latham, G. P. (1987). Application of social learning theory to employee selfmanagement of attendance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 387 392. Gist, M. E., & Stevens, C. K. (1998). Effects of practice conditions and supplemental training on cognitive learning and interpersonal skill generalization. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 142 169. Gist, M. E., Bavetta, A. G., & Stevens, C. K. (1990). Transfer training method: Its influence on skill generalization, skill repetition, and performance level. Personnel Psychology, 43, 501 523. Gist, M. E., Stevens, C. K., & Bavetta, A. G. (1991). Effects of self-efficacy and post-training intervention on the acquisition and maintenance of complex interpersonal skills. Personnel Psychology, 44, 837 862. Kanfer, F. H. (1980). Self-management methods. In F. H. Kanfer (Ed.), Helping people change. New York: Wiley. Kanfer, F. H., & Phillips, J. S. (1970). Learning foundations of behavior therapy. New York: Wiley. Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/aptitudetreatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 657 690. Latham, G. P, & Frayne, C. (1989). Self-management training for increasing job attendance: A follow-up and a replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 411 416. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal-setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal-setting and task performance: 1969 1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125 152. Mahoney, M. J., Moura, N. G., & Wade, T. C. (1973). The relative efficacy of self-reward, selfpunishment, and self-monitoring techniques for weight loss. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40, 404 407. Marx, R. D. (1982). Relapse prevention for managerial training: A model for maintenance of behavior change. Academy of Management Review, 7, 433 441. Noe, R. A. (1986). Trainee attributes and attitudes: Neglected influences of training effectiveness. Academy of Management Review, 11, 736 749. Richards, C. S. (1976). When self-control fails: Selective bibliography on the maintenance problems in self-control treatment programs. JSAS: Catalog of Selective Documents in Psychology, 8, 67 68. Rouiller, J. Z., & Goldstein, I. L. (1993). The relationship between organizational transfer climate and positive transfer of training. Human Resources Development Quarterly, 4, 377 390. Stevens, C. K., & Gist, M. E. (1997). Effects of self-efficacy and goal-orientation training on negotiation skill maintenance: What are the mechanisms? Personnel Psychology, 50, 955 978. Tannenbaum, S. I., & Yukl, G. (1992). Training and development in work organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 399 441. Tracey, J. B. (1998, Apr). A three-dimensional model of the transfer of training climate. In W. E. Lehman & M. Cavanaugh (Chairs), Recent trends in the study of transfer climate: Research, theory, and consultation. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Dallas. Tracey, J. B., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Kavanagh, M. J. (1995). Applying trained skills on the job: The importance of the work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 239 252. Tziner, A., & Falbe, C. M. (1993). Training-related variables, gender and training outcomes: A field investigation. International Journal of Psychology, 28, 203 221. Wexley, K. N., & Baldwin, T. T. (1986). Post-training strategies for facilitating positive transfer: An empirical exploration. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 508 520. Wexley, K. N., & Nemeroff, W. (1975). Effectiveness of positive reinforcement and goal-setting as methods of management development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 446 450. Wendy L. Richman-Hirsch works at William M. Mercer, Inc., New York.