Training in the 21st Century: Some Lessons from the Last One

ROBERT R. HACCOUNUniversite de Montreal

ALAN M. SAKSYork University

AbstractThis paper reviews the major contributions that I-O Psy-chology has made to the understanding of the effects oftraining. Moving away from a purely pedagogical perspec-tive, the psychological states of trainees, especially motiva-tion, self-efficacy, and perceived control, combined withthe realities of the organisational context, all influence theoutcomes of training. Many of these variables have beenshown to be malleable within a training context, and thishas led to the development of powerful tools, techniques,and interventions that were lacking in the past.

From a methodological perspective, research has identi-fied the relevant measurement criteria, as well as when andhow evaluation can be conducted. In addition, new instru-ments that assess organisational transfer climate andcontinuous-learning cultures are now available. Their usewill allow organizations to better understand why theyobtain the training results they do, and what they can do toimprove training outcomes.

Even as the importance of the work environment totraining success has been amply demonstrated, it remains avery rare event when training departments intervene effec-tively to enhance the level of environmental support.Substantial practical suggestions that are theoretically andempirically grounded in research and techniques forenhancing training effectiveness under a variety of organi-sational conditions, be they favourable or not to training,are described. Several analytical models which may proveof relevance to practitioners and to scholars in guiding theselection and the design of transferable training programsare presented and discussed.

The last decade of the twentieth century points quitevisibly to signs of a major transformation of work andorganizations that is likely to continue into the nextcentury. A number of geo-political forces such as theindustrialization of the Asian nations which is now in fullswing, and more generalized trade treaties appear to be

Canadian Psychology/Psychologic canadienne, 39:1-2

shifting the "rich" economies away from industrialproduction and towards service industries that aretechnology intensive. The services once offered by banktellers, typists, and telephone operators to chose butthree examples, are routinely provided by customeroperated technologies.

Whether or not the nineties become known as thetransformation decade, it has brought difficulties to allWestern type economies. Although Canada shares manyof the woes of the time — unemployment, uncertainty,loss of confidence, etc. — the nineties brought problemsspecific to us. The collapse of key resource based indus-tries, especially the East Coast Fisheries, generalizedgovernmental cut-backs, major downsizing and plantclosings have all occurred simultaneously. Many unem-ployed workers now hold competencies for jobs that nolonger exist The ensuing social problem stimulated acollective response and public funds have been commit-ted, in great abundance, to job re-training.

Training as a Social Response to a Social ProblemMany countries, especially European ones, have exten-sive training policies. Whereas Canada has long accepteda collective role in the development of the workforce, ithas been unable as yet to frame an overall policy. Al-though Canadian companies spend $4 billion annuallyon training and development, on average they spendonly one-half of what is spent by American firms, andmuch less than what is spent by organizations in Japanand Europe (Belcourt & Wright, 1996). In fact, in hisstudy of the Canadian economy, Michael Porter warnedthat Canadians face a future declining standard of livingif we do not increase our investment in workplacetraining and education (Toulin, 1991).

Fortunately, training budgets in Canadian organiza-tions are increasing at a higher rate than inflation(Mclntyre, 1994), and some provinces, notably Quebecand New Brunswick, have taken legislative steps toensure dial this trend continues. Quebec companies, forexample, are now required to follow the Europeanexample and commit funds to the training and develop-ment of tile workforce. That is not to say that Canadianorganizations in other provinces are not also taking anactive role in the retraining of their workforce. Ontarioand die federal government have also increased spend-ing on training programs in recent years (Belcourt &Wright, 1996).

Thus, the growing emphasis on die importance oftraining tile Canadian workforce has involved huge sumsof money. Yet die beneficial impact of these investments

34 Haccoun and Saks

remains unclear and, to date, relatively unresearched.One important exception is Calgary scholar Gattiker(1995) who reported that governmental efforts intraining can yield positive effects on condition that thetraining be general and not firm specific. Interestingly,firm-specific training appears unattractive because ittends to be associated with high turnover. Perhaps it isthe more ambitious employees who make themselvesavailable for training opportunities precisely in the hopeof accentuating their own marketability.

At a time of governmental restrictions, it is especiallycrucial diat the effectiveness of cosdy and massivegovernment programs be assessed and improved. Fortu-nately, funding agencies are beginning to respond. Forexample, the Social Sciences and Humanities ResearchCouncil of Canada has funded several research proposalsin die area of training and, more recently it awarded amulti-million dollar strategic grant to a consortium ofCanadian scholars with die express goal of establishing"best practice" guidelines for die development of theCanadian workforce in die current context of changeand employee-firm dislocations.

Downsizing, one of die main developments in diisdecade, has been achieved partially by enlarging jobs. InCanada, it is being achieved in a relatively civilized way,where considerations of personal worker preferences andseniority factor heavily into die process. While it is truediat some of die vacancies created by die changes inorganizations were filled by younger and better educatedworkers, to preserve employment for as many employeesas possible many new jobs were filled by current organi-zational members displaced from discontinued jobswidiin dieir companies.. Moreover, functions typicallyperformed by different employees have been fused intonew enlarged jobs (Campion & McClelland, 1991). Thishas accentuated training's role in organizations wheredie training system has been fundamental in preparingthese workers who are job naive diough organizationallyseasoned for dieir new functions.

Training for work is a vast field diat refers to a num-ber of different realities. It is sometimes used to updateexisting skills which may be "hard" (training employeesfor die use of a new data base or accounting system) or"soft" (e.g. getting managers to communicate moreeffectively). It may be used to re-equip people withentirely new marketable skills (such as training fisher-men to become data processors) or to change specificwork behaviours (such as using new sales techniques). Itmay involve training experiences diat are long, takingseveral months, or it may be very short-term and punc-tual (such as attending a seminar on decision making ordie use of die Internet). The skills taught may be rele-vant to a specific organization (learning die new perfor-mance appraisal system) or it may involve die acquisition

of skills, knowledge, and attitudes diat are relevant towork in a diversity of contexts (e.g., managing a multicul-tural workforce). Finally, whereas training is sometimesimplemented to prepare workers for technologicalinnovations, it is also frequendy employed to supportorganizational or cultural changes desired by top man-agement.

Training and I-O PsychologyI-O Psychology's role in training has generally centeredon die identification of die psychological mechanismsdiat contribute to successful training. Typically, i-oPsychologists are less involved, professionally, with dietraining program per se. Rather, diey collect data ontrainees as they flow dirough die training and jobreinsertion cycle. The information is dien used toevaluate training effectiveness and to suggest ways ofimproving training programs.

Our access to organizations in order to conduct diisresearch is growing. This is in large part due to manage-ment's demand diat human resource functions such astraining be, like all other organizational systems, demon-strably effective (Belcourt, 1996-97). Industrial Psycholo-gists working in die training area have made significantcontributions to methodological (what, how, and whento measure), substantive (how training should be evalu-ated) , and organizational concerns (what role does dieorganization play in training effectiveness). Along dieselines, die journal Revue Internationale de Gestian (1997,volume 22, 3) recendy published a special issue ontraining and features articles from a wide diversity ofperspectives from North America as well as from abroad.

In diis paper, we highlight die research and interven-tions conducted by I-O psychologists who have contrib-uted to understanding and improving die trainingprocess. We will also identify areas where gaps in ourknowledge lie, and how future research and practicemight be directed. Our hope, in writing diis paper, isdiat it will prove of use not only to academics and I-Opsychologists, but also to training practitioners andmanagers.

Training Evaluation Design IssuesTraditional training evaluation designs serve to establishwhedier trainees change and whether die observedchange is attributable to die training experience per se.The typical prescriptions come from die experimentalmediod (Cook & Campbell, 1979) and require die use ofcontrol groups and or longitudinal time series. In practice,however, it has never proved easy to conduct such studies.Obtaining control groups and die random assignment oftrainees to control and experimental groups, is well-nighimpossible to achieve in applied contexts. Time seriesdesigns tend to rely on objective data and these are hard

Training 35

to come by in most work situations. As a result, evaluationdesigns that respect these conditions are rarely put topractical use. At best, our evaluation designs reduce tosingle group pre-post designs without controls. For manyyears, as a field, we conducted, such studies knowing thatour inferences would be severely constrained. It was a caseof doing what was practical because it proved impracticalto do what was correct!

The difficulties associated with the use of the classicexperimental method have spurred some efforts atdeveloping evaluation designs that are both scientificallycredible and realistic for a dynamic organizationalenvironment Several approaches were made available inthe early nineties.

Haccoun and Hamtiaux (1994) proposed an "internalreferencing" strategy where the pre-post performance oftrainees on content areas covered during training arecontrasted to pre-post differences in content areas whichare "germane" though not covered during training.Training effectiveness is demonstrated when pre to postchanges on the items relevant to training are greaterthan pre-post changes on the non-relevant items. Thisapproach, then, is designed to make better inferentialuse of the pre-post data collection process. Whereas thisapproach may be useful when control groups are notavailable, it remains a partial approach because it permitsinferences at an enhanced risk of Type II errors.

Several authors have looked into the issue of trainingevaluation design from a statistical power perspective.Arvey, Maxwell, and Salas (1992) as well as Sackett andMullen (1993) analysed various designs from a statisticalpower and cost perspective, and various threats tovalidity. Since typical organizational training programstend to be administered to small groups of people, theysuggest that design choices should be affected by consid-eration of our ability to detect changes in trainees. Froma number of power tables, both Arvey et al. (1992) andSackett and Mullen (1993) demonstrate that undercertain practical conditions, the use of control groupsactually inhibits valid inferences and that simple designs,even the post-test-only design might be the more pre-ferred design in some situations. The difficulty here isthat these approaches may enhance the risk of Type Ierror probabilities.

These contributions, although far from perfect, areimportant because they point to the necessity of develop-ing models of evaluation design that are realistic for usein real organizational contexts. I-O psychologists havenow proposed several alternatives that can deal withmany of the constraints of the natural environment inwhich we do our work.

