The effects of perceived organizational support and job satisfaction on transfer of training
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-02-2013-0029 |
| Published date | 02 March 2015 |
| Date | 02 March 2015 |
| Pages | 236-254 |
| Author | Abdul Rahim Zumrah,Stephen Boyle |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour,Global HRM |
The effects of perceived
organizational support and
job satisfaction on transfer
of training
Abdul Rahim Zumrah
Fakulti Kepimpinan dan Pengurusan, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia,
Nilai, Malaysia, and
Stephen Boyle
UniSA College, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia
Abstract
Purpose –The role of perceived organizational support (POS) and job satisfaction on the effectiveness
of transfer of training in the workplace has begun to receive attention among recent studies.
However, there is still limited understanding of how these factors may work together to affect the
transfer of training. The purpose of this paper is to address this gap by exploring the relationship
between POS, job satisfaction and transfer of training.
Design/methodology/approach –The data of this study have been collected from a group
of employees, and their supervisors through survey. The data were analyzed using structural equation
modeling.
Findings –The findings reveal that job satisfaction mediates the relationship between POS and
transfer of training.
Originality/value –This study suggests that POS can improve employees’job satisfaction, which
in turn increase transfer of training in the workplace. The significant relationship between the factors
(POS –job satisfaction –transfer of training) is an important finding that has not been empirically
determined previously, particularly in the transfer of training literature. The findings show that job
satisfaction plays an essential role as a mediator in the relationship between POS and transfer
of training.
Keywords Job satisfaction, Malaysia, Quantitative, Perceived organizational support,
Public sector organizations, Transfer of training
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
An area in training research that has continued to receive the attention of
researchers is transfer of training (Brown et al., 2011). Transfer of training is
a process that occurs after the training is completed and takes place at the
employees’workplace (Goldstein and Ford, 2002). It refers to the generalization
of new learned knowledge, skills and attitudes to the job context and the
maintenance of these new practices over a period of time (Baldwin and Ford, 1988;
Blume et al., 2010). Based on this definition, there are two conditions of transfer of
training: first, that of generalization; and second, the maintenance of newly learned
knowledge, skills and attitudes in the workplace. Generalization refers to the extent
the new learned knowledge, skills and attitudes gained from training are applied by
employees in the workplace. Maintenance refers to the extent the new learned
knowledge, skills and attitudes continue to be used in the workplace over a period
of time (Baldwin and Ford, 1988; Blume et al., 2010).
Personnel Review
Vol. 44 No. 2, 2015
pp. 236-254
©Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/PR-02-2013-0029
Received 20 February 2013
Revised 29 July 2013
6 February 2014
Accepted 2 July 2014
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
236
PR
44,2
Transfer of training, however, remains a difficult and often frustrating challenge
for organizations (Chiaburu et al., 2010b). For example, in one study researchers
found that only 62 percent of employees had used the new learned knowledge,
skills and attitudes immediately after training. This percentage decreased to 44
percent after six months and continued to decrease to 34 percent after one year (Saks
and Belcourt, 2006). A more recent study of 56 trainees indicated that the trainees’
transfer performance fell within three weeks after training (Vermeulen and
Admiraal, 2009).
Consequently, there is a real need to understand the factors that influence the
transfer of training within the workplace, a point that has been continuously suggested
by recent studies (see Prieto and Phipps, 2011, for example). Better understanding
of the various factors that may influence the transfer of training should give rise to
opportunities to develop and plan appropriate strategies for organizations to maximize
the impact of their investment in training activities.
Scholars have generally argued that the characteristics of the trainees and the work
environment are the most important factors that influence transfer of training
(see Baldwin and Ford, 1988; Cheng and Hampson, 2008; Elangovan and Karakowsky,
1999; Thayer and Teachout, 1995; Yamnill and McLean, 2001). Trainee characteristics
include their motivation to transfer (Devos et al., 2007), self-efficacy (Velada et al., 2007),
job involvement (Elangovan and Karakowsky, 1999), organizational commitment
(Kontoghiorghes, 2004) and employees’personality (Yamkovenko and Holton, 2010).
Work environment factors include supervisor support (Saks and Belcourt, 2006),
peer support (Martin, 2010), top management support (Kupritz and Hillsman, 2011),
preferred support (Pham et al., 2013), opportunity to transfer (Burke and Hutchins,
2008), training rewards (Rouiller and Goldstein, 1993), organizational learning culture
(Tracey et al., 1995), accountability for transfer (Burke and Saks, 2009), job constraint
(Lim and Johnson, 2002), job autonomy (Pham et al., 2013) and job design (Kupritz and
Hillsman, 2011).
Despite a range of the specific factors of trainee characteristics and the work
environment having been studied previously, there is still limited understanding
of how the interaction between these two components (trainee characteristics and wo rk
environment factors) may influence the transfer of training. Prior studies have tended
to assess separately particular trainee characteristics and/or work environment facto rs
to validate the influence of each of these independent factors on transfer of training
(Awoniyi et al., 2002; Lim and Morris, 2006). However, some scholars have argued that
examining the effect of a specific characteristic on transfer of training in isolation may
not be totally effective from a practical point of view (Yamkovenko and Holton, 2010 ).
This is due in part to the lack of understanding of how these many variables interact
with each other and subsequently affect the transfer of training (Awoniyi et al., 2002;
Sookhai and Budworth, 2010). The interaction of multiple factors is more likely to
shape a specific pattern of influence on the transfer of training process (Lim, 1999)
rather than factors acting in isolation (Elangovan and Karakowsky, 1999; Martin,
2010). It has been noted (e.g. Lim and Morris, 2006; Axtell et al., 1997; Ford
and Weissbein, 1997) that relatively few studies have used integrated approaches and
examined empirically the influence of variables across both the trainees’characteristics
and work environment factors on transfer of training. Scholars such as Ford and
Weissbein (1997) and Nijman and Gelissen (2011) have argued examining the combine
effects of trainee characteristics and work environment predictors of transfer
of training is an important research direction.
237
Job
satisfaction
on transfer
of training
To continue reading
Request your trial