Training Evaluation Measurement IssuesWhen a training program is effective, trainees will be

satisfied (level I), they will have learned the material(level II), they will behave differently on the job (levelIII), and the organization will be better for it (level IV).These are the four levels of Kirkpatrick's (1987) criteriafor training evaluation, which are well known and wellaccepted in Canadian organizations. Consequently, thesefour dimensions frame most training evaluation studies.Indeed, it has become routine for reaction measures tobe collected after training programs, and in a growingnumber of cases, knowledge acquisition is also assessed.In the nineties, organizations are showing definiteinterest in assessing trainee behaviour (level III), whichfundamentally addresses the ultimate training question:Do trainees use the new knowledge, skills, abilities, andattitudes on the job?

Trainee reactionsRare are the training programs that do not include atleast a post-training reactions questionnaire. However,there is now little question as to the actual substantialvalue of such information, especially in terms of a directrelationship to the other three levels: It is negligible.Affective reaction measures rarely show variance as mosttrainees react positively to all training experience, and ithas repeatedly been shown (Alliger & Janak's 1989 meta-analysis of available evidence is an excellent case inpoint) that such measures are essentially unrelated to theother levels of training success such as learning and on-the-job behaviour. Consequently, it is now recognizedthat training evaluations that rely on affective reactionmeasurement only are unacceptable estimates of trainingsuccess. This has always been known by I-O psychologists,but now, management is fast coming to the same pointof view. Yet post-training affective reactions remain themost accepted measure for assessing training effects(Belcourt & Wright, 1996).

At the same time, there is now some evidence that therole of training reactions in explaining training effective-ness might be much more complex than has beenindicated in previous models of training criteria (Alliger& Janak, 1989). Three studies .Illustrate this point a)Mathieu, Tannenbaum, and Salas (1992) found thatreactions moderated the relationship between trainingmotivation and learning, and mediated the relationshipbetween training motivation and assignment method onpost-test performance; b) Warr and Bunce (1995)suggested a tripartitie model of training reactions thatincludes enjoyment of training, usefulness of training,and difficulty of training, and c) a recent meta-analysis byAlliger, Tannenbaum, Bennet, Traver and Shetland(1997) shows that "utility" based reaction measures (Ifind the course useful) showed much higher levels ofcorrelation with learning or outcome measures than didaffective reaction measures (I like the course). Thus,

36 Haccoun and Saks

more attention must be given to the measurement ofreaction measures (e.g., affective versus utility measures).Further, reaction measures may play a complex indirectrole on the other levels of training criteria (i.e., learningand behaviour) and therefore deserve closer scrutiny infuture research.

Fortunately, I-O psychologists have made a habit of"piggy-backing" other measures, of greater relevance forassessing training success, on to affective reactionquestionnaires and have been in the forefront of thedevelopment of more sophisticated models of trainingevaluation. One of the more important contributions hasbeen proposed by Kraiger, Ford, and Salas (1993) whopublished a remarkable monograph which provides aconsiderable expansion and a theoretically based modelof training evaluation. As a result, we now have a classifi-cation scheme and a much better understanding of thecognitive, skill-based, and affective variables that shouldbe measured in order to evaluate training programs.Although they consider this to be a classification schemeof learning outcomes, some of the outcomes in theiraffective category (i.e. self-efficacy and motivationaldisposition) can be subsumed as part of the measure-ment of reactions.

Self-efficacy remains one of the more stable predictorsof behaviour and performance in both training (Saks,1997) as well as other areas of organizational accomplish-ment (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). Since the construction ofselfefficacy measures is relatively straightforward andeasily learned, trainers may find it very easy to incorpo-rate such measures into post-training self-report typeevaluations. Low self-efficacy leveb might indicate thatthe training experience itself requires modification.Fortunately, Bandura (1997) has described a basic set ofactivities which, when incorporated into a trainingprogram, may well enhance trainee self-efficacy. In turn,this provides some easily followed guides that can helptrainers develop and administer better training programs(more about this later).

Similarly, measures of motivation to learn and motiva-tion to transfer might also be profitably integrated into"reaction" type measures. Mathieu et al. (1992) amongothers (for example, Haccoun, 1997) suggest the use ofthe VIE model, a standard in the discipline, as a practicaloperationalization of the motivation dimension. The VIEapproach requires separate questions to measure va-lence, instrumentality, and expectancies related tolearning and/or using the training material. Separateanalyses of these sub-indices provide more specificinsights into the parameters which weaken trainingeffects. For example, knowing that valences are low mayindicate that the training is perceived to be of lowpriority to trainees while low expectancy ratings mightindicate that the training is not perceived as applicable

to the trainees given their organizational context. Thetraining situation and/or the organizational environ-ment might then be appropriately amended to correctthe specific threat to motivation.

In sum, reaction measures should be designed toextract more information. For example, they shouldinclude self-efficacy measures (since they are a strongpredictor of transfer) as well as motivation to learn andmotivation to transfer. Reaction measures should includeutilityjudgements or usefulness ratings in addition to themore traditional affective reactions (Alliger et al., 1997;Warr & Bunce, 1995). The use of reaction measures isprevalent and totally accepted by organizational trainers.It remains for us to work with our applied counterpartsto better understand the role of reactions in trainingeffectiveness, and to incorporate other easily measuredparameters into the evaluation process in order to yieldinformation that provides more meaningful insight intothe effectiveness of training programs.

Trainee LearningIt is now reasonably habitual for organizations to assessthe actual level of learning achieved during training.This is typically done by developing and administeringmultiple choice or True-False formatted knowledge tests.However, these measures tend to assess the level ofdeclarative knowledge retained by trainees. The diffi-culty, of course, is that declarative knowledge is aninsufficient predictor of behaviour use. More critical maybe the extent of procedural knowledge acquired duringtraining (see Kraiger et al., 1993).

Declarative knowledge refers to the acquisition offacts while procedural acquisition refers to the integra-tion of facts into a set of orchestrated behaviour chainsrequired for concrete action. This suggests the need fortrainers to steer away from simple declarative knowledgetests, and to substitute them for procedural assessments.The difficulty is that there does not exist, to date, anacceptable or easily practical method for establishingsuch knowledge in organizations. Current approachessuch as verbal protocol analyses- or cognitive mappingmethods like Pathfinder are extremely complex and timeconsuming both to develop and to administer, and assuch they are not finding ready applicability in appliedmilieus.

One promising approach has been offered by Ostroff(1991). Various scenarios reminiscent of the situationalinterview approach in selection (Latham, Saari, Pursell,&: Campion, 1980) are developed and trainees indicatetheir likely course of action from a prepared list ofalternatives. The answers provided are chosen to reflectvarious depths of understanding of the key trainingpoints. While more complex than the development ofsimple multiple choice questions, this approach holds

Training 37

considerable promise. For one thing, the developmentof the vignettes requires the cooperation of field opera-tives that, in turn, may build greater field commitment tothe training experience and to the training outcomes.

Hence, we now know that the measurement of"declarative" knowledge is insufficient and needs to besupplemented by measures of procedural acquisition.Some techniques for doing so are now available, butmore research and development is required. Moreattention must be given to different measures of learn-ing. Along diese lines, Alliger et al. (1997) recentlydivided the learning dimension into three subcategoriescorresponding to immediate post-training knowledge(measured immediately after training), knowledgeretention (measured sometime after training), andbehaviour/skill demonstration (behavioural proficiencymeasured in the training environment). As indicatedearlier, Kraiger et al. (1993) expanded the learningdimension into cognitive, skill-based, and affectivelearning outcomes.

Trainee BehavioursLevel in in Kirkpatrick's training evaluation model refersto the degree to which knowledge, skills, abilities, andattitudes are generalized onto the job. I-O Psychologistsrecognize this as the transfer of training. It is at this stagein the training process where a transfer problem hasbeen reported to exist on a rather large scale (Baldwin &Ford, 1988). According to one estimate, not more than10% of the billions of dollars invested on training anddevelopment in the United States actually results intransfer to the job (Georgenson, 1982). However, arecent study on Canadian organizations suggests a lessdismal state of affairs. Saks and Belcourt (1997) foundthat transfer in Canadian organizations, according to asample of experienced trainers, was 62% immediatelyafter training, 43% six months later, and 34% one yearafter attending a training program.

Measures of transfer, however, remain a problem.There are two types of behavioural measures reported inthe literature: Objective performance data and self-reports. Field studies rarely report objective data, andthis is because of obvious constraints. Some studies haveused direct (video taped) observations (Laval University'sJeanne, 1994) but this been in the context of a simula-tion.

The validity of self-reports remains a concern in thisas in other fields of I-O psychology (Johns, 1994 treat-ment of self reports in the absence domain provides aninteresting parallel). However, some careful work (e.g.,Fox & Dinur, 1988) indicates much validity for self-assessment In any case, self-reports will remain in use forthe foreseeable future.

The concern associated with self-report data might be

attenuated by encouraging the use of triangulationapproaches. Several studies have converged data re-ported by the trainee as well as his/her supervisor(Gaudine, 1997; Saks, Haccoun, & Laxer, 1996; Tziner,Haccoun, & Radish, 1991) or subordinates (Haccoun,1995). At this point, the better practice consists ofobtaining frequencies of the use of the specific keybehaviour taught during training.

In sum, given the importance of demonstrablechanges in trainee behaviour as an indicator for thetransfer of training (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Saks &Haccoun, 1996), and the need to enact change inindividual behaviour as a requirement for successfulorganizational change and development (Porras &Robertson, 1992), the measurement of trainee behaviourwill have to become an essential and integral part of alltraining and development programs.

Results/Bottom line measures.Kirkpatrick's (1987) level rv refers to the "the bottomline" for an organizational unit or the organization itself.In other words, "Has the training program resulted in anet pay-off for the organization"? This is a very relevantissue since it is not at all clear how much value trainingactually adds to organizations (see Gattiker, 1995),although several recent studies have demonstrated theimpact of various HRM activities on organizationaleffectiveness (Huselid, 1995). Along these lines, Saks andBelcourt (1997) recently reported a strong relationshipbetween training transfer and perceptual measures oforganizational performance.

Current attempts to assess the financial impact oftraining, which rely on Utility Theory and HumanCapital Theory, are still embryonic. Nonetheless, itremains a great preoccupation to which Canadians havecontributed (Cronshaw &: Alexander, 1991). A numberof writers have focussed on the establishment of bottomline indices for assessing training effects. These attemptshave primarily relied on utility theory approaches(Cascio, 1991, Phillips, 1993). For example, Mathieu andLeonard (1987) used a utility framework to assess thevalue of supervisory training in a bank. As with theapplication of utility theory in other personnel contexts(Schmidt, Hunter and Pearlman, 1982), various directand indirect training costs are compared to job perfor-mance variances to establish utility functions.

In three consecutive articles intended for practitio-ners, Phillips (1996a) tackles the issue of Return onInvestment (ROI) in the training field. Typically, theprocess requires that training evaluators define, prior totraining, performance norms and criteria against whichsuccess will be assessed. Next, it is important to collectarchival data indicating the evolution of the measureover time and to assign a dollar value to the parameter.

38 Haccoun and Saks

Phillips third article in the series (1996b) is particularlyvaluable because he lists and exemplifies a number ofindicators which might be used to assess ROi: output(e.g., units produced), quality (e.g. waste), time (e.g.training time), and cost (e.g. sales expense). Whereasthese criteria are conveniently grouped into "Hard"(such as output and scrap) and "Soft" (such as decisionsmade and conflicts avoided), this distinction is notimmediately obvious in all cases. For example, absentee-ism, one of the more easily measured indicators isdefined as "soft" but accidents are defined as "hard".

One example of cost benefit analysis in training hasrecently been provided by Benabou (1997) who exam-ined the cost benefit of a training program in a foodprocessing environment. The main dependent variableused was waste reduction or scrap loss as assessed atseveral points both before and after training. Trainingeffectiveness was calculated as the ratio of the netdifference (pre to post training) in wastage divided bythe total cost of training multiplied by 100%. In calculat-ing costs, training evaluators should include the directcost of the training (course development and diffusionetc.) as well as the cost associated with the loss of workerproductivity and salaries during the training. In this case,Benabou demonstrated a very considerable pay off forthe training effort.

Unfortunately, it is not entirely clear how job perfor-mance variances can be operationalized and measuredin many cases. This problem is especially acute when"soft-skills" are being trained. This problem clearlyemerges in Phillips' (1996b) ROI analysis, and thedifficulty of translating many soft skills (such as attitudesor decision making styles) into dollar values. Of coursethis problem is endemic to the field, and it is not strictlylimited to training.

A second problem described by Phillips (1996a) dealswith attribution. It is very difficult to isolate the trainingimpact from other potential effects associated withperformance shifts. Only the use of multiple controlgroups can adequately satisfy this condition. However, asdiscussed earlier, implementing such methodologies isextremely difficult in real organizations. A partialsolution to the attribution problem may be by expandingthe principle of the Haccoun and Hamtiaux (1994)Internal Referencing Strategy procedure describedearlier. That is, measures should be taken on outputindicators that should or should not be influenced by thetraining program. The net impact of changes on thetraining relevant items could be assessed once the effectson the non-relevant parameters are statistically partialledout.

These demonstrations attempt to deal with thebusiness imperative of the nineties: Establishing theveritable worth and value added of all organizational

efforts, including those associated with human resources(Belcourt, 1996-97). Training, like all other organiza-tional sub-systems must produce demonstrable effects. Atthis point, we can do this to a reasonable degree whenthe training content is focussed on specific concreteparameters that can be easily measured, and are tradi-tionally measured by organizations (such as unit outputcosts, product defects or equipment down time). How-ever, there continues to exist a vacuum that i-O psycholo-gists will be required to help fill when the purpose oftraining is to enhance behaviour (such as managerial,communication or critical thinking skills) which areassumed to have an indirect or long term diffused effecton performance, and cannot be simply translated intodollar terms.

Substantive Issues in TrainingResearch conducted in the last several years has providedsignificant insights in establishing more effective trainingefforts. Perhaps one of the most significant findings isthat learning and transfer of training are controlled by acomplex array of organizational, individual, and trainingdesign characteristics. A useful framework of the transferprocess is provided by Baldwin and Ford (1988), andempirical data is provided by Morrison and Brantner(1992) and by Warr and Bunce (1995). Both the workenvironment and individual differences have proven tobe especially important for understanding trainingeffectiveness.

The role of the work environmentTrainers and i-O psychologists have long recognized thatthe organizational environment has an importantinfluence on the transfer of training. In one of the firststudies to demonstrate this, Fleishman (1953) found thatthe "leadership climate" was related to the leadershipattitudes and behaviour of foreman trainees, and theeffectiveness of the training program. Fleishman (1953)concluded that "leadership training cannot be consid-ered in isolation from the social environment in whichthe foreman must actually function" (p.220).

Of particular interest recently has been the develop-ment of scales by Rouiller and Goldstein (1993) tomeasure transfer of training climate, and by Tracey,Tannenbaum, and Kavanagh (1995) to measurecontinuous-learning culture. Rouiller and Goldstein(1993) designed an organizational transfer climate scalethat measures situations and consequences that eitherinhibit or help to facilitate the transfer of trainingcontent to the work environment. In their study ofmanager trainees, they found that those trainees whowere assigned to units that had a more positive organiza-tional transfer climate displayed more of the trainedbehaviour back on the job.

Training 39

Tracey et al. (1995) developed a continuous-learningculture scale that measures the extent to which membersof an organization share perceptions and expectationsthat learning is an important part of organizational life.In their study on supermarket managers, they found thatboth transfer of training climate and continuous-learn-ing culture had direct effects on post-training behaviour.

In addition to the direct effects of transfer of trainingclimate and a continuous-learning culture on transferbehaviour, there is also evidence that work environmentfactors also moderate the effects of training on transferoutcomes. For example, Saks, Haccoun, and Appelbaum(1997) found that perceived social support moderatedthe relationship between post-training performance andtransfer behaviour. In particular, higher perceptions ofsocial support were related to transfer behaviour fortrainees who displayed lower mastery of the trained skillsin a role play following behavioural modeling training.Thus, social support was found to be an especiallyimportant factor in the transfer of training for traineeswho had not mastered the training material by the endof the training program.

At a more pragmatic level, it is recognized that thetraining context itself, because of the time constraintsunder which it occurs, is generally unable to create taskexpertise. Clearly, that may only be achieved afterconsiderable task exposure which, in the normal flow ofthings, will occur at the job level or not at all. Ford,Quinones, Sego, Douglas and Sorra (1992) found thatfollowing training, U.S. Air Force aviators had differentopportunities to perform the training tasks, and theopportunity to practice trained skills depended on anumber of factors, chief among them being supervisoryattitudes and work group support.

The key here is understanding that skill applicationtakes place within a specific (job or work group) as wellas general (organizational) context, and all of these canhave significant effects on training outcomes at thetransfer level (Tesluk, Fair, Mathieu and Vance, 1995),and therefore need to be considered and incorporatedinto the design and implementation of training pro-grams. This is an area that is only beginning to receiveempirical attention, and one that can have major impli-cations for both transfer theory and practice.

Individual differencesTraining is a learning task, and as such, its success isinfluenced by individual parameters such as the abilitylevel of participants (g — see Olea and Ree, 1994 or Ree,Carretta and Teachout, 1995). There is no doubt thatindividual differences in cognitive abilities influencetrainee performance and skill acquisition (Kanfer &Ackerman, 1989). However, evidence gathered byMartocchio (1994) suggests that it is possible and useful

for trainers to intervene to alter the initial beliefs whichtrainees hold about their own ability to acquire the skillspertinent to the training program. In other words, beliefsabout initial ability levels are both important and mallea-ble. Quinones (1995) reports similar conclusions. Kanferand Ackerman (1989) also found that motivationalinterventions early in training reduce the influence ofability on performance.

The importance of perceived control in the trainingprocess has also been demonstrated. For example,Stevens, Bavetta, and Gist (1993) found that perceivedcontrol was related to negotiated salaries in simulatedsalary negotiations with a trained confederate, andplayed a major role in women's acquisition of salarynegotiation skills. Saks et al. (1996) found that trainee'sperceived control was related to transfer performanceand satisfaction. Martocchio and Dulebohn (1994) foundthat the self-efficacy of trainees was greater when theywere provided feedback that attributed past performanceto worker control (versus outside controlled forces).

However, no single concept or individual differencehas been more influential in the training literature thanBandura's (1997) concept of self-efficacy: The personalbelief in one's capacity for mastering and successfullyusing the training content.

Self-efficacy. One of the most consistent findings toemerge from training research is the central role of self-efficacy for enhancing training effectiveness and in thetransfer process (Mathieu, Martineau, & Tannenbaum,1993; Saks, 1997). Besides the strong main effects of self-efficacy on training and work outcomes, self-efficacy hasalso been found to moderate and mediate the effects oftraining on transfer outcomes (Gist, Stevens, & Bavetta,1991; Saks, 1995). Research on training and self-efficacyhas overwhelmingly demonstrated that training increasesself-efficacy, self-efficacy predicts training and workoutcomes, and self-efficacy mediates the effects oftraining on training outcomes (Frayne & Latham, 1987;Gist, 1989; Gist et al., 1991; Mathieu et al., 1993; Saks,1995).

Unfortunately, except for a number of studies thathave examined the effects of different training methodsand transfer interventions (Gist, 1989; Gist, Schwoerer,& Rosen, 1989; Gist et al., 1991; Stevens et al., 1993; Saks,1994), relatively litde attention has been given to under-standing how and when to best influence trainees' self-efficacy. As a result, we know very little about how tomost effectively design training programs to increase self-efficacy. This is a serious shortcoming as there is someevidence that the effectiveness of self-efficacy trainingmight depend on when it is provided during the skillacquisition process (Mitchell, Hopper, Daniels, George-Falvy, & James, 1994). Thus, in order to maximize the

40 Haccoun and Saks

Sources of Self-Efficacy

Timing ofIntervention

Pre-Training

DuringTraining

Post-Training

MasteryExperiences

/

VicariousLearning

/

Verbal Persuasion

/

V

PhysiologicalState

V

/Rgnre 1. Sources of Self-Efficacy x Timing of Intervention Framework

effectiveness of training, trainers need information onhow and when to increase trainee self-efficacy. This couldbe partly achieved through the use of a self-efficacyintervention framework.

Setfefficocy intervention framework. Figures 1 and 2 presenta self-efficacy intervention framework that can be used asa guide for trainers and a basis for future research onself-efficacy and training. The first major component ofthe framework deals with how to strengthen trainee self-efficacy. According to Bandura (1997), there are fourmajor sources of self-efficacy information from whichone may draw upon to increase self-efficacy (masteryexperiences, vicarious learning, verbal persuasion, andphysiological state). Thus, trainers can influence traineeself-efficacy by providing trainees with opportunities tosuccessfully perform training tasks, by using role modelsperforming training tasks, by providing positive andencouraging feedback, and by calming trainee fears andanxiety about die training task and transfer.

The second major component of the framework dealswith when to strengthen trainee self-efficacy. The transferliterature has identified diree main intervals whentransfer interventions can be used (Broad & Newstrom,1992; Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992). A similar approachcan be applied for strengthening trainee self-efficacy.That is, Bandura's (1997) four sources of self-efficacyinformation can be integrated into the training processbefore die training program commences (i.e., pre-training), during the training program (during learningand practice), and/or after the training program (i.e.,post-training). As indicated in Figure 1, by crossing thesethree time intervals widi Bandura's (1997) four sourcesof self-efficacy information, one has a 4 (self-efficacysource) by 3 (training interval) framework of how andwhen to intervene to increase trainee self-efficacy.

Strengthening self-efficacy prior to and after training ismost likely to be accomplished dirough verbal persua-sion and physiological state, while mastery experiencesand vicarious learning are likely to be the best sourcesduring training.

Finally, knowing how and when to increase trainee self-efficacy is likely to depend on a number of key factors indie training process or training factors. Therefore, thediird major component of the framework deals with foursuch variables: 1. trainee characteristics and individualdifferences (e.g., pretrainingself-efficacy); 2. the trainingmediod (e.g., structured versus unstructured); 3. dietraining content (e.g., simple versus novel or complex);and 4. the organization environment (supportive versusnonsupportive). As indicated in Figure 2, interventionsfor increasing trainee self-efficacy will be most importantwhen trainees have low pretraining self-efficacy, dietraining task is unstructured, the training content iscomplex, and when diere is little social support in diework environment (Saks, 1997). Increasing self-efficacyprior to and during training will be most important whentrainees have low self-efficacy to learn and to master dietraining content, and when the training mediod isunstructured and die content is novel or complex. Post-training interventions will be necessary when traineeshave low self-efficacy to transfer and to overcome envi-ronmental obstacles.

Aldiough future research is needed to examine diesefactors in testing die effects of various interventionsdesigned to strengdien trainee self-efficacy, die frame-work can provide trainers a guide as diey approach eachtraining situation by asking diree general questions:

1. What is the best approach for strengthening trainee self-efficacy(mastery experiences, vicarious learning, verbal persua-sion, and/or physiological state)?

Training 41

Training Factors

Timing ofIntervention

Pre-Training

During Training

Post-Training

Trainee Characteristics

Low Self-

Efficacy

V

High Self-Efficacy

Training Method

Structured Un-structured

'

Training Content

Routine/simple

Novel/

Complex

'

Environment

Supportive Non-

supportive

Figure 2. Training Factors x Timing of Intervention Framework

2. When is the best time to intervene to strengthen trainee self-efficacy (before, during, and/or after training)?3. And what are the implications of the training factors forstrengthening trainee self-efficacy? (i.e. trainee self-efficacy,training method, training content, organizational environ-ment)

Acquisition. One of the key developments in recent yearshas been the integration of Anderson's (1982) model ofskill acquisition into the training field. Hence, we knowthat the acquisition process flows through three se-quenced parameters from declarative to procedural toautomation. There is clear consensus that proceduralunderstanding is a prerequisite for skill demonstration,and that this can be enhanced when the training pro-gram instills general principles, and a multiplicity ofpractical examples and demonstrations of the learningpoints. Moreover, overlearning — a process by whichtraining material is emphasized by repetition appears tohave consistent effects on learning and retention (seeDriskell, Willis and Copper, 1992 for a meta analysis ofthe available evidence). All of this suggests that Canadianorganizations may find more profit out of training if theychose to restrict the volume of material covered intraining in exchange for greater repetition and practice.Depth appears preferable to breadth.

This conclusion fits well with the finding that experi-ential learning is preferred by trainees (e.g., Bretz andThompsett, 1992), and that it leads to higher levels ofprocedural knowledge acquisition (and eventual trans-fer) than more passive procedures. The difficulty, ofcourse, is that experiential based approaches requiremore time than traditional approaches. Although some(e.g. Hesketh, 1997) have expressed concerns thatexperiential training may be more stressful, resultsobtained by Vancouver's John Yuille and his colleagues(Yuille, Davis, Gibling, Marxsen et al., 1994) appear toallay some of these fears.

Aptitude-Treatment-Interactions. Although there is reasonto believe that the effectiveness of training programs

might depend on trainee's aptitude and other individualdifferences, relatively little empirical research hasexamined aptitude-treatment interactions in organiza-tional settings (Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992). This is anarea where research could have a profound effect on theoutcomes of training programs by providing informationon what training programs will be most successful forindividuals with particular characteristics.

To date, there are some examples of just how usefulthis research can be. For example, several studies havedemonstrated that self-efficacy moderates the effects oftraining method on training outcomes (Gist et al., 1989,1991; Saks, 1994). This research has found that behav-ioural modelling, self-management, and formal trainingprograms are particularly effective for trainees with lowpretraining self-efficacy. In addition, Kanfer andAckerman (1989) demonstrated ability-motivationinteractions in which goal setting was found to be mostbeneficial for the performance of low ability traineeswhen implemented after the initial phase of skill acquisi-tion. They suggested the possibility of tailoring trainingprograms for trainees with different ability levels. In thefuture, it might be possible to improve the effectivenessof training programs by tailoring them to trainees on thebasis of key individual differences.

Choosing Training Programs: The TrainingAnalysis Grid (TAG)Most training programs are not developed "in house" butare purchased from specialized firms. Many such firmsoffer "thinking", problem analysis and decision, commu-nication programs etc.. How can the practitioners decidebetween the various course offerings? Usually, trainingmanagers attend each of the courses and, based on theirimpressions the course is imported or not into the hostorganization. The process of choice, however, has neverbeen studied systematically and we do not know, at thispoint, how such decisions are reached. However, we nowhave, as described in this paper a reasonably good ideaas to the actual parameters which can influence trainingsuccess, when success is defined with respect to transfer.

42 Haccoun and Saks

Appendix A presents a Training Analysis Grid (TAG)which could be of use to practitioners to frame and toguide their decision making.

TAG defines a number of dimensions (defined inAppendix A) which are known to influence trainingoutcomes. The user would be required to analyse each ofthe training modules or activities (for example lectures,discussions, practices etc.) and to rate the activity as tothe degree to which it is designed to influence dieparameter defined by the rows of the matrix. For exam-ple, activity 1 might be an initial lecture designed toexplain the basic concepts to be discussed during thecourse. Such a lecture might enhance motivation byincreasing the perceived importance of the trainingcontent and it might impact on declarative learning.Typically, such a lecture would not be designed toinfluence self-efficacy or procedural learning. By sum-ming the rows across the columns one would obtain anoverall score reflective of the degree to which the course,as a whole, is focussed on enhancing each of the itemslisted in the rows. In such a manner the practitionerwould have an overall scoring scheme for the trainingprogram. Now, entering the information collected onthe TAG simultaneously with the analysis of the trainingsituation would allow for better decision making. Forexample, a course may be planned for an environmentwhich is unlikely to be supportive. In this case the coursecontent should provide lots of motivationally drivenactivities. The examination of the TAG results will helpestimate the degree to which the course proposed meetsthat requirement Further, the use of TAG can guide thedevelopment of new and the modification of existingcourses.

Designing Training Programs and TransferInterventionsThe design of training programs has traditionally beeninfluenced by learning theory. Most trainers know theimportance of maintaining strict stimuli-responseparallelism between work and training contexts, andmost programs are designed to provide feedback,multiple examples etc. However, in recent years agrowing number of studies have been conducted whichshow different and profitable ways of designing trainingprograms, and in so doing, improving them. Latham andSeijts (1997) have called for a move away from theexclusive reliance on the principles of experimentalpsychology for maximizing transfer, toward a muchbroader and integrative approach that includes princi-ples and theory from clinical, counselling, and sportpsychology.

Gary Latham (Frayne & Latham, 1987, Latham 8cFravne, 1989) as well as American colleagues TimBaldwin (Baldwin, 1992) and Marilyn Gist and her

colleagues (Gist et al., 1990, 1991; Stevens et al., 1993)have all been very active proponents of integratingmodelling and self-management as a generalized strategyfor training. Well grounded in social cognitive theory(Bandura, 1986) and easily operationalized, theseapproaches have been repeatedly shown to be effectivefor enhancing self-efficacy and transfer. Although thereremains little question as to the dramatic impact thatthese techniques can have on the acquisition andtransfer of learned skills, the development of trainingprograms structured around these cognitive-behaviouralapproaches is quite distant from the typical ways in whichtraining programs are structured. It is for this reason thatthe present authors (see Haccoun, 1992; Haccoun, 1997;Saks & Haccoun, 1996; and Saks et al., 1996) haveproposed merging traditional training design with someof these new social cognitive theory based advances.

THE TRANSFER ENHANCEMENT PROCEDURE (TEP)

In the last several years, we have proposed that organiza-tional trainers engage in a strategic shift (Haccoun, 1992;Haccoun, 1997; Saks & Haccoun, 1996; Saks et al., 1996).We have suggested that trainers add to existing trainingprograms intervention modules designed to specificallyenhance skill acquisition and transfer. These interven-tions, which we refer to as Transfer EnhancementProcedures or "TEPs", make profitable use of the researchknowledge gained over the last decade or so.

Essentially, the TEP approach requires trainers toconceptually separate the substantive content of atraining program from the parameters which will facili-tate learning and transfer.

The research literature has taught us that initialtrainee motivation and self-efficacy can have a decidedimpact on learning and transfer. It has also taught usthat the degree to which the trainee is prepared for theapplication milieu, at the end of a training program is ofparamount importance. Therefore, the training functionshould intervene, pursuant to the TEP concept at one orboth of these levels prior to or at the end of a trainingprogram.

fre-training interventionsInitial motivation levels are critical to training successbecause they define, in part, the initial attentionalresources which will be available during training (Noe,1986). Therefore, it is important for trainers to enhancemotivation at the onset of training.

Using a VIE framework, it seems clear that motivationto learn and motivation to transfer will be heightened todie degree that individuals attach high valence to thetraining as well as high expectations that they can, bymarshalling their efforts, successfully learn and accom-plish the trained task on the job. Trainers might consider

Training 43

beginning the training process by "selling" the impor-tance of the training to the participants. The argumentsused might profitably emphasize the personal pay-off tothe individual (e.g., learning a skill which is marketable),to the execution of work (for example motivatingsupervisors to implement a new alcohol and drug abusepolicy at work, might make it easier for them to deal withproblem employees), and/or to die organization (avoid-ing the law suits which would ensue following a drugsrelated accident). Similarly, conceptually relevantpretraining negative events are also likely to increasemotivation to learn and post-training performance(Smith-Jentsch, Jentsch, Payne, & Salas, 1996). As for theexpectation of success, critical to eventual skill usage,self-efficacy construction techniques seem appropriate asdiscussed earlier. Experimentally, a number of suchprocedures have been successfully implemented.

Two studies in particular exemplify this approach.Martocchio (1992) showed that convincing trainees thatthe training program is "an opportunity" leads to positiveoutcomes, while Haccoun, Murtada and Desjardins(1997) showed diat convincing trainees of a link betweenjob survival and training acquisition led to significantincrements in learning. Both of these studies can beinterpreted to mean that enhancing the initial motiva-tion states of trainees can be accomplished, and thatdoing so leads to demonstrable training effects.

Of course, another, perhaps simpler way to increasetrainee motivation is to allow trainees to volunteer forparticipation in a training program. In an interestingstudy, Baldwin, Magjurka, and Loher (1991) allowedtrainees to participate in selecting their training programs. However, some were granted their first choiceand others were not though diey all participated in diesame course. Those who were not granted their firstchoice had decidedly poorer training experiences thanthose who did. This suggests diat participation may infact be quite perilous in die training context.

Anodier example is the use of realistic trainingpreviews to enhance training effects (Hicks & Klimoski,1987). Odier mediods (see Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992)can certainly be imagined. For example, group discus-sions about die reasons and benefits of training. Thisapproach is very promising, diough still embryonic, andresearchers as well as practitioners should considerdeveloping these approaches for use prior to die com-mencement of a training program.

Post-training interventionsOnce a training program is completed and traineesreturn to work, all manners of constraints may act toreduce die odds of successful transfer. As a rule, environ-ments will not reinforce die training. One way of dealingwidi diis is to use die final hours scheduled for a training

session to prepare trainees for dieir return to die workenvironment. Here, die basic approach has been self-regulatory. Trainees are taught to plan ahead for diereturn to work by setting goals, developing strategies forengaging in specific actions, and by identifying con-straints to skill usage and coping strategies for dealingwidi diem. These approaches have been most often usedas part of goal setting, self-management, or relapseprevention interventions.

Goal setting. Getting individuals to commit to specificgoals during post-training transfer is one approach diatwould appear promising and has been tested in severalstudies. Surprisingly, die available research is producingquite consistent diough counter-intuitive results. Severalempirical studies (Gist, Bavetta, & Stevens, 1990;Haccoun, 1995; Murtada & Haccoun, 1996) have demon-strated diat goal-setting is a less effective procedure forenhancing transfer effects, especially for trainees widilow self-efficacy (Gist et al., 1991). In fact, our meta-analytic work (Haccoun, Labreche & Saks, 1997) showsit to be die least effective of all TEPs studied. This isseemingly paradoxical since goal-setting is generallyrecognized to be one of die better self-regulatory tech-niques available, and it is fair to say diat die reasons forits relative failure in die training context remain unclear.

Many possible explanations exist (see Haccoun,1997). There is some evidence diat goals are not aseffective for complex tasks as they are for simple tasks(Wood, Mento, & Locke, 1987), and may be dysfunc-tional in die early stages of learning where cognitiveresources are required for task performance (Gist et al.,1991). Kanfer and Ackerman (1989), for example, founddiat goal assignments during die declarative stage of skillacquisition produced a decrement in performance forbodi low and high ability subjects. Thus, die setting ofgoals at an early stage of learning might interfere widitrainees ability to learn and adequately perform learnedbehaviour. In addition, because errors are likely duringdie acquisition of newly learned skills and some failureis probable, goals may prove ineffective because dieyserve to make more salient those initial skill usagefailures. In turn, diese "early losses" may depress self-efficacy, persistence, and perceived expectancies. Thus,trainees who set goals and who are not able to realizediem might perceive their early transfer attempts asnegative, and diis might lead to a decay of learned skills.

In order for goal-setting TEPs to show more positiveeffects, we suspect diat more attention will have to begiven to die timing of die goal-setting intervention interms of die stage of skill acquisition (declarative versusprocedural), as well as die nature of die task in question(i.e., complex or novel versus simple) (see Kanfer &Ackerman, 1989).

44 Haccoun and Saks

Self-Management and Relapse Prevention. Self-managementand relapse prevention (RP) are two TEPs which appear toprovide consistent positive results (Haccoun, Labrecheand Saks., 1997; Haccoun, Murtada, & Desjardins, 1997;Saks et al., 1997). These interventions are essentiallystructured to help individuals identify environmentalconstraints for skill usage, and to develop strategies forovercoming them. Thus, they help to inoculate the traineeagainst the environment Moreover, the procedures areintended to help trainees attribute skill use failures (soprobable during the early period after training) not tofailures of will but to failures of strategy. The main differ-ence between the two is that self-management includes abehavioural as well as a motivational component (i.e., goalsetting and self-reward), whereas relapse prevention isstrictly behavioural (Gistetal., 1991).

These approaches have resulted in increased transferin a number of actual training contexts including themilitary (Tziner et al., 1991), and a hospital setting (Sakset al., 1996). They are associated with a number ofparameters known to influence training success includ-ing self-efficacy and perceived control. In effect, thedevelopment of proactive, strategic actions which takeinto account work level constraints may help build theexpectancies that trained behaviour can be successfullyimplemented.

Since environmental resistance to new skill usage islikely to wane over time, these skills are especiallyimportant immediately after training. It is for this reasonthat they be specifically implemented at the end of atraining program, even if that requires a reduction in thetraining-time budgets allocated to content mastery.

If the TEP approach can be demonstrated to be asfruitful as it appears to be, this can be a major help totraining systems in Canada and elsewhere for at leastthree reasons. First, the TEP approach relies on well-known techniques, which are easily learned and easilyincorporated into training programs, and therefore theycan be easily implemented in the field. Second, theactivities they imply take place in the training context,and therefore can be fully controlled by the trainingfunction. The operational units' cooperation is notmandatory. Third, the sound underlying psychologicalprinciples upon which they are based frame the processof TEP creation thus facilitating the development of newtechniques. However, I-O psychologists need to conductmuch more research on these techniques in order toprovide trainers with information on how to best choosea TEP approach for any given training program. Thiswould be greatly aided by the use of a contingencyapproach for TEP usage.

A contingency approach to TEP usageAlthough a number of pre- and post-training TEPS have

been found to be effective, they have been used andtested without much consideration as to their appropri-ateness across training situations. For example, considerthe following two hypothetical studies, both testing theeffects of goal setting and relapse prevention TEPs exceptin Study 1 trainees are given pre-training TEPs and inStudy 2 they are given post-training TEPs. In study 1, theresults show that the RP subjects demonstrated greatertransfer six months after training. The researcherconcludes that RP is a more effective TEP. In study 2, theresults show that the goal setting subjects demonstratedgreater transfer six months after training. The researcherconcludes that goal setting is a more effective TEP. In aneffort to be especially astute, the author writes up bothstudies together and concludes that an RP TEP is best forpre-training, and a goal setting TEP is best for post-training. These are all likely conclusions to be drawnfrom these two studies.

However, after some further inquiry, the researcherdiscovers that in Study 1 the training task was verycomplex and early goal setting interfered with traineelearning. In Study 2, the work environment was found tobe highly supportive of trainees with a strong learningculture and a positive training climate. In effect, there isno need for an RP intervention in such an obstacle-freeenvironment, but a goal-setting intervention was justwhat was needed to motivate the trainees to achieve highlevels of transfer. Thus, the results of both studies are inlarge part due to the factors specific to the trainingsituation. In Study 1, goal setting was inappropriateduring the early stages of learning a complex task(Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989), while in Study 2, RP wasredundant in a highly supportive environment.

Because previous research has tested TEPs withoutconsidering their appropriateness for the trainingsituation, we do not know how useful various TEPs are fordifferent training situations. In other words, it is not yetclear when it is best to use a TEP (pre- versus post-train-ing) , or what type of TEP will be most effective in aparticular training situation. As a result, trainers will havea difficult time trying to determine when to use a TEP,and more importantly, what type to use. l-o psychologycan help by providing some guidelines to ensure thatTEPs are used to their maximum benefit.

In terms of the timing of a TEP (pre or post), it wouldbe useful for trainers to have some information onmaintenance curves as discussed by Baldwin and Ford(1988). Maintenance curves indicate the changes intraining usage that occur in the transfer setting as afunction of the time elapsed since completion of a train-ing program. Thus, they indicate when a relapse occursand therefore, when a TEP is mostly likely to be needed.

In addition, one can simply consider trainees in termsof their motivation to learn and motivation to transfer,

Training 45

both of which are known to be extremely important forlearning and transfer (Noe, 1986; Tannenbaum & Yukl,1992). Trainees with low levels of motivation to learn willrequire a pre-training TEP while those with low motiva-tion to transfer will require a post-training TEP. Forexample, if motivation to transfer is a problem, anintervention designed to heighten the importance andrelevance of transfer would be most appropriate. Thiscan be as simple as requiring some form of post-trainingaccountability or evaluation. Along these lines, Rynesand Rosen (1995) demonstrated that post-trainingevaluations can enhance the perceived importance oftraining, and as such, might increase commitment andmotivation to transfer the material to the job.

On a more complex level, it is likely that the effective-ness of any given TEP will depend at the very least ontrainee characteristics and the training environment. Forexample, trainees with low self-efficacy will require a pre-training TEP that is designed to increase their self-effi-cacy. A training environment that is lacking in supportand a positive transfer climate, will require a post-train-ing self-management or relapse prevention TEP.

Finally, a rigorous needs assessment that focuses ontransfer issues needs to become a standard part of theneeds assessment process. Although needs assessmentinformation often does provide transfer information(e.g., organizational analysis of climate), this informationis seldom used in the design of transfer interventions.However, given the importance of this for the success oftraining, it would be highly desirable for needs assess-ment to specifically include a transfer analysis in additionto the more traditional organizational, task, and personanalyses. The purpose of the transfer analysis will be toidentify potential transfer problems, and the need forspecific transfer interventions. The approach wouldinvolve collecting information across the three levels ofthe traditional needs assessment. That is, the transferanalysis would focus on transfer problems at the organi-zational, task, and person levels. Thus, there can betransfer problems that stem from the organization (e.g.,transfer climate), the task (e.g., complexity), and thetrainee (e.g., low self-efficacy).

The identification of transfer problems can then beused to develop transfer interventions that might focuson four potential areas: motivational (e.g., motivation tolearn or transfer), cognitive (e.g., self-efficacy), affective(e.g., attitude toward training), and environmental (e.g.,lack of support). This approach can aid in the classifica-tion of TEPs, and provide a guide for future research andpractice. Clearly, trainers will have to consider thesetypes of factors in order to determine the most appropri-ate TEP for each training situation. I-O psychologists cancontribute to research and practice by using this ap-proach in future research on transfer and TEPS.

Summary of Findings

The foregoing indicates that a great deal is now knownthat helps our understanding of the dimensions thataffect the success of training in organizations. We nowhave a clearer understanding of what should be assessedin our evaluations and how to do it. One of the moremacro level conclusions are that the Kirkpatrick trainingevaluation heuristic requires updating, perhaps using the"augmented" framework proposed by Alliger et al.(1997) and Kraiger et al. (1993). The second conclusionis that practitioners and scholars are beginning to focuson the issue of transfer of training at all levels: From theselection (see the TAG procedure above) and design oftraining programs to the construction of the overalltraining experience and the organizational milieu inwhich it is inscribed (see the contingency approachesdescribed above). This "zeitgast" is further illustrated ina recent series of papers published in Applied Psychology:An International Review (1997). In it, the lead article byHesketh (1997) is discussed by several scholars fromaround the world. In her rejoinder Hesketh (1997b)integrates the commentaries to introduce the Transfer ofTraining Needs Analysis (TTNA) concept. Whatever thechoice of operational model we adopt (contingency,TTNA) the direction for the future is clearly marked.

At the evaluation design and measurement stage, we nowknow how to measure the first three of Kirkpatrick'slevels of evaluation, but our measurement weakness stilllies in defining the overall pay-off. The better availablemodels are very difficult to use in practice. We also knowwhat individual differences should be measured and wehave stronger rationales for designing credible evalua-tion protocols that can be put to practical use in organi-zational contexts. The state of the trainees, as they entertraining, their objective reception on their return towork, as well as their post-training beliefs about theapplicability of the training in their contexts, have majorinfluences on the success of the training experience.Organizational trainers should measure these parametersbecause they will provide very early indicators of success— indicators that will have high probabilities of forecast-ing eventual level III outcomes.

At the individual differences level, it seems clear thatgeneral cognitive ability is a salient determinant oflearning. Certainly, careful selection of trainees ormodulating the learning experiences as a function of thevariation in the ability levels of trainees (adaptive train-ing?) is one solution though it remains quite unclear howthis can be accomplished in reality. Motivation to learn,self-efficacy, and perceived control are major determi-nants of training success, and techniques are availablethat can help improve these initial states of trainees.

At the organizational level some elements appearestablished. Certainly the level of post-training support

46 Haccoun and Saks

as well as the opportunity to practice learned skills affecttraining outcomes, and we have reasonably clear ideas asto the parameters which affect these variables. Organiza-tional transfer climate and continuous-learning culturealso seem to play an important role, and thanks to theinstruments developed by Rouiller and Goldstein (1993)and Tracey et al. (1995), their effects can be empiricallyassessed. It is hoped that i-O psychologists will pursue thisline of work and collect information that might help indie construction of cross organizational or sector norms.Training systems diat operate in organizations that areperceived to be less innovative or do not value continu-ous learning, face a more challenging task. Fortunately,there are now a number of proactive procedures that canbe taken during training to facilitate success even inthese more difficult circumstances.

The weight of the evidence suggests that die initialmotivational states of trainees as well as their subjectiveevaluation of their capacity to learn and apply therequisite skills are critical to training success (Gaudine,1997). The data also shows that organizational environ-ments, especially in their ability to promote skill usage isof great importance. This suggests that training interven-tions should be dovetailed with organization level factors.In this respect, two intervention strategies are apparent:1) Training would be more effective when accompaniedby interventions at the organizational level (for example,compelling supervisors to support the use of skills); and2) Organization development efforts could be definedand implemented, and training provided only for thoseknowledge, skill, and attitudinal areas which are sup-ported by the organizational changes.

All of the literature reviewed in this paper is veryrecent, having been published in the last ten years andmostly in the last five. Although diis is not a census, it isa very large sample of the available data. Yet, the readerwill perhaps have noted that none of the reported studieshave attempted to change organizations to supporttraining! In our view, this reflects die reality, as arguedelsewhere (Haccoun, 1997), that the training function inorganizations does not hold the organizational cloutrequired to directly effect change at the operationallevel. Solutions to improving training effectivenessapplicable under a variety of organizational conditions,be they favourable to training or not, are required. To beclear, we are not suggesting that die organizationalcontext of training is unimportant to success, far from it,but we are saying that training design will have to incor-porate die realities of environmental constraints. Thissimply means diat solutions to training problems willhave to be found in places where diey are most likely tobe accepted and successful.

ConclusionA great deal more is now known about how training inapplied settings can be accomplished successfully thanwas the case in the past One major advance has been indie recognition diat training, in organizational settings,can no longer be exclusively framed in a learning oracquisition paradigm (Latham & Seijts, 1997). Indeed,training is inscribed in a complex array offerees of whichonly some are likely to be influenced by training contentand learning. The psychological state of die trainee —especially along motivational, self-efficacy, and controlparameters — requires serious attention. Thus, as wemove forward into die next century, diose Canadianorganizations diat pay close attention to diese issues indie design and implementation of dieir training systems,will reap more satisfactory results for diemselves, dieirworkers, and die Canadian economy.

This paper was supported by a research grant to the au-thors from die Social Sciences and Humanities ResearchCouncil of Canada. Thanks are extended to Julie Gregoirefor her helpful suggestions on the paper. Requests forreprints may obtained by writing to R.R. Haccoun,Departement de Psychologic, Universite de Montreal, C.P.6128, Succ "Centre-Ville", Montreal, Quebec H3c3j7 or byemail at haccounr@ere.umontreal.ca.

ResumeII est actuellement reconnu que la formation et ledeveloppement professionnel constituent des solutionsa la realite economique de cette derniere partie duxxieme siecle. Depuis toujours, la formation est aucentre des champs d'interet de la psychologic I/O, et aPheure actuelle, elle detient une opportunite histo-rique de demontrer a nouveau sa pertinence. Getarticle traite des contributions majeures apportees parla discipline dans la comprehension de la formationainsi que ses impacts sur la modification du comporte-ment au travail.

Reconnaitre que la formation ne devait plus etreabordee sous un angle purement pedagogique repre-sente sans doute 1'une de ses contributions les plusconsiderables. On sait que de nombreux parametresinfluencent les resultats obtenus en formation. Parmicelles-ci, on compte les etats psychologiques des em-ployes en formation, notamment leur motivation, leursentiment d'efficacite personnelle et le controle perc.u,en interaction avec les realites particulieres aucontexte organisationnel.

A 1'etape de I'elaboration du devis d'evaluation etde la mesure, et au-dela du modele propose par Kirk

Training 47

patrick, de recents travaux en psychologic i/o ontpermis d'identifier des criteres de mesure adequats,ainsi que le moment et la fac.on appropries de realiser1'evalnation. En s'eloignant du paradigme classique, ledeveloppement recent de plusieurs protocolesdevaluation credibles possedent maintenant1'avantage d'etre applicables en contexte organisation-nel reel. L'article rapporte les derniers progres dans lamesure de 1'apprentissage, des comportements et duretour sur 1'investissement.

Depuis longtemps, la psychologic I/O aide les orga-nisations a cerner les variables individuelles qui contri-buent au succes de la formation. En effet, un certainnombre de predicteurs de 1'impact de la formationsont reconnus aujourd'hui, dont la motivation a ap-prendre, la possibilite d'appliquer les habiletes appri-ses, le sentiment d'efficacite personnelle et le controlepercu. Ceux-ci sont analyses a la lumiere des forces etfaiblesses des systemes de mesure utilises.

En outre, cet article examine les etudes qui nousrenseignent sur la modification possible de ces para-metres en contexte de formation. Les resultats obtenusdans ces etudes sont integres pour produire des recom-mandations strategiques afin d'aider les formateurs achoisir et concevoir des interventions qui maximisent1'impact de la formation tout en orientant les recher-ches futures.

Au niveau organisationnel, il est clairement demon-tre que le support fourni suite a la formation et1'opportunite d'exercer les habiletes apprises influen-cent les resultats obtenus. La psychologic I/O a propo-se certains parametres affectant ce processus. Parailleurs, de nouveaux instruments qui permettent1'evaluation du climat du transfer! organisationnel etde la culture d'apprentissage continu ont etc develop-pes et sont maintenant disponibles. Leur utilisationpermet de cerner encore mieux les raisons expliquantles resultats obtenus et d'identifier ce qui peut etre faitdans le but d'ameliorer la situation.

Bien que 1'importance de 1'environnement detravail est clairement etablie quant au succes de laformation, il est troublant de constater que rares sontles departements de formation qui interviennentefficacement pour hausser le niveau de support organi-sationnel. En s'appuyant sur cette realite, les psycholo-gues I/O ont amene des suggestions pratiques fondeestheoriquement et empiriquement sur la recherche. Usont egalement developpe des techniques pertinentespour I'amelioration de 1'efficacite de la formation sousun grand nombre de conditions organisationnelles,qu'elles soient favorables ou non a la demarche de laformation. A partir de ce constat, plusieurs modelesanalytiques et decisionnelles utiles aux praticiens etchercheurs sont presentes. Ces modeles guident le

choix et la conception de programmes de formationqui facilitent de maniere optimale le transfert desapprentissages.

Les recents developpements dans les procedures deTransfert a FEnvironnement Pratique (TEP) sontensuite analyses en regard de leurs impacts observablessur le transfert des apprentissages. Ces derniers peu-vent etre administres avant, durant, ou apres le pro-gramme de formation. Dans le but de clarifier leurrole, on propose deux modeles de contingences per-mettant d'orienter les utilisateurs a mieux structurerleur programme de formation.

Les organisations qui donnent de la formation dansun contexte environnemental offrant peu de supportont maintenant entre les mains un bon nombre deprocedures proactives, qui, en interaction avec laformation, semblent apporter des resultats promet-teurs pour les stagiaires et leur organisation.

ReferencesAlliger, G.M., Scjanak, E.A. (1989). Kirkpatrick's levels of

training criteria: Thirty years later. Personnel Psychology,42, 331-342.

Alliger, G.M., Tannenbaum, S.I., Bennet, W., Traver H., &Shetland, A (1997). A meta-analysis of the relationsamong training criteria. Personnel Psychology, 50, 2,341-358.

Anderson, J.R. (1982) Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psycho-logical Review, 89, 369-406.

Arvey, R.D., Maxwell, S.E, Salas, E. (1992). The relativepower of training evaluation designs under differentcost configurations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77,155-160.

Baldwin, T.T. (1992) Effects of alternative modeling strate-gies on outcomes of interpersonal-skills training. Journalof Apptied Psychology. 77(2) 147-154.

Baldwin, T., & Ford, J.K. (1988). Transfer of training: Areview and directions for future research. PersonnelPsychology, 41, 63-105.

Baldwin, T.T., Majurka, R.J., & Loher, B.T. (1991). Theperils of participation: Effects of choice of training ontrainee motivation and learning. Personnel Psychology,44(1) 51-65..

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought andaction: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.New York, NY: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Belcourt, M. (1996-97, December-January). Making adifference ... and measuring it with the 5 C's. HumanResources Professional, 20-24.

Belcourt, M., & Wright, P.C. (1996). Managing performancethrough training & development. Toronto: Nelson Canada.

48 Haccoun and Saks

Benabou, C. (1997). L'evaluation de 1'effet de la formationsur la performance de 1'entreprise: 1'approchecout-benefices. Gestion: revue Internationale de gestion,22,3, 101-107.

Bretz, R.D.,Jr., & Thompsett, R.E (1992). Comparingtraditional and integrative learning methods in organi-zational training programs. Journal of Applied Psychology,77, 941-951.

Broad, M.L., & Newstrom.J.W. (1992). Transfer of training.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Campion, MA, & McClelland, C.L. (1991). Interdisciplin-ary examination of costs and benefits of enlarged jobs:A job design quasi-experiment. Journal ofApplied Psychol-ogy, 76, 186-198.

Cascio, W.F. (1991). Estimating the costs and benefits ofhuman resource development programs. In CostingHuman Resources: The Financial Impact of Behavior inOrganizations (3rd edition). Boston, MA: PWS-Kent.

Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation:Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: RandMcNally.

Cronshaw, S.F., & Alexander, R.A. (1991). Why capitalbudgeting techniques are suited for assessing the utilityof personnel programs: A reply to Hunter, Schmidt andCoggin (1988). Journal of Applied Psychology, 76,454-457.

Driskell, J.E., Willis, R.P, & Copper, C. ( 1992). Effects ofoverlearning on retention. Journal of Applied Psychology,77, 615-622.

Fleishman, E. (1953). Leadership climate, human relationstraining, and supervisory behavior. Personnel Psychology,6, 205-222.

Ford, J.K, Quinones, MA, Sego, D.J, & Sorra, J.S (1992).Factors affecting the opportunity to perform trainedtasks on the job. Personnel Psychology, 45, 511-527.

Fox, S., & Dinur, Y. (1988). Validity of self-assessment: Afield evaluation. Personnel Psychology, 41, 581-592.

Frayne, C.A., & Latham, G.P. (1987). Application of sociallearning theory to employee self-management of atten-dance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 387-392.

Gattiker, U.E. (1995). Firm and taxpayer returns fromtraining of semi-skilled employees. Academy of manage-ment Journal, 38,1152-1173.

Gaudine, A. (1997). A longitudinal field experiment ofpost-training interventions and transfer of training of theMcGill model of nursing. Unpublished doctoral disserta-tion, Concordia University, Montreal.

Georgenson, D.L. (1982). The problem of transfer calls forpartnership. Training and Development Journal, 36(10),75-78.

Gist, M.E. (1989). The influence of training method onself-efficacy and idea generation among managers.Personnel Psychology, 42, 787-805.

Gist, M.E., Bavetta, A.G., & Stevens, C.K. (1990). Transfertraining method: Its influence on skill generalization,

skill repetition, and performance level. Personnel Psychol-ogy, 43, 501-523.

Gist, M.E., & Mitchell, T.R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoreti-cal analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academyof Management Review, 17, 183-211.

Gist, M.E., Schwoerer, C., & Rosen, B. (1989). Effects ofalternative training methods on self-efficacy and perfor-mance in computer software training. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 74, 884-891.

Gist, M.E., Stevens, C.K., & Bavetta, A.G. (1991). Effects ofself-efficacy and post-training intervention on the acqui-sition and maintenance of complex interpersonal skills.Personnel Psychology, 44, 837-861.

Haccoun, R.R. (1992) Transfer! de la formation (Transferof training): L'optimisation. Formation France, 1, 16-17.

Haccoun, R.R. (1995). The effects of goal setting to enhancepost training transfer: When goal setting backfires. InterAmerican Congress of Psychology, Porto Rico.

Haccoun, R.R. (1997). Retention and transfer: Let's doboth and avoid dilemmas. Applied Psychology: An Interna-tional Review, 46,4, 340-344.

Haccoun, R.R., & Hamtiaux, T. (1994). Optimizing knowl-edge tests for inferring learning acquisition levels insingle group training evaluation designs: The internalreferencing strategy. Personnel Psychology, 47, 593-604.

Haccoun, R.R, Labreche, I., & Saks, A.M. (1997). Therelative success of various transfer enhancement proce-dures (TEPs): A meta-analysis. European Work andOrganizational Psychology, Verona, Italy.

Haccoun, R.R., Murtada, N., & Desjardins, D. (1997) Pretraining motivation and post training relapse preventionin encouraging practice of trained skills: A field experi-ment. Preliminary Proceedings, Auto formation dans lesorganizations/soL in the workplace.

Hesketh, B. (1997). Dilemmas in training for transfer andretention. Applied Psychology: An International Review,46,4, 339

Hesketh, B. (1997). W(h)ither dilemmas in training fortransfer. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46,4,380-385

Hicks, W.D., & Klimoski, RJ. (1987). Entry into trainingprograms and its effects on training outcomes: A fieldexperiment. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 542-552.

Huselid, MA. (1995). The impact of human resourcemanagement practices on turnover, productivity, andcorporate financial performance. Academy of ManagementJournal, 38, 635-672.

Jeanrie, C. (1994). Evaluation d'un programme de forma-tion et de prediction du transfert dans le cas d'unetache connue. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,Universite de Montreal.

Johns, G (1994) How often were you absent? A review ofthe use of self-reported absence datz. Journal of AppliedPsychology. 79(4) 574-591.

Training 49

Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P.L. (1989). Motivation andcognitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude-treatmentinteraction approach to skill acquisition. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 74,657-690.

Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1987). Evaluation of training. In R.L.Craig (Ed.), Training and development handbook: A guide tohuman resource development (3rd ed., pp.301-319). NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Kraiger, K., FordJ.K, & Salas, E. (1993). Application ofcognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learningoutcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journalof Applied Psychology, 78, 311-328.

Latham, G.P., & Frayne, C.A. (1989). Self-managementtraining for increasing job attendance: A follow-up anda replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 411-416.

Latham, G.P., & Seijts, G.H. (1997). Overcoming mentalmodels that limit research on transfer of training inorganizational settings. Applied Psychology: An Interna-tional Review, 46,4, 371-375

Latham, G.P., Saari, L.M., Pursell, M.A., & Campion, M.A.(1980). The situational interview. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 65, 422-427.

Martocchio, JJ (1992) Microcomputer usage as an oppor-tunity: The influence of context in employee training.Personnel Psychology. 45(3) 529-552,

Martocchio, JJ. (1994). Effects of conceptions of ability onanxiety, self-efficacy, and learning in training. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 79,819-825.

Martocchio, J.J., & Dulebohn, J. (1994). Performancefeedback effects in training: The role of perceivedcontrollability. Personnel Psychology, 47, 357-373.

Martocchio, J J, & Webster, J. (1992) Effects of feedbackand cognitive playfulness on performance in microcom-puter software training. Personnel Psychology. 45(3)553-578.

Mathieu, J.E., Martineau, J.W., & Tannenbaum, S.I. (1993).Individual and situational influences on the development of self-efficacy: Implications for training effective-ness. Personnel Psychology, 46, 125-147.

Mathieu, J.E., & Leonard, R.L. (1987). Applying utilityconcepts to a training program in supervisory skills.Academy of management Journal, 30, 316-335

Mathieu, J.E., Tannenabaum, S.I., & Salas, E. (1992).Influences of individual and situational characteristicson measures of training effectiveness. Academy of Man-agement Journal, 35, 828-847.

Mclntyre, D. (1994). Training and Development, 1993: Poli-cies, Practices, & Expenditures. Toronto: ConferenceBoard of Canada, Report, 128-194.

Mitchell, T.R., Hopper, H., Daniels, D., George-Falvy, J., &James, L.R. (1994). Predicting self-efficacy and perfor-mance during skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 79, 506-517.

Morrison, R.F, & Brantner, T.M (1992). What enhances or

inhibits learning a new job? A basic career issue. Journalof Applied Psychology, 77, 926-940.

Murtada, N., & Haccoun, R.R. (1996) L'auto observation etla fixation d'objectifs comme determinants du transfer!des apprentissages en formation appliquee. CanadianJournal of Behavioural Science, 28(2), 92-101.

Noe, R.A. (1986). Trainees' attributes and attitudes: Ne-glected influences on training effectiveness. Academy ofManagement Review, 11, 736-749.

Olea, M.M., & Ree, M.J. (1994). Predicting pilot and navi-gator criteria: Not much more than g. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 79, 845-851.

Ostroff, C. (1991). Training effectiveness measures andscoring schemes: A comparison. Personnel Psychology, 44,353-374.

Phillips.J.J. (1993) Handbook of training evaluation andmeasurement methods. Houston, Gulf Publishing Com-pany.

Phillips, J. (1996a) ROI: the search for best practice. Train-ing and Development, February, 42-47

Phillips, J. (1996b)How much is the training worth. Train-ing and Development, April, 20-24

Porras, J.I., & Robertson, PJ. (1992). Organizational devel-opment: Theory, practice, and research. In M.D.Dunnette & L.M. Hough, (Eds.), Handbook of industrialand organizational psychology (2nd ed., vol. 3, pp.719-822). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Quinones, M.A. (1995). Pretraining context effects: Train-ing assignment as feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology,80, 226-238.

Ree, M.J., Carreta, T.R., & Teachout, M.S. (1995). Role ofability and prior knowledge in complex training perfor-mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 721-730.

Rouiller, J.Z., & Goldstein, I.L. (1993). The relationshipbetween organizational transfer climate and positivetransfer of training. Human Resource Development Quar-terly, 4, 377-390.

Rynes, S, & Rosen, B. (1995) A field study of factors affect-ing the adoption and perceived success of diversitytraining. Personnel Psychology, 48, 247-270.

Sackett, P.R., & Mullen, E.J. (1993). Beyond formal experi-mental design: Towards an expanded view of the train-ing evaluation process. Personnel Psychology, 46, 613-627.

Saks, A.M. (1994). Moderating effects of self-efficacy forthe relationship between training method and anxietyand stress reactions of newcomers. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior, 15, 639-654.

Saks, A.M. (1995). Longitudinal field investigation of themoderating and mediating effects of self-efficacy on therelationship between training and newcomer adjust-ment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 211-225.

Saks, A.M. (1997). Transfer of training and self-efficacy:What is the dilemma? Applied Psychology: An InternationalReview, 46,4, 365-370

50 Haccoun and Saks

Saks, A.M., & Belcourt, M. (1997). Transfer of training inCanadian organizations. Update, 1(1), 9-10.

Saks, A.M., & Haccoun, R.R. (1996). Easing the Transfer ofTraining. Human Resources Professional, July/August, 8-11.

Saks, A.M., Haccoun, R.R., & Appelbaum, S.H. (1997).The role of behaviour modeling and perceived socialsupport in the transfer of training. European Work andOrganizational Psychology, Verona, Italy.

Saks, A.M., Haccoun, R.R., & Laxer, D. (1996). TransferTraining: A Comparison of Self-Management and Re-lapse Prevention Interventions. Proceedings of the Adminis-trative Sciences Association of Canada Annual Conference,Human Resources.

Schmidt, F.L, Hunter, J.E., & Pearlman, K. (1982) Assess-ing the economic impact of personnel programs onworkforce productivity. Personnel Psychology 35, 333-347.

Smith-Jentsch, K.A., Jentsch, F.G., Payne, S.C., & Salas, E.(1996). Can pretraining experiences explain individualdifferences in learning? Journal of Applied Psychology, 81,110-116.

Stevens, C.K, Bavetta, A.G., & Gist, M.E. (1993). Genderdifferences in die acquisition of salary negotiation skills:.The role of goals, self-efficacy, and perceived control.Journal of Applied Psychology, 75,723-735.

Tannenbaum, S.I., & Yukl, G. (1992). Training and devel-

opment in work organizations. Annual Review of Psychol-ogy, 43, 399-441.

Tesluk, P.E., Fair, J.L., Mathieu, J.E., & Vance, RJ. ( 1995).Generalization of employee involvement training to thejob setting: Individual and situational effects. PersonnelPsychology, 48, 607-632.

Toulin, A. (1991, October). Economy crumbling: Report.The Financial Post, 25, p.6.

Tracey, J.B, Tannenbaum, S.I, & Kavanagh, M.J (1995).Applying trained skills on the job: The importance ofdie work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80,239-252.

Tziner, A., Haccoun, R.R., & Radish, A. (1991). Personaland situational characteristics influencing the effective-ness of transfer of training improvement strategies.Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 167-177.

Warr, P., & Bunce, D. (1995). Trainee characteristics andthe outcomes of open learning. Personnel Psychology, 48,347-375.

Wood, R., Mento, A., & Locke, E. (1987). Task complexityas a moderator of goal effects: A meta-analysis./auraa/ ofApplied Psychology, 72,416-425.

Yuille, J.C., Davis, G., Gibling, F., & Marxsen, D. et al.(1994). Eyewitness memory of police trainees for realis-tic role play. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 931-936.

Appendix A; The Training Analysis Grid

Module

Learning

Facts

Procedure

Motivation

learn

transfer

Self-efficacy

learn

transfer

Observation skills

Behavioural skills

Involement in train-ing

Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity I... E

Training 51

Module

Identicity

Direct usability totransfer

Logistic complesity

Active-passive

Density

Instructor skill re-quired

Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity I... S

TAG: The Training Analysis Grid Definitions

Learning: A). Facts: declarative learning or knowing whatthings are. B) Procedural or conceptual learning. Trainingtask serves to help trainees develop an understanding ofthe integrated dimensions which lead to the orchestrationof the behaviour chains which lead to action. The degreeto which the exercise can develop the acquisition of gen-eral principles which is heavily influenced by the degree towhich multiple examples are used.

Motivation to learn and to transfer. Enhancement of per-ceived importance of learning and applying the trainingcontent: Importance is defined along three categories:Importance to the trainee as a person; with respect to roleincumbency and to the generalized role as an organiza-tional member. The degree to which the module explicidyemphasizes one or more of these categories.

Self-efficacy. The degree to which the training modulepresents a) a significant model of someone doing therequired task, verbal persuasion that the trainee can ac-complish the task, die degree to which die individual canexperience success in practicing the task. The "task" maybe learning or transferring die material.

Observation skills. The degree to which the module pres-ents teaches specific grids to focus observation attention,die level of practice widi feedback.

Behavioural skills. The degree to which the training activityoffers specific behavior production guidelines, die amountof practice widi feedback.

Interpersonal skills. The degree to which the modulefocuses on developing the interpersonal skills for effectiveinterpersonal action. The degree to which the focus of themodule is interpersonal

Identicity. The degree to which the module content mir-rors reality or, in reverse the degree of abstraction of theexercise. Are the assumptions which underlie simulationexercises reasonable given die actual job or organizationalcontexts?

Direct usability to transfer. The degree to which an outputgenerated during training is directly usable in accomplish-ing the task on the job.

Involvement in training. The degree to which die exerciseis designed to enhance positive reactions to die trainingsituation. le inherent interest in the training task.

Logistic complexity. Degree to which the training exerciseinvolves moving people physically, and require organiza-tional efforts.

Density. The number of different activities and or contentsper unit of time allowed for die activity as a whole

Instructor skill required. The degree to which the instruc-tor must be skilled to successfully implement die exercise.The more structured die instructor task die less skill isrequired. For example, summarizing die comments madeby trainees and incorporating these into a lecture requireshigh levels of skill while instructing people to watch a videorequires low instructor skill.